I've read the pro's and cons in the arguements in here and agree with everyone, except the person that thinks that I shouldn't be allowed to go on vacation if I want to - even if it starts a game with each player being slightly differently proportioned.
Is it fair that a non-sub without timeout can play against a sub with timeout, that, in effect, the non-sub has a technical disadvantage? Yep. The site allows the non-sub to make a choice as to who they play, whether it be a sub or fellow (not meaning to be gender specific) non-sub, its the trashcan. Get a game against a sub, then hit that can and no foul occurs, no rating adjustments and that lil slot (one of 6 therein) magically re-opens (abracadabra!).
So whinging on about non-subs being at a disadvantage in a game is utter bull. They have a lower level of choice of opponents (assuming that they are not playing subs), but we subs get a greater choice for paying our fee. That is what we deserve, the choice of a rich and colourful supply of opposition.
So, dude, get over yourself, enjoy your 6 (max) games against non-subs and have a great life.
since we're talking about advantages:
it's widely accepted that white has a starting advantage, due to having the first move. and unless you play tournaments or clan games etc., there's nothing on the site to stop you from playing exclusively as white. not only would you get the first move advantage in every game, but you could ignore the black side of opening preparation, instead spending that time on white preparation.
i'm just pointing this out, not proposing that anything needs to be done about it.
Originally posted by SurtismObviously non-subs can just play other non-subs or go to another chess site.
I've read the pro's and cons in the arguements in here and agree with everyone, except the person that thinks that I shouldn't be allowed to go on vacation if I want to - even if it starts a game with each player being slightly differently proportioned.
Is it fair that a non-sub without timeout can play against a sub with timeout, that, in effect, the non ...[text shortened]... So, dude, get over yourself, enjoy your 6 (max) games against non-subs and have a great life.
Obviously they can delete games against subscribers.
Obviously other measures can be taken to counteract the disadvantage.
However, the FACT remains:
Ordinary games between non-subs and subs are started on unequal terms.
Nothing can justify giving one player an advantage over another player before the game starts.....well that's if you wish to stick to established chess rules - which apparently the owners and many biased subscribers here seem happy to ignore.
Originally posted by RagnorakI think you have a problem with your math...
That's a ludicrous suggestion.
We all (subs) have 35 days or so of TO immunity to use how we please. If we feel that our opponent is at an unfair advantage, we are free to use some days if we think we are in danger of TOing. If we have already used our alloted time, then tough!
What we definitely don't need is people having the equivalent of 70 days of vacation per annum.
D
You wouldn't have 70 days of vacation. Think about it*.
*i don't mean 72 either(since there is 36 days). I'm not that much of a stickler.
I think the OP's idea is good. However, I would up the ante and make all of a members games frozen when they are on vacation. This means their time or their opponents time doesn't run, they can't use it for extra time, and it doesn't give an advantage to either player.
Details: members in games where one is on vacation effectively cannot do anything that has to do with their game. They can't move, use the analyze board or even view the game.
Any other site functions are still available such as forum posting and the blitz micro site.
No limit to total amount of vacation days only to the length of the scheduled vacation. you can't schedule consecutive vacations**
You don't have to worry about this being abused because nobody can schedule consecutive vacations and they would have to be stupid to do it anyway since they gain no advantage.
*amount to be determined.
**amount of days between scheduled vacations also to be determined.
Originally posted by tomtom232You could take 72 days vacation just to annoy people.
I think you have a problem with your math...
You wouldn't have 70 days of vacation. Think about it*.
*i don't mean 72 either(since there is 36 days). I'm not that much of a stickler.
You start your vacation on the 27th November 2009 and that gives you 36 days until the end of 2009. You then take your full entitlement for next year and dont return to the site until the 5th February 2010.
Originally posted by adramforallThat wasn't the point and that still wouldn't be 72 per year.
You could take 72 days vacation just to annoy people.
You start your vacation on the 27th November 2009 and that gives you 36 days until the end of 2009. You then take your full entitlement for next year and dont return to the site until the 5th February 2010.
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveFACT :
However, the FACT remains:
[b]Ordinary games between non-subs and subs are started on unequal terms.
[/b]
Ordinary games between non-subs and subs are started on unequal terms and either one of the players can cancel the game without penalty therefore not risking anything to themselves.
QUESTION :
Whats your point? You keep saying the same thing over and over again, so what if a game can be started unequally - unless I play an exact clone of myself, with exactly the same time, and (thanks Blackamp) with both clones being white, with the seats being exactly the same comfortableness, with the visuals equally as stimulating....etc. then it is impossible for a game to be equal - only a numpty head would think they could be.
QUESTION 2:
I am playing a game against PAWN RIOT - a top ten player (and also an incredibly nice chap), I am a long way away from being a top 10000 player most of the time, so thats unequal too. Should Mr Riot have to give up a Queen at the start of the game and let me be white? Or should I have two moves to his one?
Originally posted by Surtism730/72=365/36 so semantics hardly matter.
It would be in a financial year!
My point was that you can't decide when your opponents takes vacation and it would only be in the games where your opponent is taking vacation. Ragnorak was making it sound like all your games would be affected by one opponent being on vacation.
Originally posted by SurtismMy sympaties are completely at Dr Strangelove.
FACT :
Ordinary games between non-subs and subs are started on unequal terms and either one of the players can cancel the game without penalty therefore not risking anything to themselves.
QUESTION :
Whats your point? You keep saying the same thing over and over again, so what if a game can be started unequally - unless I play an exact clone of m ...[text shortened]... up a Queen at the start of the game and let me be white? Or should I have two moves to his one?
Why he has to explain the same thing over and over again, is because the simple facts doesn't change, and thy are not understood.
This can be remedied quite simply:
(1) Let everyone get the same amount of vacation days.
or
(2) Let both players have the same immunity if one decides to use his vacation immunity.
Originally posted by MctaytoI'm pretty certain that ALL non-subs will NEVER subscribe here.
The simply answer that removes all inequalities would be for all non-subs to subscribe 😉
Good to see you have acknowledged that there are inequalities.
That's progress. 🙂
Originally posted by tomtom232Again - why do we want to make changes that slow down the game?
However, I would up the ante and make all of a members games frozen when they are on vacation.
There are already enough complaints about game dragging without making a rule change that forces someone to drag their games if they wish to take a vacation.
The arguments in favor of move-freezing seem inadequate; if someone wishes to manipulate their rating, all they need to do is play fast in the games they're winning, and drag out the games they're losing. People did it before the new vacation system [with guaranteed timeout immunity] was even in place.