PDA

View Full Version : Chesschat human tournament number 6



Garvinator
31-01-2008, 11:28 PM
Time to start another human tournament.

Zwischenzug
01-02-2008, 09:41 AM
I'm interested, sign me up.

Shark93
01-02-2008, 02:47 PM
Sign me up please.

Desmond
01-02-2008, 11:58 PM
a'ight

Garvinator
02-02-2008, 01:01 AM
So that makes three:

Zwischenzug
Ziah
Boris

Garvinator
06-02-2008, 01:47 AM
Still looking for more players, three really isn't enough, especially with the players currently signed up :)

Sunshine
08-02-2008, 12:59 PM
I'll have a go - hopefully the lack of sleep will bring Boris back to the field.

Garvinator
09-02-2008, 02:03 AM
So that makes four:

Zwischenzug
Ziah
Boris
Sunshine


Anyone else want to play, entries close 11:59pm Sunday 10th February 2008.

Sunshine
09-02-2008, 11:33 PM
Axiom wants in - after his return on the 13th of course.

Garvinator
09-02-2008, 11:44 PM
Axiom wants in - after his return on the 13th of course.
So he can get banned again on the 14th :hmm:

I will see after his return about his admittance to this tournament. It will be a double round robin so if he is not going to get himself banned again I can just add him as an extra player after the tournament begins.

Unfortunately Axiom has a habit of getting himself banned from this site, which in the last tournament distorted the results as he was suspended half way through the tournament. I am not keen on another occurrence.

Sunshine
10-02-2008, 12:21 AM
I think he has (will have) served his sentence - and we're not exactly flooded with entracts.

But as you say - it can be looked at after the 14th.

DanielBell
10-02-2008, 11:00 AM
I'll play!

Should run the tournament using chess.com :)

Kaitlin
10-02-2008, 11:52 AM
closes at 11:59pm.... eek its 12:52pm now... does that mean im too late :( .... wait I'll reverse time :)

Kaitlin
10-02-2008, 12:01 PM
ok its only 1:00pm now .. so I can join :D
..uphere for thinking... down there for dancing..

Garvinator
10-02-2008, 01:44 PM
So that makes six:

Zwischenzug
Ziah
Boris
Sunshine
Daniel Bell
Kaitlin

Garvinator
10-02-2008, 01:45 PM
Daniel Bell and Kaitlin,

Are you both aware of some of the general rules for these tournaments? Time control is one move in seven days in each individual game.

Any other questions?

Desmond
10-02-2008, 01:50 PM
One hand, one bounce?

Kaitlin
10-02-2008, 06:47 PM
Daniel Bell and Kaitlin,

Are you both aware of some of the general rules for these tournaments? Time control is one move in seven days in each individual game.



Yesssssss :rolleyes:... well no, but anywho Im ready - spent all afternoon making a chess board and pieces

DanielBell
10-02-2008, 07:28 PM
Yeah I understand

Kevin Bonham
10-02-2008, 07:29 PM
I think the main thing some people don't realise is that all the games are played at once.

Concerning Axiom, maybe he should request a self-imposed ban from the shoutbox for the duration of the tournament if he's serious about playing and finishing? That seems to be where he normally makes the most trouble for himself.

Kruupy
10-02-2008, 07:57 PM
I wouldnt mind playing...

Kaitlin
10-02-2008, 08:06 PM
I think the main thing some people don't realise is that all the games are played at once.


eek Im going to need more chess boards then

Garvinator
10-02-2008, 08:17 PM
I wouldnt mind playing...
So that makes seven:

Zwischenzug
Ziah
Boris
Sunshine
Daniel Bell
Kaitlin
Kruupy

If there are two more entries, tournament will revert to single round robin and order of entry will be used to determine 'seedings'.

Kruupy
10-02-2008, 09:52 PM
what are the rules behind determining moves?

Garvinator
10-02-2008, 10:32 PM
what are the rules behind determining moves?
What do you mean? Please elaborate?

Kruupy
10-02-2008, 10:51 PM
are we allowed to use fritz/game databases or is it only by eye analysis or can we move pieces on a board etc?

Garvinator
10-02-2008, 10:55 PM
are we allowed to use fritz/game databases or is it only by eye analysis or can we move pieces on a board etc?
Players are allowed to consult databases. Of course using an analysis board is fine. That is one of the main points of correspondence chess.

