vacation times

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Then I'm off any tournament with this option set. Noway.

I don't know for the next two years if I need a vacation or not. Tournaments can last even longer.
But I know for sure that I'm going to travel in a couple of month. Why lose on time when I have a good time? No, I want my immunity.

Eh. Fabian. Maybe it would'nt take two years this way - or did you think about that before you posted. Great to know which choice you'd make though.

Does it make sense to have tournaments with 1/1 settings that can be delayed by vacation for 36 days? I don't expect anyone to actually try and answer this question though. But I would love to hear how vacation time getting in the way would be a good thing.

Glad to hear you support the whole choice option too. Your way or the highway right?

Originally posted by TSaffle
Eh. Fabian. Maybe it would'nt take two years this way - or did you think about that before you posted. Great to know which choice you'd make though.

Does it make sense to have tournaments with 1/1 settings that can be delayed by vacation for 36 days? I don't expect anyone to actually try and answer this question though. But I would love to hear how vacati ...[text shortened]... hing.

Glad to hear you support the whole choice option too. Your way or the highway right?

My opinion is only one of many. I don't mind if the majority have another opinion. But Russ is the one who decides, not us.

I don't ever enter a 1/1 tournament. Three days between moves is the minium for me. But if so, and my games is stalled by a vacationeer and I'm out of games, my playing is not stopped, I start in another tournament, I can start as many I like. One stalled game doesn't mean much. That's one reason why I'm a subscriber.

There are other kind of tournaments I don't like. Would I like to tstp them? No. Do I need an urge to participate in them? No. Do I care about them? No. Would I care if tournaments are started where time-out immunity is gone? No. But if the vacation system is to be gone alltogether, would I care? Yes. Because that's gives me the chance of playing, even if I have to go somewhere with no internet connection.

Do you have opponents playing slow? Then go start another game. That's my answer.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
My opinion is only one of many. I don't mind if the majority have another opinion. But Russ is the one who decides, not us.

I don't ever enter a 1/1 tournament. Three days between moves is the minium for me. But if so, and my games is stalled by a vacationeer and I'm out of games, my playing is not stopped, I start in another tournament, I can start a ...[text shortened]... n.

Do you have opponents playing slow? Then go start another game. That's my answer.

Hmmm. I think you keep dancing around what I'm saying here. I said clearly that this would be the players choice.

I'll say that again in case you don't understand or want to go on talking about how you would basically prefer vacation options other than the ones I post here. And I do respect your differing opinions on how you want to play your games - understand I'm posting on this new specific idea because I would like this option.

This would be a choice, or option that a players could choose at the onset of a game or tounament. That is - you can decide for yourself whether or not you would like to partake in this choice/option. This would merely mean that a tournament with 1/1 time controls could be created that would not allow vacation to be used to delay games for people who choose to take part. Understand? This would be no way forced on you and you can - and surely would - choose not to take part.

How would you feel about other people on here choosing this kind of option that does not affect you and your games? If you retort that this you take over all the tournaments then I say that just won't happen. Most people would choose to use vacation like you - but some would like a quick tournament. Again this is a choice not something that would affect you.

Don't want to hear about how you don't like this as you would'nt have to take part. Again, and you can answer either 'I'm okay with that' or 'no, other people should not be able to choose this' as an answer.

Originally posted by TSaffle
Hmmm. I think you keep dancing around what I'm saying here. I said clearly that this would be the players choice.

I'll say that again in case you don't understand or want to go on talking about how you would basically prefer vacation options other than the ones I post here. And I do respect your differing opinions on how you want to play your games - unde ...[text shortened]... ay with that' or 'no, other people should not be able to choose this' as an answer.

When I reread my posting above, I noticed some grammatical errors that perhaps made my text uninterpretable in some details. I should have made a gram-control before I posted it.

However, this is my ultimate answer:
(1) I don't like your proposition.
(2) I won't enter any tournament where the immunity is nullified.
(3) As long as that there are other tournaments of the same kind as today, I would not mind.
(4) Russ decides, we're not.

Does your proposition mean that one member can play several games at the same time, some with timeout immunity and some without?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
When I reread my posting above, I noticed some grammatical errors that perhaps made my text uninterpretable in some details. I should have made a gram-control before I posted it.

