Fair enough IMCK ... although it looks like someone has stuffed up, maybe Fencer didn't send you a list, he plays so well that it takes me nearly all my time to work out his next devious Tank Battle plan only for it to be even more intricate than I had imagined. LOL

Maybe, the interpretation of the time frame as you expressed it (and I have no problems with what you say) is something that the tournament creator could put in the header so that there is no misunderstandings later when someone who is habitually slow gets the hurry-up :)

I asked people to PM me with their lists of players who "slow play" to help me decide who I will avoid in playing games.
I had quite a response, and to all those that wrote to me, thank you,

Whisperz, you were not on any of the lists.

I guess it may be just a problem with the way each of us looks at time limits.

Personally, if I think I will need 4 days to play my turns in a particular game, I will only sign up for games with an 8 day limit. That way I can play my 4 days, and have room for longer just in case of a problem.

To me if you play a game with a certain limit, the expectation is that you plan on playing more often than that limit, but like to have the safety net of more time, just in case.

I guess what "we" are asking you, is to pick limits on games which are longer than you expect to use. If you like to move once a week, then play tournaments with a two week limit, then no one would accuse you of slow playing, because you wouldn't be!

I personally like to play everyday, and rarely have games waiting to play. I purposly keep my amount of games played down, so that I am able to achieve this goal. I would prefer to play games with a one day limit, but I know that is unrealistic, because of potential unforeseen problems. Therfore a 3 or 4 day limit is what I like to play, with the expectation that I will move much faster than that.

All I am asking you, and other "leisurly players, is to have some courtesy for us faster players, and play games with limits which are a bit longer than you expect to play.

I think 4 day tournaments are for people who expect to move every day or two, and then have some back up time.

You think 4 day tournaments are for people who only expect to move every 4 days, with no back up time. This makes no sense. You must end up timing yourself out a lot playing like that.

Do you see my point?
Use time limits which are double what you want to play, and we have no problems. A 3 or 4 day limit is for faster players, stay out of them, if you want a leisurly game. Play 7 or 10 day limits, and you will never have to bother me again!

Sorry IMCK, but I think you have missed the point. Not everyone thinks the way you do or wants to play "immediately" ... I enjoy taking my time, I do not do it to slow others down, nor do I do it to deliberately drag out games to see others "suffer". I enter a tournament which gives a time limit with the full intention of using that full time limit on each move if I choose to. It seems like Steve will now ban me ... sad, but that I guess is his perogative. You seem to think people do it to spite you, well that, at least with me, is not the case. I do not enter a 4 day tournament, expecting to move every day and be hounded if I don't. I deliberately do not (usually) enter 1 or 2 day tournaments because I do not enjoy them. Please do not make me, or anyone else, play to a hidden agenda ... there are enough of those on disucssion boards without taking them into the game arena!

We are not trying to change the nature of the site, as you suggest whisperz.
We are trying to do a much more difficult task... Change the nature of the few here who purposly hold up tournaments, either because they have way too many games to handle, or they get some sort of kick out of it. Since peer pressure doesn't seem to work on these people, we are simply making suggestions which may force them into shorter game times.

The suggestions that tell me not to play games or tournaments with these people only helps in certain instances. It is not always possible to know these people.If there is a tournament with 100 people, it only takes one "bad seed" to ruin the fun for everybody, by dragging out games by making all of their moves at the last instance. It is a shame when the rights of a few ruin it at the expense of many.

This has all been said before ... so why continue ...

This is a turn-based site. Games have specific time limits. There are rules about timing-out. Fencer has indicated that shorter time frames and OTB games may be a future feature, but right now they are not.

Some people do not come here to make as many moves in as many games as possible with the objective of just completing as many games as they can (I am one of them), but rather they come to play a bit, read a bit, enjoy themselves and relax. What you talk of is trying to turn this site into a high-powered "move-or-lose" pressure cooker. If that is where Fencer decides to take this site then I will probably move on ... the (current?) very relaxed nature of this site is one of the main reasons I stayed and paid. Maybe those who want to change the nature of the site (and that is what I believe you are trying to do) can either be patient until other formats are introduced, go elsewhere (where there might be the speed but I am yet to find the atmosphere) or set up there own (and Fencer can tell you all about that!)

In the instance of a position that may wind up being a draw, a suggestion for that would be the following:

For a draw that is offered, if it is declined, the 40 Move Rule would be invoked and, if necessary, an option would pop up to contact someone (i.e. Fencer) to watch the game and see if a drawn position would show up before the limit is up. Thus, a timer would be set that tracks each move and list how many moves are left before the draw is declared automatically. Either way, a drawn game would end and would be credited in the respective tournament (this could work in Chess, too, with the 50 Move Rule).