The main 'thing' that is not allowed is use of chess engines and endgame tablebases.

Kruupy
10-02-2008, 10:58 PM
gotcha ggrayggray, thanks for that.

Garvinator
10-02-2008, 11:01 PM
gotcha ggrayggray, thanks for that.
Part of what are rules and what arent is= what can be proved ;) :lol:

One hour to go then I will start creating all the games. I think I will need an hours break before starting to create the games :eek:

DanielBell
10-02-2008, 11:26 PM
I still think should use chess.com...

You can set the time control to 7 days for each move, can use their graphical board, even has an analysis setup and people can just click a link to view the game in gui..

!!!!

Garvinator
11-02-2008, 12:26 AM
All games created.

Can a mod or admin please sticky the cross table thread.

Kevin Bonham
11-02-2008, 12:32 AM
All games created.

Can a mod or admin please sticky the cross table thread.

Done.

Good luck to all participants; I hope to watch some entertaining games!

(says he, having knowingly allowed the Berlin :) )

Desmond
11-02-2008, 08:11 AM
GL all.

Basil
11-02-2008, 09:00 AM
GL all.
Yup GN all - sleep well!

Garvinator
11-02-2008, 08:57 PM
To all participants,

Some games may be in the second or third page of this thread, please remember to check those pages too for games.

Kevin Bonham
13-02-2008, 10:52 PM
To all participants,

Some games may be in the second or third page of this thread, please remember to check those pages too for games.

Especially Kaitlin and Daniel Bell who each have unstarted games. (Apologies to any of their opponents who were hoping for wins on forfeit!)

Zwischenzug
15-02-2008, 11:38 AM
Sunshine vs. Zwischenzug 1-0

Garvinator
19-02-2008, 12:18 AM
Just in case it isnt clear, time control is one move in seven days in each individual game from the time of your opponent's last move.

Kevin Bonham
19-02-2008, 12:57 AM
And a few people need to move soon!

Remember to check http://chesschat.org/forumdisplay.php?f=80&page=2&order=desc

for games on the second page.

Desmond
27-02-2008, 07:11 AM
Bump for KB's reminder. Don't forget the second page!

Garrett
27-02-2008, 07:47 AM
I am in the next tournament as I have internet back on at home.

What are the rules (books, computers, databases ?).

Cheers
Garrett.

Garvinator
27-02-2008, 04:48 PM
I know I have been a bit slack about enforcing the move rate/time control and missed a couple.

Word of warning to all players. As of 11:59pm Brisbane time Wednesday 27th February, all games where a player over-steps the time limit will be declared lost. Zero tolerance, so to speak, from now on.

Everyone should be aware of what is expected of them by now.

Garvinator
27-02-2008, 04:51 PM
I am in the next tournament as I have internet back on at home. Good to see.


What are the rules (books, computers, databases ?).Opening databases, opening books are fine. Engine play is not. Endgame tablebases are also forbidden.

Kruupy
02-03-2008, 06:48 PM
Sorry all but I am forced to resign from this tournament as other commitments have forced me to decrease my list of responsibilities.

Apologies once again,
Kruupy.

Garvinator
21-03-2008, 02:02 PM
:hmm: :hmm: :hmm:

Trying to gauge opinions on a matter.


What do the participants think regarding offering multiple conditional moves? ie I have played (insert any move here), if you reply with any of these 14 moves, then I will play (insert any move here).

On ICCF, a person can only offer one conditional variation and it has to be linear, meaning only one variation.

I am not trying to introduce a new rule for this tournament, but depending on feedback from the tournament, will be a new rule for next tournament.

Aaron Guthrie
21-03-2008, 02:24 PM
What do the participants think regarding offering multiple conditional moves? ie I have played (insert any move here), if you reply with any of these 14 moves, then I will play (insert any move here).Do you mean the second move is the same regardless? For example I have played 1.e4 and if e6,d6,a6,b6 I will play 2.d4

Garvinator
21-03-2008, 02:59 PM
Do you mean the second move is the same regardless? For example I have played 1.e4 and if e6,d6,a6,b6 I will play 2.d4
More like=

I have played 1. e4.

