| From | Message |
levellerlevvie
8/04/2008
00:22:15
[ report abuse ] |
 Subject: Suggestion about Timeouts: mark a board as immune
Message:
Without changing anything about the normal timeout-procedure including that of postponements and emergency-postponements ... I would like to add the option to make an opponent immune against timeouts on a specific board. I'll tell you why:
I'm playing some games against people I know in real life and we actually started this little mini-tournament where we fight for who is the best chess player. Now we're all busy fellows and it has allready happened twice that one of us almost timed out for one of those games ... wouldn't that be a shame when that would actually happen.
Therefor it would be nice that one has the option to grant the opponent to be immune against timeouts on that perticular board. That way we will never have to be afraid our little mini-tournament suffers from timeouts and somewhat wrong score-evolution.
ANother example would be that sometimes you enjoy a game very much against a worthy opponent on a very interesting position and just when you expect to start a great end-game ... that opponent times out and the board is gone. Offcourse that opponent can reinstate the game or you can ask him to but wouldn't it be nice that you also had the power to make sure your opponent can't timeout on your board so you both can keep playing without little accidents?
Any comments? Downsides I'm missing for eg.
PS: Implementing it would probably mean Gameknot needs another column in the table where Game-info is stored and that column would have 4 possible values: 0 = noone is immune on this board; 1 = white is immune; 2 = black is immune; 3 is both are immune for timeouts.
THe procedure(s) that is checking if one is timing out on a board will have an extra check reading out this variable and offcourse graphically we need an extra board-option that can set this variable.
|
gt2win
8/04/2008
00:37:48
[ report abuse ] |
Message:
Bad idea i think, games would never end! You might as well give people the right to add extra time onto their opponents clock (without postponing), the time controls aren't there to be messed around like that. It wouldn't be popular anyway, most people would take a win over an interesting game anyday.
|
chessnovice
8/04/2008
00:40:19
[ report abuse ] | ...
Message:
If it requires more functionality to host an active game than a completed game, which I suspect it does, you can probably add that as a downside. Immunity from time-outs effectively means having the feature of no time limits. This undoubtedly means there will be an increase in ongoing games.
And some of those games may legitimately never be completed. A person may abandon GK and forget about all of his games. A person may fall ill or even expire, but GK will still carry their games. That sort of thing could build up and become dead weight in terms of website space.
|
gt2win
8/04/2008
02:01:41
[ report abuse ] | if it were to be implemanted
Message:
A temporary 'immunity' would be more realistic. For example, whenever someone's clock reaches zero, you could make them immune from timing out, but only for a limited amount of time i.e. a maximum of 90 days per game. That way levellerlevvie's problem would be solved, but games would (edventually) end.
|
levellerlevvie
8/04/2008
03:33:01
[ report abuse ] | Offcourse Gameknot should build in ...
Message:
a few sanity checks to keep games from going on forever ...
Some checks that couyld be run like once a month:
A general rule could be .. since there are games that last 3 to 4 years ... the moment a game comes into the top 1000 of lasting games the immunity is reset and no immunity is longer possible. That way you are sure that a game will always end.
Some checks that could be run weekly:
-For Tournament games it would be helpfull that the moment there are less then 2% of the games going on left then all immunity is reset and no longer possible for that tournament.
-Mini-tournament could have a similar rule and both might need the extra rule that when all games have some kind of immunity and your still above that 2% then all games are reset.
League games aren't really affected I guess .. not sure what rule team-games should have.
Now the point is that a game should always be possible to end and in fact it's more a kind of temporary immunity that I'm talking about. Also keep in mind that it is the opponent that gives you the extra time so I can't see how anyone could be damaged when the event occurs.
-> @gt2win: You might be right about more people taking the win over the granting of extra time but I'm sure lots are interested in a good game so there should be enough people who can benefit from this implementation. I must say I could life with the limited immunity of for eg 90 days but even then the games in tournament still need extra checks to keep the games from going on for too long.
-> @chessnovice: I guess it's quiet certain that the amount of ongoing games will increase but I don't think it will increase very much .. more like 10 or 15% or something. And in the end all games finish so the amount of archived games should be the same.
|
chessnovice
8/04/2008
04:07:35
[ report abuse ] | ...
Message:
I think a 10-15% increase in ongoing games is pretty significant, especially if you consider that the fraction of those that cannot possibly end could only increase.
I do like gt2win's resolution to the problem, though. Prompting the opponent whether to accept the win by timeout or to allow the opponent additional time would be a clever idea.
|
johnrowell
8/04/2008
22:51:54
[ report abuse ] | I like it
Message:
Why not? It's a decent idea. Between friends it would by a nice feature to mark a match as immune to prevent timeout. You would only activate the feature if it was really needed.
|
mfeeney93
8/05/2008
04:31:57
[ report abuse ] | Like the idea
Message:
Here's how I would implement it:
Instead of timeout immunity per se, it would timeout acceptance. That is, when a game has given this option (call it what you want), then when an opponent times out, you have the option to either accept the timeout win or to give more time, the maximum allowed under the time constraints. This may happen only once in succession. In other words, you cannot indefinitely delay the game on one move. The option would be available for the next move. Also, when your opponent times out and you are presented this option to accept/decline the time out win, the option is only available for the maximum time constraint. If you don't select by then, then the game times out and you win.