I would see that function as something to be helpful in such situations and would be flexible enough for someone to declare a game finished and then, the option would have a box for that person to message Fencer with their reason for ending the game. Thus, Fencer would have the available information to make a judgemental decision to either grant or deny that request.

i have just set up a tourney for this....low scoring players only ..1500, but would consider letting someone who was just over in or at request could change the range :)...Please join...

I see how that works BBW, but my point is that no one would set an overall time limit which would actually be so short that a person who plays a move per day would actually get timed out.

Your example of a 50 hour overall limit would never happen. If for example a game of Reversi, with about 33 moves per person, would never have an overall time limit of less than 33 days, so you could never time someone out by moving one minute after them everyday.

Even a 33 day limit would be better than the 9 month games some have.

I agree that anyone who would use that tactic is not nice - which is why I called them the "bad person". But if a new rules leaves loop holes like that, it is only a matter of time until someone takes advantage of them. And it would be a rare thing, but it would happen sooner or later.

You still don't see how 23+23+23.... would sooner or later add up over 50, or 100 or whatever the main time limit would be set as?

Why so complicated? I think the tournement creator should can set a global time frame, we say four months or so, after which he has the possibility to estimate and to finish the last running games and start the next round. This procedure can protect us from too long games.

Do you ctrl-c, ctrl-v, or do you edit-copy, edit-paste?

Hum... we are now off the subject of tournaments. Sorry all. :-)

(plus if you quit talking to me, I could play more games) :-)

Plus, anyone who used the tactics you suggested, would easily be found out as an A hole, andno one would play any tournaments with them, or they could be removed by the director.
Also if someone did that to me, it would be easy to find a way to counteract this tactic.

I think it would be rare to find that combination of people you spoke of.
Most people don't play for only one hour at a specific time every day. And the odds of that being combined with an A hole who has nothing better to do with their time than to play games to harrass other players.

Again, I also don't see how doing that would actually cause someone to time out in the first place.

Another point, many games do not lend themselves to overall time limits because the amount of moves are not finite.

I type fast - 90wpm (100+ on a good day)

<grin>

Which part do you not understand - I'll try to help.

The suggestion - a timer that runs for every minute you do not play.

The good person - Plays every day, usually the same time, take for example 7pm to 8pm and playes all their games.

The bad person - knows this persons schedule, waits until 8:01 after they sign out and plays their game.

Timer starts to run on "good player" - 23 hours taken from clock. Good player makes his daily move at 7pm the next day.

Bad player - Waits until 8:01 until the good player signs out and plays the game again. Bad player only had 1 hour taken off the time.

Yet again, the good player is off for anouther 23 hours (making the total of 46 hours off the main clock)

(Well keep doing this example for awhile, and the time will add up quickly - and if there is a limit of lets say 50 total hours, well after 2 1/2 days, the game would end.)

A suggestion I made to hopefully make it so the good person to not time out is to have a 24 hour grace period before the timer starts to run.

Does that help.

I still don't see how playing one minute after someone is going to actually hurt them.
Under your scenario, both players would at least be making one move per day.
I don't think anyone wants a tournament where you can get timed out while making a move every day.

LJ's suggestion is to have a game time limit - which as I understand it, for each minute you do not make a move, it takes away a minute.

So if you are given lets say 50 hours to make all your moves in a game, I was just showing how someone could watch and easly take away 23 hours from someone else, which would cause them to lose the game. (which is why the suggestion of a 24 hour grace before the main game timer starts).

And your are exactly right - if the tournament is set up, you probable do not want the person who moves daily to time out - which is what I was pointing out could happen! :-)

So what if someone did that and made you look like a slow player?

At least you would be making one move per day, which I don't think anyone is complaining about, and would not cause that person to time out.


It is the person who either has too many games, or purposly slow plays, and ends up dragging out a 4 day limit into a 9 month game.

... or possible make it so the "total game" timer does not start to run until 24 hours past the last move - so the first 24 hours from the last move is a "free" time that would not hurt anyone.

It's an interesting suggestion which may work, but I do see where it could be used in the wrong way.

Rule #2. Maximum time for total games.

Well there are some people who sign in every day, and maybe play for an hour. Well if I wanted to be stinky, I could figure out that they are on from 7pm-8pm every day - and wait until 8:01 to make my move where they would have 23 hours taken off their timer before they were to move again. After doing this for a week, it could look like they move slow even though they play their games every day. (Again, just an extreme example of how that rule could be used wrongly.)

this is a perfect example of one person holding everyone up.I have pm'd RSBaby...but no response..and the last person he's playing,cant do anything about it.The other section is complete and the winner is waiting to play(I have won the section in slow play) but cant move on till these 2 games are complete.
but this was already in the final match before the crash(with p257 up 1 game on me) and we wait patiently to play each other again.

It is not complicated but standard in correspondece chess since a long time (ICCF-Rules).
And it`s more variable too.

If anyone out there keeps a list of these "slow" players, please private message me with those names so I can avoid playing games and in tournaments with those people.
Thanks.