If 1... e5 then I play 2. Nf3
If 1... c6 then I play 2. d4
If 1... d5 then I play exd5

and so forth.

Part of the reason for asking is that allowing mass conditionals and variations can not only be messy, but I can see how it can lead to disagreements and arguments over how the moves were proposed and what exactly was meant.

On iccf, at least players are actually inputting moves physically, which reduces some of the potential arguments. On here, players have to write out their moves in text form.

Aaron Guthrie
21-03-2008, 03:06 PM
Part of the reason for asking is that allowing mass conditionals and variations can not only be messy, but I can see how it can lead to disagreements and arguments over how the moves were proposed and what exactly was meant.Indeed the already not low chance of transcription errors increases. I would favour not having them, since I don't think the benefit is that much anyway. This is as we are on the internet, so they probably won't speed things up much (in comparison to postal chess).

Note though, I'm not gonna play in any tournament this year.

Garvinator
21-03-2008, 03:12 PM
Note though, I'm not gonna play in any tournament this year.Thought this was likely ;)

Still, answering your questions allows others to read the answers so they don't have to ask themselves ;)

Desmond
21-03-2008, 07:40 PM
If my opponents want to reveal all their plans to me, let them.

Kevin Bonham
28-03-2008, 05:54 PM
Shame to have so many of the games ruined by timeouts (of course this is the timing-out players' fault and not the organiser's) - to the point that only three players have now not lost a game by timeout.

It would be nice to run these things on some kind of software that emails a warning when a player is a day away from timeout, but I'm not sure that would solve the problem of people entering without being completely organised and/or committed.

Basil
28-03-2008, 07:05 PM
Or peeps could just take responsibility for their committed obligations :rolleyes:

What is the world coming to?

Garvinator
28-03-2008, 11:34 PM
Or peeps could just take responsibility for their committed obligations
Sorry KB, but I agree with GD here. Only two players have not timed out, resigned all games prematurely.

I just hope that the time outs do not affect the tournament result for Boris and Sunshine.

Kevin Bonham
28-03-2008, 11:56 PM
Sorry KB, but I agree with GD here.

I'm not really disagreeing with him. It shouldn't be necessary to try to think about ways of dealing with the issue.


Only two players have not timed out, resigned all games prematurely.

Yes, I forgot that Zwischenzug also had a timeout but it wasn't enforced on him as his opponent also had a timeout at that early stage.

Garvinator
29-03-2008, 12:09 AM
I'm not really disagreeing with him. It shouldn't be necessary to try to think about ways of dealing with the issue. If there was to be some sort of email warning system (which I do not really support), then it would have to be an automated system.


Yes, I forgot that Zwischenzug also had a timeout but it wasn't enforced on him as his opponent also had a timeout at that early stage.
Yeah, in that game I tried to work on my compassionate side, it wont be making a re-appearance in these tournaments for a long time.

What is the saying about a good dead and getting punished :lol: ;)

Kevin Bonham
29-03-2008, 12:14 AM
If there was to be some sort of email warning system (which I do not really support), then it would have to be an automated system.

Yep. Which on the board is too hard to administer. Actually very early in the tournament I sent PMs to a few of the backsliders (hope their opponents didn't mind) but when it became clear that they were going to continue to struggle to get their moves played I desisted.


Yeah, in that game I tried to work on my compassionate side, it wont be making a re-appearance in these tournaments for a long time.

Can't say I blame you really!

Garvinator
29-03-2008, 12:25 AM
Actually very early in the tournament I sent PMs to a few of the backsliders (hope their opponents didn't mind) but when it became clear that they were going to continue to struggle to get their moves played I desisted.
As it has turned out, what I would call a lot of pm's, you call a few :uhoh:



Can't say I blame you really!
It is a rather sad day when a warning and black list has to be seriously considered. Two players would be contenders to end up on it so far.

Garvinator
29-03-2008, 08:20 PM
High chance of this rule for next tournament.

Players who time out 50% of their games without notice before hand will be withdrawn from the competition and their acceptance into the next tournament will not be accepted without a damn good explanation.

Basil
29-03-2008, 08:28 PM
... without a damn good explanation.
What about quite a good explanation? Or a fairly good explanation and an apology. Or sort of good explanation, a genuine public apology and a tenner thrown in?

