Thanks Harley. I have been doing that very thing for some time now. My success rate is about 50/50.
I guess half either don't read the message or just want to play the Lion! :-)

O.k. I printed the ratings page and started going through games of potential opponents to determine their rate of play. It is very time consuming and the list will need to be updated regularly as people come and go and ratings change. Then I will send out invitations after checking to see which of my suitable opponents are online. These invitations will be sent one at a time so I do not get more games than I want or have to uninvite people. Then I will wait till they accept or decline. If they decline I will start the process over. Lucky are those players who may simply use the games waiting to find a suitable opponent, even if the opponent doesn't think so.

p.s. The solution to players who prefer make "moves per day" rather than take "days per move" could be as simple as allowing us to pick a different color for our name! ...or should I say colour? :-)

*ducks for cover*

In chess there is what is called the "thread" of the game. Some people play many games over long periods of time and re-assess each position whenever they get back to the game. Many others, such as myself, prefer just a few games that move at a pace where you can remember what your plans are and what tactically is happening on the board. An inicator of like minded opponents would greatly assist us in getting the kinds of games WE want. If it's not the kind of games YOU want, then no harm-no foul. But the idea of those not interested in this feature dictating to those of us who are what form the feature, or lack thereof, should be is a little annoying. There are feature requests that others want that don't interest me but I don't stomp all over them or redefine what their desired solutions should be. If you don't mind games that last for months then more power to you. You already have what you want without joining some fellowship.

Seeing how there is such objections to a feature that would really help some of us and hinder nobody I shall now drop the subject.

ughaibu: Thanks for the heads up on the 1 day game but the player is rated almost 1,000 points lower.

It's a partial solution in that I don't know how many people would start accepting 1 day games? As it is, of course, someone who wants to make games last for months can get all the games they want, regardless of how their opponent feels about it. All some (maybe many, maybe even most) of us want is a way to determine like-minded players when it comes to expediency!! If you don't need this, fine, ignore it!

p.s. I even tried going to players' games and clicking on their moves hoping to see the time between moves, no such luck.

Its not just a morbid idea of not being able to access the site. I've tried posting games for 2-3 days and nobody accepts them! Yet many post 7 day games with the desire to have the games move quicker than one move per week. Why is this? As the majority has not spoken on this issue, or any other issue for that matter, it cannot be assumed that only a few feel this way. Other sites have tried to accomidate this situation which lends credence to the request that this site at least consider it. This is a turn based site, however what is one to do if they prefer one or more moves a day but sometimes cannot access the site for a day or two with no prior warning? Just time out on games? I believe it is Fencer's desire to have the best site available! Certainly this request is not the most trivial to appear on this board!

p.s. Go to the BK discussion board and look at the recent post from Bernice! Sound familiar?

Somewhere in here there's a solution, we can leave it to Fencer to decide. Until then I will devise the quickest "manual" way to assess expediency, or lack thereof, on the part of potential opponents.

BTW: IYT recognized the problem and put forth a "solution" (albeit a lame one).

Exactly!!!!!!

Both! As it is, if something happens I would just time out and no extra time would be given. The less time from 7 days given, the less response you get in waiting games and tournaments due to similar caution by other players, not because most players only like 1 move per week. Already I am thinking of doing a little research before accepting games or tournaments. In 5-10 minutes I could get an idea about an opponent, of course software could calculate many players in seconds!

Exactly!!!!!

What if it was seperate from vacation time? What if it was "emergency" time and everyone got 7 days per year? If you encountered unforseen circumstances and used up your time, then you would have to settle for longer limits for the remainder of the year, or risk timing out. As it is, it seems few people accept games with 2 day time limits.

I think appeal for the vacation time idea would depend on how much vacation time one had. But it's certainly not a bad idea, as long as I don't run out of vacation time before I actually take my vacation!

If a player makes 100 moves per day in a particular game when its their turn to move in 200 games, they average 1 move per game, per game type, every 2 days. The player with 5 moves in 5 games averages 1 move per day. That tells me something. Especially if they are playing at a rate of "days per move" rather than "moves per day"!

Of course "moves per day" would not tell you much. But "moves per day, per game, per game type when it's their turn to move" would tell you alot. If it was averaged over a 3 month period you would get a fairly good idea of their tendencies. Thus, if someone averages one move every 5 days for the game we want to play I can take a pass instead of getting stuck with a game lasting many months which suits only one of the players just fine.

I put 7 days per move as a buffer in case of unforseen circumstances, not because I only want to move once a week! Some indication of move habits would save many of us alot of frustration.

Thanks Fencer... (p.s. Any thoughts on the idea for a "moves per day per game per game type"?)

No, not that. I would like to select the games I'm interested in so when I go to tournaments I don't have to sift through the ones that don't offer the games I play. Same with waiting games. Same with fellowships. Areas that are not games specific could be tailored as well. Server would have less to do. *Bonus*

Maybe this is planned for 2.0, but it would be very nice to be able to customize the site with expanded "settings". Select game(s), discussion board(s), fellowship(s) of interest and all else goes away. The site is cleaner, easier to utilize, and server is not used to generate tons of unwanted info. Of course, one click would show all that is hidden. Another click would hide it again.

LOL, o.k. let's play! :-)

I agree...

Just what we do in the context of a small group with chess being the only game. A little food for thought.