However, this is my ultimate answer:
(1) I don't like your proposition.
(2) I won't enter any tournament where the immunity is nullified.
(3) As long as that there are othe ...[text shortened]... member can play several games at the same time, some with timeout immunity and some without?

You did not answer the question as I asked - my post even gave answering instructions. But you did say in answer (3) you would'nt mind. So I will accept that as a yes. Thank you!

Read all the way through my previous post and your question is answered.

Originally posted by TSaffle
Wadya say Russ. A feature where players can agree not to allow the use of vacation time for games, and especially tournaments as it holds everyone up if one player needs time off.

This way nothing is set in stone and players can choose either way with minimal work on your team's part.

Lets say you are playing a duel 3/7 tournament.

In one group you and your opponent take the maximum 3 days per move. After 60 days you have each made 10 moves.

The other group players have all finished their games having moved at least once per day. One player even took 36 days vacation time but when online he moves several times per day and he finished his games after 45 days.

You and your opponent are now "holding up the tournament " even though you have not used any vacation time.

So what is worse

a player who apparently "holds up a tournament by taking 36 days vacation"

or

two players who each take the full time allowed to make each move?

Originally posted by adramforall
Lets say you are playing a duel 3/7 tournament.

In one group you and your opponent take the maximum 3 days per move. After 60 days you have each made 10 moves.

The other group players have all finished their games having moved at least once per day. One player even took 36 days vacation time but when online he moves several times per day and he ...[text shortened]... ays vacation"

or

two players who each take the full time allowed to make each move?

We just disagree on this. I think that having a tournament with no vacation time would most likely speed it up. You don't think so but I do. Since this proposal would be an option - not a requirement - I'm much more interested in hearing from people who would like this.

On posting vacation times I still think they should be shown as all other time controls are - and because all time controls effect both players. Just makes sense.

Originally posted by TSaffle
We just disagree on this. I think that having a tournament with no vacation time would most likely speed it up. You don't think so but I do. Since this proposal would be an option - not a requirement - I'm much more interested in hearing from people who would like this.

On posting vacation times I still think they should be shown as all other time controls are - and because all time controls effect both players. Just makes sense.

I am not disagreeing - I hate the vacation time and think it should be removed from all games. Play to the agreed time controls or risk getting timed out.

However you get fast players and slow players. In a 3/7 tournament you could get someone "holding up" the tournament just because they make full use of the 3 days allowed per move.

How would you propose dealing with that?

How is that any different from someone taking even 10 days holiday but moving multiple time when online who finishes their games quicker even though they have been on vacation for 10 days?

Originally posted by adramforall
I am not disagreeing - I hate the vacation time and think it should be removed from all games. Play to the agreed time controls or risk getting timed out.

However you get fast players and slow players. In a 3/7 tournament you could get someone "holding up" the tournament just because they make full use of the 3 days allowed per move.

How would y ...[text shortened]... en online who finishes their games quicker even though they have been on vacation for 10 days?

Well. I said in my other posts this would be good for bullet like correspondence tournaments with a 1 day a move 1 day time bank, or 0 day time bank allowance. No muss no fuss and relatively quick results - much quicker than the average tournament overall time for the finalists - provided shorter time controls and no vacations are in place. Not much point on eliminating vacation if you are going to have a 7/7 time controls for the reasons you stated. Then again, if someone wants to set it up that way then that's their thing.

Eliminating vacation time - that is the choice of not allowing vacation time at the outset of specific games by all players involved (not your games Fabian - please don't make me explain this again as I already have a headache) - could result in some really fast tournaments. Some clans with high volume movers might like this too as some clan chanllenge results could come in faster.

Originally posted by TSaffle
Well. I said in my other posts this would be good for bullet like correspondence tournaments with a 1 day a move 1 day time bank, or 0 day time bank allowance. No muss no fuss and relatively quick results - much quicker than the average tournament overall time for the finalists - provided shorter time controls and no vacations are in place. Not much point on ...[text shortened]... h high volume movers might like this too as some clan chanllenge results could come in faster.

I don't think the tournaments would be much faster than they are already to be honest.

You would also have to compensate for the players who do not timeout games , and there are a few who don't.