Axiom
29-03-2008, 08:35 PM
What about quite a good explanation? Or a fairly good explanation and an apology. Or sort of good explanation, a genuine public apology and a tenner thrown in?
I agree , it is only a matter of respect to furnish such an apology and/or explanation.

Desmond
30-03-2008, 08:46 AM
So many timeouts, this tournament has really been a waste of time. Next time I'll just play a match with Sunshine. :)

Capablanca-Fan
30-03-2008, 05:28 PM
So many timeouts, this tournament has really been a waste of time. Next time I'll just play a match with Sunshine. :)
That's a hard-fought match.

Kevin Bonham
30-03-2008, 09:42 PM
High chance of this rule for next tournament.

Players who time out 50% of their games without notice before hand will be withdrawn from the competition and their acceptance into the next tournament will not be accepted without a damn good explanation.

Seems fair enough.

Sunshine
31-03-2008, 11:10 AM
These games are not sustainable when the average moves by each player is not around 5 per week.

I've been thankful for the timeouts because otherwise the games were going to drag on.

I only decided to play when I saw Boris and Axiom were in because they are very challenging to play and you know the games will flow.

Boris seems to have my measure once again - but I intend to make him earn the tournament win despite the surrounding circumstances.

I'm currently travelling and getting access is not always convenient - but I still think a draw is possible in both games.

Capablanca-Fan
31-03-2008, 12:03 PM
A four-player tourney with KB, GG, Boris and Sunshine could work well.

Garvinator
31-03-2008, 01:27 PM
These games are not sustainable when the average moves by each player is not around 5 per week. I have also been thinking of shortening the time control to 5 days per move.

While at first glance this would seem to increase the chances of time outs, those that have been finishing their games in past tournaments have been moving at rates much faster than 5 days per move.

Also, there is the option of contacting me before hand if someone knows they are going to have difficulties for a short period of time.

Those that have timed out many games would not have made any time control at all.

Kevin Bonham
31-03-2008, 02:09 PM
I have also been thinking of shortening the time control to 5 days per move.

I would certainly struggle with 5 days instead of 7 in the freestyle tournaments - though for some moves freestyle can be actually more time-consuming than normal correspondence. Even when I'm not especially busy or away, some moves are very time-consuming, especially if I investigate a given move on and off for a few days and then have to reject it.

If the players are taking a week for every move the games will drag on forever and I've noticed in some events that some players seem to do this.

Basil
31-03-2008, 02:22 PM
5 days! 5 days!!! Come ON, Kevin. 5 days a move. Sheez!

CameronD
31-03-2008, 02:36 PM
5 days! 5 days!!! Come ON, Kevin. 5 days a move. Sheez!

The problem gunner is that your playing 12 games at once plus workingh plus other activities plus prep for real games. Maybe single round robin would be better. I would struggle with anything more than 4 games a week.

Basil
31-03-2008, 05:01 PM
The problem gunner is that your playing 12 games at once plus workingh plus other activities plus prep for real games. Maybe single round robin would be better. I would struggle with anything more than 4 games a week.
That may be a problem. But the solution is not to be found in the speed of the moves.

Garvinator
31-03-2008, 05:55 PM
The problem gunner is that your playing 12 games at once plus workingh plus other activities plus prep for real games. Maybe single round robin would be better. I would struggle with anything more than 4 games a week.
Single round robin would need to have odd number players to ensure that players receive same number of white/blacks.

Also being single round robin, the seeding of players becomes important. This could then encourage players to be selective about when they enter (if at all).

Aaron Guthrie
31-03-2008, 06:04 PM
I have also been thinking of shortening the time control to 5 days per move.

While at first glance this would seem to increase the chances of time outs, those that have been finishing their games in past tournaments have been moving at rates much faster than 5 days per move.On average I probably moved quicker than 5 days per move, but I used the 7 in some cases. (And not just when I was using the 7 days to not have to really play at all during essay time.)

Axiom
31-03-2008, 06:46 PM
I would advocate a 3 day rule on a 3 strike basis with a 5 or 7 day transgression resulting in forfeit.