Here is the ladder system as it appears in our fellowship:

01. Players may challenge any one of the 3 players directly above their current position.
02. The challenge must be registered on the club notice board before play commences.
03. A player must accept a challenge unless he/she is already playing another challenger.
04. A player may only issue one challenge at a time.
05. Challenges are a 2 point match, challenger starting with white and then colours alternating.
06. The games must be counted and rated and have 3 day move timeout.
07. A challenge is over once one player has two points. (1 point win ½ point draw).
08. The result is to be posted on the club notice board to allow table to be updated.
09. If the challenger wins he/she advances 1 "rung" above the losing player.
10. If the challenger loses he/she drops 1 "rung" below their current position.
11. Ties result in no changes to the current ladder positions.
12. The challenger may not challenge the same player twice in a row for a period of one month.
13. New members start at the bottom of the ladder.

The following are changes that may better suit a large number of participants:

01. Players may challenge any one of the 20 players directly above their current position.
02. N/A
03. A player must accept a challenge unless he/she is already playing 2 challengers .
04. A player may have no more than 2 challenges running concurrently.
05. Challenges are a normal game, visible to the public . Challenger has the white pieces.
06. The games must be counted and rated and have 3 day move timeout.
07. N/A
08. N/A
09. If the challenger wins he/she advances 1 "rung" above the losing player.
10. If the challenger loses he/she drops 1 "rung" below their current position.
11. Ties result in no changes to the current ladder positions.
12. The challenger may not challenge the same player twice in a row. period.
13. New members start at the bottom of the ladder.

grenv : I agree with that too!

Fencer : At The Chess Club fellowship we have a ladder system that has been refined by the members. It is in the News Archives and may have ideas you would be interested in, many of which have been expressed here.

I agree that challenges should not be allowed downward. That makes no sense. However, I would not like to be obligated to more than a couple games in any ladder system (I'm sure most pawns would agree). If there was a tight limit, say 3 days, things would move quick enough IMHO.

Now let's think of a way to make it better than IYT! (Or at least a little different.)

WisperzQ, your points, as always, are good ones. By contrast, my problem is the reverse of yours! When players take a very long time to move I lose interest in the game and sometimes offer draws, even if I have a won ending, just to avoid all the time it would take. I'd rather clear the game and try a new one with someone else. Of course, I must cross my fingers and hope my new opponent is more expedient than the last. I know this is a turn based site and I have no problem with those who move once every day or two. My frustration is with those who consistently move no more than once a week! I know they have every "right" to do so. I see no reason why multiple options, such as adding the time as you suggested AND indicating moves per day per game (per game type) as I suggested, cannot be implemented. I believe features such as these would dramatically improve the gaming experience here for everyone. The fervent and ongoing debate over this issue appears to confirms this.

but what we want is something in between... everyone could have their cake and eat it too, but as it is I must eat my cake no quicker than the slowest person at the table! (OTB gives me indigestion.)

LOL@Backoff, only 40-50 chess games!? Me thinks you need a blindfold too! :-)

Jason: No one wants to take that away from you. We just want a way to get what many of us want as well, and that's a way to avoid being forced to wait for days for each move. Our frustration is the same as yours would be if you were forced to move quicker than you wanted.

I only like a few games at once and prefer them to move along at a reasonable pace. It is hard for me to play chess one move per week as I forget everything I was thinking and/or planning. I put 7 days per move to protect against unforseen events, not because I only want to make one move a week. I think I am by no means alone in this. We do not all share your ability to thrash 200 players simultaneously. :-)

yes, that is the correct way to determine average moves per day per game (per game type). This could be factored, for instance, over a 3 month period to reflect a players current habits.

I suggested showing a persons "average moves per day per game" on their profile page next to BKR. When creating a game, or tournament, a range could be specified in the same way as BKR.

I suggest a column in the player profile page next to bkr that shows the number of moves per day per game of that type. This could be factored, for instance, over the previous three months. When making a new game, or tournament, the creator could specify a range the same way as bkr. This would help resolve the conflict between players who have every right to move slow and those who must sit around and wait.

I think it would be a useful option to save sent messages as well. (I like hearing myself talk.)

To beat the tar out of them (without a word)...

If you are waiting too long for a response to a message, you can just send a reminder. No flag will tell you what they are thinking.
If a message gets deleted then so be it. No need to flag excessive deleters. No flag will tell you what they said.
Many more important features to be had, don't you think?

When team matches between fellowships is released, I would like to see a page listing all the teams, and players on the teams, of a selected game type. From that page challenges could be issued by either the team captains and/or big bosses. Maybe the number of players could be selected and players with the closest BKR automatically paired.

Fencer : Maybe you could configure an alarm clock to the hard drive that would wake you up in the event of any system error. That way you could get right on it. :)

MM : Yeah, I know what you mean. I've probably forgotten most of what he's said is in the works.

So what you're saying is Fencer should put a to-do-list on his to-do-list!? :)

BBW: good suggestion. Maybe a "new messages" red flag could be at the top of the page, then the only reason to scroll down would be if you know you have a new message associated with the game.

I would prefer to have the "filter" in "My Tournaments" default to "All". Maybe users could set default. Certainly not a top priority. Thanks, R*L

Fair enough! I too would like them to upgrade. If nothing else than to show their appreciation and help out the site, even if they don't need the extra features.

1.) If maximum players per section is set to five(5) then everyone assumes pawns only need four(4) games available yet they get the boot if they don't have five(5) games available (unless it's been "fixed").
2.) If a pawn has finshed all games in an ongoing tournament, and cannot advance, he must make special request to enter new tournament (unless it's been "fixed").
These are very frustrating for tournament creators and participants. Can these items be corrected?

Could we have a "filter" option at the bottom of each message that would allow us to see only
that message, replies to that message, and replies to replies to that message etc...?