Examples:
3-Day move time frame: Your opponent times out. You have 3 days to accpet or decline. If you accept, then 3-days are added to your opponent's time.
5+2Day move time frame: Your opponent times out. You have 7 (5+2) days to accept and 7 days are added.
This Timeout Acceptance is only available in two places:
1. Mini-tournaments where the creator of the MT select the option for the entire MT and for all players.
2. Challenges between two players.
[Not sure about this... Force these games/MTs to be non-rated???]
It would not be available in League, GK Tournaments or Team play.
This implementation would allow for the friendly play that levellerlevvie is looking for but keeps the competitiveness of the site.
|
tim_b
8/05/2008
05:50:45
[ report abuse ] |
Message:
One thing I think we have to be careful about is inverting responsibility. If somebody has the power to waive a timeout, some people might make out, incorrectly, that s/he is the villain of the piece for not doing so, when in fact the person who times out is ALWAYS the one in the wrong, even if it is unavoidable. Joining or starting a game is exactly like entering into a contract in which you agree to be bound by the time terms. So in my opinion, things are quite equitable as they stand, especially with the emergency PP.
|
heinzkat
8/05/2008
06:14:33
[ report abuse ] | Agree with tim_b
Message:
He just about writes what I was trying to put into words.
|
dysfl
8/05/2008
06:17:33
[ report abuse ] | No need for new twist
Message:
I think just setting the days to play to the maximum for a tournament with your friends would work. In usual cases, you don't need extra days if you have more than 7 days to play, vacation settings, and one grace automatic extension.
Actually, even with normal 5 day move set-up, one could drag the whole tournament for years by just using vacations and maxing out the days to play. If my daily life becomes busy, I just set the vacation flag for a while.
When I'm busy, I'm busy because I am doing a lot of work in a short period time. Setting the vacation flag is one of the work item. If someone says that he is so busy that he could not spare 2 minutes to set up the vacation flag, it means he is feeling busy, but not actually doing as much as he should. Yes, there are times that I should be occupied so much to some big things. At those times, I don't care about the chess tournament at all.
Chess is one of the best ways to waste one's time. You need to invest some of you time to enjoy it together with others. Two minutes to set the flag is not much to ask, and not all of us could do that. Ce la vie.
|
levellerlevvie
8/05/2008
15:12:25
[ report abuse ] | dysfl, tim_b and heinzkat
Message:
What about setting the vacation flag .... your days of vacation run out and you're still busy? Then that fantastic Gameknot rule kicks in that you can't set the flag again for the duration of the previous period.
Try to see beyond the normal time-control contract and normal postponements ... we're talking about combined surcumstances here .... The emergency postponement was a great addition and a first step to prevent them but the individual granting of temporal immunity could prove to be a better implementation than the general emergency postponement
My friend set his flag and spent his holidays with the knoledge to play his moves when he came back but .... when he came back he had to discover that his internet provider had troubles resulting in no internet connection at his home. He barely was able to make his moves (he had to drive to friends to play his moves there) and nearly timed out. Now that's the kind of situation I'm talking about ... since his emergency postponement triggered like half a year before this event ... he, our game and our tournament was in need of something like granting temporal timeout immunity ...
So things are a little less black and white them some of you like it to be!
|
tim_b
8/07/2008
01:54:28
[ report abuse ] |
Message:
Your idea seems very reasonable and well-intentioned, levellerlevvie, but I still think it shifts the burden of responsibility from where it belongs. It's the responsibility of every chess player to make moves within the agreed time limits. It *is* unfortunate when circumstances gang up on players, but that doesn't alter the principle.
IMHO,
Tim.
|
wulebgr
8/18/2008
14:00:12
[ report abuse ] | In OTB
Message:
it is also the responsibility of a player to claim a win on time; it is not automatic. Claiming a timeout is a necessary step to a win on time at all the best turn-based sites as well (except GK).
|
tugger
8/18/2008
17:29:18
[ report abuse ] |
Message:
i would like to see this implemented. i recently resigned a game against a 2000+ player because he had connection problems, he ran out of vacation days, and i ran out of vacation days. i was gutted, it's not often i get to play players at this level. i was only a pawn down with attacking options, but i didn't want it on my record i had beat a player of this rating, when i actually hadn't. i would much preferred to grant this player immunity from the game than resign, but i felt i had no choice.
|
dansuno
9/05/2008
03:38:00
[ report abuse ] | claim win
Message:
Why shouldn't we say the following.
Wen A times out against B, B has to claim a win by clicking a button on the game page...
If B doesn't do that after an amount of time to be determined, the games end, with both players timed-out
|
levellerlevvie
9/07/2008
11:32:08
[ report abuse ] | Well claiming a win would be good too
Message:
Instead of granting someone an unlimited amount of time ... claiming victory would work too I guess. You could add the possibility to specify a claiming date.
This way you give the person timing out a specified amount of time to play that move after all before the win gets claimed.
The amount of time for the claiming date could be set similar to the amount of time for postponements. Up till 30 or even 60 days would be nice.
Ives
|
|
Post a reply to this message:
|