(Maybe variable time limit tournaments ?...just kidding :) )

Garvinator
02-04-2008, 12:30 AM
Hey Boris and Sunshine,

Are you two enjoying your two game match? :hmm: now I think about it, same number of players finishing the tournament as the current freestyle match :whistle:

Sunshine
02-04-2008, 06:33 AM
Well I hope Boris is enjoying the match.

My position is both games are pretty miserable and there is not a lot of fun in hanging around hoping for a draw while trying to forget about about the moves that got you into this situation.

Desmond
02-04-2008, 07:02 AM
Well I hope Boris is enjoying the match.

My position is both games are pretty miserable and there is not a lot of fun in hanging around hoping for a draw while trying to forget about about the moves that got you into this situation.
Yes it is a good match. I think Sunshine may be understating his current chances though.

I think the problem lies not with the speed of the moves, but with the commitment of the participants.

I think Axiom's point about a 3-strike system for overstepping the time has merit, but when players are always taking 5-7 days minimum for a move it is difficult to feel sympathy. Eg, my games with Sunshine are over the move 40 mark, yet some games he won on forfeit only a day or so ago have only just limped over move 10.

Garvinator
03-04-2008, 11:20 AM
One day without a timeout, almost feels like a record :clap: :uhoh:

Capablanca-Fan
03-04-2008, 01:48 PM
Well I hope Boris is enjoying the match.

My position is both games are pretty miserable .
You were making all the running in your White game for a long time.

Kevin Bonham
03-04-2008, 02:16 PM
Something like 20 moves in 60 days with a maximum of 7 days per any individual move would be good except that calculating whether somebody has overstepped or not would be pretty tedious.

Garrett
03-04-2008, 06:00 PM
Something like 20 moves in 60 days with a maximum of 7 days per any individual move would be good except that calculating whether somebody has overstepped or not would be pretty tedious.

leave that up to the opponent to work it out.

Sounds like a reasonable time control to me.

I should be able to play next time.

cheers
Garrett.

Garvinator
04-04-2008, 02:07 AM
Something like 20 moves in 60 days with a maximum of 7 days per any individual move would be good except that calculating whether somebody has overstepped or not would be pretty tedious.
I think probably 30 days plus 3 days per move might be a bit better. I agree with 7 days as a maximum number of days. Players must have made their first move within 3 days of the pairings being posted.

One advantage of the current time control is that when someone over-steps the time control, the evidence is indisputable. It does have one main drawback though, players do not receive any extra credit for playing quickly (helping to support the tournament by getting through their games).

Garvinator
04-04-2008, 02:09 AM
leave that up to the opponent to work it out. At the end of the day, I still need to be able to work out if someone has lost on time or not.


I should be able to play next time.Good to read :clap: :clap: :clap:

Trent Parker
08-04-2008, 05:46 PM
In my last CC tournament I lost quiet a lot on timeout IIRC. I think the 30days +3 day increment would be the best option. I would prefer 14 days instead of 7 though....

What the Heck.... call me in for the next one.....

Garvinator
08-04-2008, 07:50 PM
Judging from the responses, it is looking like we will be using the 30 days plus 3 days per move time control.

So the only question that remains at this stage is, a maximum of 7 or 14 days between moves?

Kevin Bonham
08-04-2008, 08:15 PM
Judging from the responses, it is looking like we will be using the 30 days plus 3 days per move time control.

I think that is a good time control. Possibly the onus should be on the opponent to make a claim in the case of an overstep on that rule (and the DOP can check it), whereas I agree with the DOP checking it (as you have done) for the 7 day rule.

I don't have a view on 7 days vs 14. A slack enough person will forfeit sooner or later whatever the time limit is.

Axiom
08-04-2008, 08:28 PM
A slack enough person will forfeit sooner or later whatever the time limit is.
That may very well be true , thats why i advocate much quicker time limits.
If a player cannot make a move within 3 days , perhaps he/she has not the commitment to play in the tournament in the first place.
Boris , Sunshine ,myself and others play many moves a day , and this rate seems favoured by us. So to balance the scales that went against those that met the time limit and commitment previously, why not now have a more stringent but still generous time limit of 3 days with 3 strike rule and 7 day forfeit threshold ?

Kevin Bonham
08-04-2008, 08:30 PM
That may very well be true , thats why i advocate much quicker time limits.
If a player cannot make a move within 3 days , perhaps he/she has not the commitment to play in the tournament in the first place.

