18 Jun 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasMy opponent "abused" the rules of chess, by castling when I had him mated in one. He should be BANNED!!!
When I bring up the 'abuse' word, I'm tend to be flamed of people not agreeing with me, so I stay quiet this time.
Tell us again, how playing completely within the rules is abuse, Fab?
D
18 Jun 08
Originally posted by RagnorakAll I am suggesting is that since you are immune from losing a game on time while on vacation, you should therefore not be allowed to claim a time -out win while you are on vacation. That seems fair to me. It keeps the playing field level.
Both players get their allotment of "vacation". It is up to each player how and when they use it.
You speak about equality in chess. But how is giving your opponent 72 days vacation (their own plus yours) fair? If they have already used their allotment, and you think you may not be able to meet the time controls so use some of yours, how is it fair for your opponent to get more "vacation" time?
D
How does that give you more vacation time? You are allowed a certain number of days, and when they're gone, you don't have any more. Where are you coming up with 72 days of vacation?
(I should point out that I totally agree that it is each player's responsibility to manage their own games so that they cannot be timed out. That is just common sense. That's why I don't believe in sending move reminders.)
18 Jun 08
2 edits
Originally posted by mwmillerIF you can't be timed out while your opponent is on vac, this most certainly gives you more time!!
All I am suggesting is that since you are immune from losing a game on time while on vacation, you should therefore not be allowed to claim a time -out win while you are on vacation. That seems fair to me. It keeps the playing field level.
How does that give you more vacation time? You are allowed a certain number of days, and when they're gone, you d ed out. That is just common sense. That's why I don't believe in sending move reminders.)
As has been said, you have to watch your own time, to ensure you don't time out. It is already a given that the person can move on their vacation.
If you are a paying member this is certainly a fair system for all.
I am sure some of the non-subs would probably feel it is not fair.
To them I say, do like I did, spend a few bucks! 😉
19 Jun 08
Originally posted by mwmillerLets say I start a game with you. I take vacation, and you wait. 36 days later I rise from the dead. You take vacation so I don't move anymore for some stupid reason. You can't time me out, though I've gone past my time.
All I am suggesting is that since you are immune from losing a game on time while on vacation, you should therefore not be allowed to claim a time -out win while you are on vacation. That seems fair to me. It keeps the playing field level.
How does that give you more vacation time? You are allowed a certain number of days, and when they're gone, you d ...[text shortened]... ed out. That is just common sense. That's why I don't believe in sending move reminders.)
That's extra vacation for me, and not a level field. You moved when you were supposed to while I was away. I should be responsible for my clock. Everyone wants to slow down games more for some reason, because they take too long.
P-
19 Jun 08
Originally posted by PhlabibitWhat you're describing here is almost surely to be a rare occurrence. What are the odds of this happening. Whats more, you're going right down to the individual game rather than looking at the issue as a whole. The point of vacation is to save your games while you are away and might not be able to move within your alloted time. So here you are exempt from time out, I only feel it is fair your opponent not be on the chopping block as well. I do agree it is still on him/her to manage their games properly and move within their allotted times. The fact still remains, a person is on vacation and exempt from time out. Since nobody has any common f'n courtesy, I say those people shouldn't be able to have their cake and eat it to.
Lets say I start a game with you. I take vacation, and you wait. 36 days later I rise from the dead. You take vacation so I don't move anymore for some stupid reason. You can't time me out, though I've gone past my time.
That's extra vacation for me, and not a level field. You moved when you were supposed to while I was away. I should be responsib ...[text shortened]... . Everyone wants to slow down games more for some reason, because they take too long.
P-
19 Jun 08
Originally posted by zakkwylderDo you go to the bathroom the same time as me? Go to work? What does my vacation have to do with your inability to move on time?
What you're describing here is almost surely to be a rare occurrence. What are the odds of this happening. Whats more, you're going right down to the individual game rather than looking at the issue as a whole. The point of vacation is to save your games while you are away and might not be able to move within your alloted time. So here you are exempt from ...[text shortened]... common f'n courtesy, I say those people shouldn't be able to have their cake and eat it to.
P-
19 Jun 08
Originally posted by PhlabibitI suffer from no such issues my good man. I'm just simply stating that if you're exempt from time out, then don't be such a douche and claim them. Thats awfully hypocritical don't you think?
Do you go to the bathroom the same time as me? Go to work? What does my vacation have to do with your inability to move on time?
P-
19 Jun 08
Originally posted by Very RustyIt's not a FAIR system - period.
If you are a paying member this is certainly a fair system for all.
I am sure some of the non-subs would probably feel it is not fair.
To them I say, do like I did, spend a few bucks! 😉
Apart from being crap it is definitely not a fair system - no one can claim that. LMAO.
19 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveIT most certainly is a fair system...with or without the Crap! 😛
It's not a FAIR system - period.
Apart from being crap it is definitely not a fair system - no one can claim that. LMAO.
As long as we agree to disagree, we should not have an ending to something that was never started by either of us.