Long John..... I like your idea about total or overall time limits in conjunction with a days per move limit.

For those who worry about losing bkr if they are arbitrarily removed from a game for slow play.... take the advice Ug has given to me, and only play games or tournaments which are not rated.

Good suggestion LongJohn, although I would prefer at 1) : x moves in y days ,for instance 10 moves/ 20 days each.
And what happens with the unfinished games at 2. ? Estimation and start the next round?

Whisperz...
I was not speaking about you at all.

I think that people who purposly play games and tournaments which they know in advance they will take three months or more to finish a game, and only play turns when their time limit is up, are losers.

Thats my opinion.

If the shoe fits....

Best bit is that they are online LOL

Revenge is sweet, the worst player on this site for what we just talked about, has just timed out in 2 tourny games with me for the first time. Must have left it a little to long LMAO Be nice if it happened with the other 10's or so that they have with me LOL

I, too, like Kitti's idea that a tournament creator can declare a section when the result is definitely known. This idea should be posted on the requests board, I will do it next.

As to the determination of a game, I am generally against it. There are situations where it is not easy to make a decision and with the wide differences of abilities on this site, a good player maybe behind (somehow) but may still win with good endgame play. And this would put more pressure on Fencer but that could be solved by the appointment of panel of trusted good players ... of course, we might then have a great debate on who should (or shouldn't) be on it!!!

I would like to see that start happening in tournaments too Kitti :o)

One way to speed up the tournaments would be to end the sections when the winner is decided even if there is some games still going on. Of course the slow games would still continue, only the section winners would be announced when it is mathematically certain.

Option to end slow games doesn't sound very good to me. If moves are made within the timelimit there isn't anything to complain about.

I was pointing out no insults thrown on here for a while Ughaibu LOL

The asking to resign business is fine Harley, but I have come across at least one of these "slow" players that wont even acknowledge a pm from you or a gl or gg etc, let alone resign if requested to :o(

I have to agree with ughaibu. I'd be very careful which tournaments I joined if I thought the creator might award the game to my opponent if I took too long or someone complained. And it would create extra work for Fencer having to check out every game that a creator wanted to finish.

For me the answer it quite simple, if you have a problem with a tournament, contact the creator, tell them which game, and what the problem is.
If the creator sees that the game is hopelessly lost by one player, and it is severely holding up the tournament, send a message politely asking that person to resign. Any reasonable person wouldnt mind at all. I've been asked to resign games, and have done so. And I have also been in a position where I asked someone to resign (so a pawn could advance to the next round).
With manners and a bit of consideration, tournaments do not need to be such a headache.

You would get more complaints if pawns could post, and there are many members who wont post too. For now, I will be removing slow players before the tournys start, its not malicious etc , just trying to make the tournaments happier for all, if the slow players dont like it, its my tournaments :o)

Hey Ughaibu, you noticed the tournaments board is a more polite debate board LOL

Also, learning can be done outside of tournaments

Just like fellowships can be run how the big boss wants, surely a tournament can be run how the creater wants, thus they can do something as long as they have said it in the tournament description BEFORE hand and looks into it properly and doesnt just dive in like bull in china shop.

I personally would only look into it if asked by one of the players like you say Ughaibu, or a majority vote of the other players in the tourny (including the game players).

I think it would be a good idea Fencer, preferably used when a game is obvious who will win.
It gives more control, considering its the tournament creators right to control as they would like it to be. I would suggest though, that if finished like that, the game should not affect bkr's otherwise it could cause problems with players etc and could be used as a cheat etc.

As a "two-phase commit" [database term], of course. Such action would have to be confirmed by me.

Okay, should I add a feature for the tournament director to finish slow games when necessary?

Oye vey. "and being the behind the back ridicule of other players" .. seems to me that says more about you than it does me.

Get a grip folks. If you've nothing to do with your time other than play games, then get a life. You don't like to wait, play more games so you won't notice. Or, as was suggested, try a real-time game site.

Don't whine for the removal of limits that don't suit -you-, just don't join those games/tournaments. Control your own games, don't try to control everyone else's.

Vir has won the Five in a line section of the Brotherly Love (Beginners) - All games tournament. Congratulations again, and good luck to those still in progress! :)

I see it as a joke Bernice LOL

I am against the slow play but will stand up for Ugh because I know he is also a fast player also. The problems arise with those that are like it permanently

"""If there are 90 players, it only takes one "loser" to mess it up for everybody else. """
that is an insult...calling someone a "loser"...even if this is a game site :)

you cant be a "loser" you have came "2nd"

WhisperzQ LOLOL....you are a came "2nd'er" hehehe
please see the joke of this, i dont need another nasty attack :)

Are you calling me a "loser" IMCK?

I will not give a reason for moving at a speed which suits me, I just do ... W:)

thx. so much, my grandkids will get a kick out of that. LOL..i do appreciate it.