22 Jul 07
Originally posted by hAnimateAgree. But is the same unfair for anyone. That's fair. 🙄
The vacation system is unfair.
That is the point.
I don't like the vacation system as it is. But it is better now than before the last revision. What I really want implemented is a concept of sealed moves, but there are numerous postings about that already so I don't go further with that here.
This player Tequila is on vacation in Europe and whant to have a pause fom RHP for a while. That's fair. If he had to quit tall his games altogether, that wouldn't be fair. Nor for him, and not for his opponents he already won against in his tournaments.
Wait another week and see what happens. When his vacation period is finished you have your opportunity to time him out and win the game.
22 Jul 07
1 edit
Originally posted by hAnimateOf course it's fair.
excuse me but that is just stupid. Simply because something was there before we got a say in it doesn't make that we agreed in putting it there. Do you always agree with your parents? Or did you ever always - blah
The vacation system is unfair.
This game deserves to be timed out as Tequila has not moved for a month: Game 3126663
That is the point.
If a non-sub accepts a game against a sub he's agreeing with the difference in vacation possibilities. If he feels so strongly about that difference, he should just play non-subs. There is nothing unfair about playing a game under the mutually accepted conditions.
If you want to argue that non-subs also would like vacation time, then by all means do. Just don't babble about "fairness" when the conditions were accepted from the start.
22 Jul 07
Originally posted by FabianFnas
Wait another week and see what happens. When his vacation period is finished you have your opportunity to time him out and win the game.
And I will. I will even resign from the other game, because he is clearly winning that one.
Originally posted by FabianFnas
Agree. But is the same unfair for anyone. That's fair. 🙄
That is another point, I guess 😳
Fair enough 😉
22 Jul 07
Originally posted by PalynkaNope, it just means a non-sub has accepted [in many cases, unwittingly] to play a one-sided game. No matter what disguise you put on it, it is still an unfair game.
There is nothing unfair about playing a game under the mutually accepted conditions.
If you want to argue that non-subs also would like vacation time, then by all means do. Just don't babble about "fairness" when the conditions were accepted from the start.
As a non subscriber, I hope they don't make the system available to non-subs.
22 Jul 07
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveWhy is choosing to start a game with a handicap unfair?
Nope, it just means a non-sub has accepted [in many cases, unwittingly] to play a one-sided game. No matter what disguise you put on it, it is still an unfair game.
As a non subscriber, I hope they don't make the system available to non-subs.
22 Jul 07
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaChoosing to play a game under unfair conditions doesn't actually make the game itself fair does it?
Why is choosing to start a game with a handicap unfair?
In many cases the vacation is sprung on people out of the blue - that is the grossly unfair part of it. ðŸ˜
22 Jul 07
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveI agree there are two different issues.
Choosing to play a game under unfair conditions doesn't actually make the [b]game itself fair does it?
In many cases the vacation is sprung on people out of the blue - that is the grossly unfair part of it. 😠[/b]
non subs have the choice to even up the vacation difference by subscribing so there's nothing essentially unfair in that.
22 Jul 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveThe conditions are not unfair if they're agreed upon before the game. That the chances of winning are not 50/50 is completely immaterial.
Choosing to play a game under unfair conditions doesn't actually make the [b]game itself fair does it?
In many cases the vacation is sprung on people out of the blue - that is the grossly unfair part of it. 😠[/b]
Or do you believe that for a game to be fair, the chances of winning must be 50/50?
22 Jul 07
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveI admit that it is unfair that players can "spring a vacation" on others out of the blue.
So you admit you have to subscribe to get a fair game?
this player Tequila has been moving slow during the whole game and it just seems like a strange coincidence that he went on vacation exactly when his timebank had run out. But he is not moving in other games so I have to give him the benefit of the doubt.
22 Jul 07
Originally posted by PalynkaLet me put it like this:
The conditions are not unfair if they're agreed upon before the game. That the chances of winning are not 50/50 is completely immaterial.
Or do you believe that for a game to be fair, the chances of winning must be 50/50?
Say in a game of football the pitch is on a huge slope - the team going down the hill has the advantage. Whether the teams agreed to play there beforehand or not doesn't suddenly level the playing field and make it a fair game - the game remains unfair.
To make things fair the playing field has to be level which at the present time it is not.
Unfortunately in chess you can't change ends at half time to make it fairer either.
Face the fact, the system is not a fair system.
22 Jul 07
Originally posted by coquetteNaah.. too complicated. I think subs should start with queens instead of bishops, but only in games against Dr Strangelove.
subs should be able to make four moves in a row any time they want to, but only three times during any game, except on weekends, when they can do it an extra time