I am not sure if this is asked before but why does the time bank have to deplete when on vacation? [edit] Ah, I forgot about those anarchists who will abuse "the system".
My reasoning was: You're basically "inactive" in those 36 days so it makes sense that everything stops during this period.
However, I think this is still great as is.
Russ, you have done such an excellent job to improve this website.
Regards,
G
p.s. Will you ever consider to open a poll for this "Rec' thingy" too? It would be nice to gather some opinons since my pirate poll is not doin' so well. (12 disagree - 9 agree, pretty pathetic only 21 people rec'ed)
Originally posted by Dr Strangelovejust a suggestion that is not linked to the system, which is a fine system. Don't assume that this abuse will occur.
You are missing the point.
The whole point is that subscribers can just leave non-subscribers hanging there waiting whenever they want to - and the non-subscribers will have to resign or not play.
I know the simple answer is, [b]'non-subs are not forced to play subs', and henceforth they will probably more and more concentrate on playing each ...[text shortened]... ifference to me whether my opponent was or was not a subscriber.....unfortunately now it does.[/b]
Yet
Originally posted by RagnorakYes, I am noticing that people here *love* ways to win games by timeouts. I had never thought of trying to flag your opponent in correspondance before, and I've played on other sites for years. But then again, in the recent USCF magazine, correspondance champion Duliba advocated playing on in a lost position for at least 6 months in order to prolong the game for its own sake (he noted the fact that the game played by post takes a fraction of your opponent's life, and thus alluded to winning due to medical problems. classy).
This has to be sorted out as it has a knock on effect apart from just annoying the person who has been timed out. For example, I'm currently playing 6 games against guys who 2 weeks ago were 1700+, and now suddenly after vacations they are 1300 players. So if (when) I lose to them, my rating also takes a kicking.
Seeing how a correspondance game can take months, and a tournament can take years, I don't buy the "don't play if you're going on vacation" attitude. What is that, don't play unless you're free every week for the next year?!
But then I saw this, and noted how a 1700 player can be knocked down to 1300 by going on vacation, and I realized that rating is NOT supposed to reflect skill here. It's all about effort instead, right? It's about climbing the ladder and staying above everyone else who is trying to pass you. It's a race for points, nothing more. So, by all means, play to flag your opponent because it is legal, and let the serious players go elsewhere. I'd love to be proven wrong, but really -- has there ever a serious correspondance game without the possibility of an adjournment?
Wouldn't it be easier just to have a system where when a holiday is booked the clock stops entirely in your games for that period? So if when you go on holiday in a 3/7 game with say 1/7 remaining it just stays at that until the holday period you have booked ceases.
Originally posted by yablokoYup. 1600 by nothing more than playing slower. 2000+ ratings need skill, but I reckon 1800 is possible on timing alone.
I realized that rating is NOT supposed to reflect skill here. It's all about effort instead, right? It's about climbing the ladder and staying above everyone else who is trying to pass you. It's a race for points, nothing more.
Originally posted by RamnedPut it like this - I wouldn't wait 5 weeks for someone to move in a game I started at 1 day timeout.[n/a timebank] Obviously, it's different if you are playing 100 games or can just start another to take the place of the deserted game.
this is correspondence chess. Why would you resign just because waiting anyways ?
Lower to 14 to compromise.
Just because it's called correspondence chess doesn't mean it's compulsory to play at a snails pace. The reason CC chess was originally so slow was because of the slow postal services - that has no effect on www chess.
What do you mean by "lower to 14". If you mean games, I don't want to play that many games - 6 is the max anyway.
And again I read about waiting 5 weeks.
The people who actual take 5 consecutive weeks of holiday without playing chess at all, are the minority.
And further, not all people go on holiday at the same time, so you will always have games too play.
This year could take 9 weeks of holiday, so I vote for 63 days of holiday! Just kidding, 36 days is more than enough, specially with the timebank still being there.
I would even prefer a shorter period, say 3 or 4 weeks.
Please excuse my obliqueness, but could someone please explain what a TIMEOUT is?
I get the idea on the timebank depleting after the move time has expired. In a 3/7 if you don't move in 3 your timebank of 7 depletes to 0, at zero your opponent can claim a win (well done me for understanding that - he says in hope).
A supplementary question - if I begin a game 3/7 and it's my turn to move 1 day before my "booked" vacation of 14 days, when I return what will my move time allowance and timebank be?
Let's assume my opponent moved on the first day of my vacation.
thanking you all in anticipation 😕
- Joined
- 23 Mar 04
- Moves
- 254914
Originally posted by Dolphin55Correct.
Please excuse my obliqueness, but could someone please explain what a TIMEOUT is?
I get the idea on the timebank depleting after the move time has expired. In a 3/7 if you don't move in 3 your timebank of 7 depletes to 0, at zero your opponent can claim a win (well done me for understanding that - he says in hope).
Originally posted by DoctorDaraAs a non-subscriber, no problems with this.
Sounds awesome, thanks. Non-subscribers stop whining. All us subscribers and the advertisers ultimately pay for your free games anyways. This is an awesome site and I hope Russ is making a profit on it. He throughly deserves to.
- Joined
- 26 May 02
- Moves
- 72546
Originally posted by DoctorDaraThere aren't really 200,000 players on the site! If we go off the statistics given in the player tables, there are just under 17,000 active players on the site (players who have moved in the last 100 days). That figure excludes players with provisional ratings. I would guess that there are about 1000 of those. So about 18,000 active players in total.
Of the almost 200,000 players on this website does anyone know how many are subscribers vs. non-subscribers? 🙂 It was my understanding non-subs out number subs several times.
Of those, I reckon about 1/3 are subscribers.