I don't agree with that at all.

There are only a relatively small number of players here and some of them, given their other commitments might be able to commit at 7 days but not at 3.

3 would be a serious problem for me as I am now and then completely offline (or nearly so) for that many days at a time. In the case of my current match with Garvin I was in that situation three weekends in a row.

I would certainly not play one of these events that had a timeout at 3 days and would hesitate to do so at 5.

Axiom
08-04-2008, 08:35 PM
I don't agree with that at all.

There are only a relatively small number of players here and some of them, given their other commitments might be able to commit at 7 days but not at 3.

3 would be a serious problem for me as I am now and then completely offline (or nearly so) for that many days at a time. In the case of my current match with Garvin I was in that situation three weekends in a row.

I would certainly not play one of these events that had a timeout at 3 days and would hesitate to do so at 5.
if anything deserves a poll (of prospective participants) then surely this does !

Kevin Bonham
08-04-2008, 08:36 PM
if anything deserves a poll (of prospective participants) then surely this does !

Actually a poll is a bad idea since even if the majority of prospective entrants like a particular time limit you might still lose participants by making the time control strict.

Garvinator
08-04-2008, 08:39 PM
I don't agree with that at all.

There are only a relatively small number of players here and some of them, given their other commitments might be able to commit at 7 days but not at 3.

3 would be a serious problem for me as I am now and then completely offline for that many days at a time.

I would certainly not play one of these events that had a timeout at 3 days and would hesitate to do so at 5.
To add a bit more to this. Having any kind of a formalised warning/strike system is a bad idea as it has one small but very important flaw.

The onus will be on the arbiter (in this case me) to inform players when they have over-stepped the 3 days move limit, not once, but three times in total for possibly many? games.

Then even after all this, a player can protest saying they did not get the right amount of warnings in the right amount of games.

There would be no easy way to verify whose version of events is correct. Errors can be made, especially when dealing with re-collections.

Why should my 'workload' increase when the system being proposed is not foolproof ? (this word deliberately chosen ;) ) Also my 'workload' would increase and be spent on 'slackers' who probably wont meet the time controls anyway.

While 30 + 3 is not as simple as one move every 7 days to verify, other people can check my calculations if a player protests a decision in this area.

Axiom
08-04-2008, 08:39 PM
Actually a poll is a bad idea since even if the majority of prospective entrants like a particular time limit you might still lose participants by making the time control strict.
not if that was the clearly favoured option !
or risk the likes of boris and sunshine participating in half a tournament anyway !

Axiom
08-04-2008, 08:44 PM
perhaps poll the actual participants ?, .........if 5 out of 8 vote 3 day , it doesnt follow that the 3 voting for longer would not play

or if 5 out of 8 voted for longer limits , again, the 3 voters of 3 day would probably still play (at least theyre accustomed to time wasters!)

Desmond
08-04-2008, 09:11 PM
14 days per half move? How many years do we want this tournament to last?

Sunshine
08-04-2008, 10:03 PM
The slower players always lose interest and drop out - the rate of play might indicate they were not that interested in the first place.

Zigzag is the only slow player I can recall finishing games.

Trying to cater for the players that want to make one move a week (and then not finish anyway) will probably cost you a lot of other players.

I think 10 moves in 30 days is the slowest you should go and then limit the tournament to 6 players only. They allows for a couple of absences as long as you are moving regularly.

Basil
08-04-2008, 10:08 PM
Actually a poll is a bad idea since even if the majority of prospective entrants like a particular time limit you might still lose participants by making the time control strict.
In all seriousness and FWIW (which is not much this time because I can't spare the time to play), I would be more inclined to enter a tourn with a sharper time control. This is offered by way of information and not seeking to sway the prospective players attitudes.

*Looks forward to playing Boris and Sunshine and Axiom again - misses it!

Kevin Bonham
08-04-2008, 10:22 PM
In all seriousness and FWIW (which is not much this time because I can't spare the time to play), I would be more inclined to enter a tourn with a sharper time control.

In that case Garvin is welcome to take that into account and may even wish to weight it more highly than my feedback since I have so far only played in the freestyle events anyway!

Maybe different time controls should be used for the two styles of event to cater for the different mix of players playing in each.

There is also nothing wrong with trying some normal CC events at fast controls and some at slow controls to see what works.