For instance player A only moves between 9 am and 11am every day in any games its their move.

They are playing a 1/0 tournament but their opponent has not moved, the skull is now available, by they don't takes skulls - the auto timeout does not come into play for 2 days after the normal timeout period.

Next day same position, but auto timeout is now one day closer. Opponent comesd online and moves at 10pm that day.

PLayer A moves next day as it is now their move.

Repeat ...

The only way to get a truly quick tournament is to play a 1/0 which auto timesout immediately the agreed 24 hours is up.

That would be an interesting tournament I would happily play in.

Originally posted by adramforall
I don't think the tournaments would be much faster than they are already to be honest.

You would also have to compensate for the players who do not timeout games , and there are a few who don't.

For instance player A only moves between 9 am and 11am every day in any games its their move.

They are playing a 1/0 tournament but their opponent has ...[text shortened]... he agreed 24 hours is up.

That would be an interesting tournament I would happily play in.

Again we are just disagreeing on whether or not vacation time makes many games take longer - dispite their time setup. Whenever vacation time is used a game takes longer than it normally would have - unless someone uses their vacation time and moves anyway within the original time control setup, but then I'm happy because the pace is not disrupted.

You can say what if no one claims a skull, and what if this person moves x number of times during x amount of time, and whatever. Cutting out vacation time from specific tournaments, or games, would result in many of these games going faster. I don't care about theoretical games and players like the ones in your post and I know that many of my games would go faster and more evenly paced as a result.

If a pair, or group, of people can choose to eliminate vacation time from certain games no matter what the time controls are that would be their choice, no problem to anyone either, and is therefore not worth your time to question the setup. I would enter tournaments with 1/0 time, but I would also join tournaments with 3/7 time too - no vacation.

Whether or not you prefer one specific time control setup difference over another in this scenario is irrelivant. It is the ability to choose to eliminate vacation time from games here that is in question. If this feature were added to the site it is not for you, me, or anyone else to decide the specifics of regular time control if no vacation time is allowed by desicion of all who agree to play under these conditions.

But then this is all said in the form of debate. If the black moves first thingy cannot be fixed a year after promised delivery then why assume this feature will be considered at all?

Originally posted by TSaffle
Whenever vacation time is used a game takes longer than it normally would have - unless someone uses their vacation time and moves anyway within the original time control setup, but then I'm happy because the pace is not disrupted.

You can say what if no one claims a skull, and what if this person moves x number of times during x amount of time, and whate ...[text shortened]... ol if no vacation time is allowed by desicion of all who agree to play under these conditions.

Whenever vacation time is used a game takes longer than it normally would have

Not necessarily, as the time controls for the game still proceed to decrease while on vacation. Vacation just immunises the player from timeout. Once their vacation time expires they will be at greater risk of timing out as inevitably their timebank will have expired and they will have to move ASAP.

You can say what if no one claims a skull, and what if this person moves x number of times during x amount of time, and whatever.

Finally a little shines in the darkness. Even having a no vacation tournament does not speed them up, the individual players within the tournament dictate the pace by the amount of moves they make. It may speed up the game or games you are playing in but not necessarily the tournament.

Maybe the best idea is to ask Russ to create a "No vacation tournament" to see how it goes.

Originally posted by adramforall
[b]Whenever vacation time is used a game takes longer than it normally would have

Not necessarily, as the time controls for the game still proceed to decrease while on vacation. Vacation just immunises the player from timeout. Once their vacation time expires they will be at greater risk of timing out as inevitably their timebank will have ex ...[text shortened]...

Maybe the best idea is to ask Russ to create a "No vacation tournament" to see how it goes.[/b]

Do you really think vacation time does not make any games take longer? Is that really your position?

Originally posted by TSaffle
Do you really think vacation time does not make any games take longer? Is that really your position?

No I don't. All vacation time does is give a player immunity from timeout.

I have already shown how two players making full use of time controls can play longer than a player talking vacation time.

The only thing that truly holds up a tournament is the rate that each player plays at.

For instance a look at Tournament 9200 shows many of the first round matches are finished but others are still in their infancy. Group 29 contains two "fast moving players" yet both games are only at move 9.

Would you consider the matches that are yet to be finished as holding up the 2nd round?