Garvinator
08-04-2008, 10:30 PM
In that case Garvin is welcome to take that into account and may even wish to weight it more highly than my feedback since I have so far only played in the freestyle events anyway!

Maybe different time controls should be used for the two styles of event to cater for the different mix of players playing in each.

There is also nothing wrong with trying some normal CC events at fast controls and some at slow controls to see what works.
Hello Kevin,

Regarding time control proposals, it is only for the next human only tournament at this stage. Of course if the time control proves successful for the human only tournament, it can be transferred over :)

I do think the 30 days plus 3 days per move, with a criteria that a person must make a move every seven days is the 'right' criteria. If a person knows they are going to have trouble making a move in seven days (once), they can still contact me and we can sort something out.

Axiom
08-04-2008, 10:32 PM
Hello Kevin,

Regarding time control proposals, it is only for the next human only tournament at this stage. Of course if the time control proves successful for the human only tournament, it can be transferred over :)

I do think the 30 days plus 3 days per move, with a criteria that a person must make a move every seven days is the 'right' criteria. If a person knows they are going to have trouble making a move in seven days (once), they can still contact me and we can sort something out.
once the players have voted in the poll , we might see which direction to go in

Kevin Bonham
08-04-2008, 10:32 PM
I do think the 30 days plus 3 days per move, with a criteria that a person must make a move every seven days is the 'right' criteria. If a person knows they are going to have trouble making a move in seven days (once), they can still contact me and we can sort something out.

I agree that increasing the seven days to fourteen would be unnecessary.

There is always the option to request a postponement when a player knows they will be offline for a very long time; several such postponements were allowed in the Australasian Internet Challenge even though that was played at three moves per week.

Aaron Guthrie
08-04-2008, 10:33 PM
If I were considering playing in any events (which I am not), I would be more concerned with keeping the players in the event than the time control. That is to say, I would be willing to compromise on time control if it meant that there wouldn't be the huge dropout that happened in the tourney I played in.

Axiom
08-04-2008, 10:35 PM
I agree that increasing the seven days to fourteen would be unnecessary.

There is always the option to request a postponement when a player knows they will be offline for a very long time; several such postponements were allowed in the Australasian Internet Challenge even though that was played at three moves per week.
once this postponment option is added to the 3day 3 strike ,7day limit i think we will have satisfied nearly all the interested players.

Axiom
08-04-2008, 10:37 PM
I would be more concerned with keeping the players in the event than the time control.
i agree , and thats why a sharper time control sends the appropriate commitment message.

Garvinator
09-04-2008, 04:07 PM
I see Axiom is still promoting the warning system. Axiom please address the concerns I have raised in this previous post of mine.


To add a bit more to this. Having any kind of a formalised warning/strike system is a bad idea as it has one small but very important flaw.

The onus will be on the arbiter (in this case me) to inform players when they have over-stepped the 3 days move limit, not once, but three times in total for possibly many? games.

Then even after all this, a player can protest saying they did not get the right amount of warnings in the right amount of games.

There would be no easy way to verify whose version of events is correct. Errors can be made, especially when dealing with re-collections.

Why should my 'workload' increase when the system being proposed is not foolproof ? (this word deliberately chosen ;) ) Also my 'workload' would increase and be spent on 'slackers' who probably wont meet the time controls anyway.

While 30 + 3 is not as simple as one move every 7 days to verify, other people can check my calculations if a player protests a decision in this area.

Basil
09-04-2008, 04:25 PM
I see Axiom is still promoting the warning system.
If Axiom is talking to a klaxon, for goodness sake don't stop him - it'll keep him amused for hours!

Axiom
09-04-2008, 06:06 PM
I see Axiom is still promoting the warning system. Axiom please address the concerns I have raised in this previous post of mine.Sorry , i missed your original post.
But this problem is easily solved by leaving it to the player to alert his opponent of the time limit transgression.

Axiom
09-04-2008, 06:09 PM
I, I would be more inclined to enter a tourn with a sharper time control. [/COLOR][/I]
please vote in the poll

Basil
09-04-2008, 06:12 PM
please vote in the poll
Which poll is that, James?

Axiom
09-04-2008, 06:16 PM
Which poll is that, James?
http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=7983