Back to forum
Don Groves (2008-12-15)
There are many players here who like to play several moves per week and there are others who sometimes play less than one move per week until forced to move faster by their clock. There are even a few who don't move at all (or rarely) until their clock is red.
Would it be too much work to make another tournament classification? The time control would be 7 days plus 7 days more for each 3 moves, up to a maximum of 7 days. In other words, each player must make a minimum of 3 moves per week.
Those players who can't, or won't, move that often can play in the standard tournaments. Those of us who like to move more often can play in the faster tournaments. Everyone is happy ;-)
Scott Nichols (2008-12-15 02:07:23)
Agree to this.
There should be a class for faster players. Too many players use a vacation to delay the inevitable defeat. They should know--"There is no dishonor in resigning", the dishonor lies with the person who just cannot admit defeat.
Normajean Yates (2008-12-15 03:37:27)
disagree... let them play skittles!
faster players can go elsewhere and play 1 0 lightning [1 minute/game, no fischerincrement] - engines allowed! O), or they can just lump it ;-)
Don Groves (2008-12-15 04:05:25)
I'm not suggesting any changes to the current time controls, just a faster control for those of us who like to get games over with sooner than 100+ days.
Also, this is not anything like blitz, lightening, etc. It is merely a time control that allows correspondence games to be played at modern speeds. I've had snail mail (postcard) games that were faster than some games I've had here ;-)
Normajean Yates (2008-12-15 05:02:07)
to Scott Nichols
"Too many players use a vacation to delay the inevitable defeat"
Too many people use healthy lifestyle, medicine, careful driving etc. to delay inevitable death :-)
Thibault de Vassal (2008-12-15 14:39:56)
Disagree at a first sight
I think that's too dangerous for the ratings 'cause many players would like to play this fast correspondence time control until they accumulate too many games (playing such a time control may show an addiction already), finally general forfeit and rest in peace far away :)
It happened already to many players with the rapid rapid time control (10 days + 1 day / move, limit 60 days). Moreover, blitz time controls are not played enough yet and that's a pity IMO, that's now a nice alternative and I'd like to promote it.
Don Groves (2008-12-16 01:21:06)
Ten day time control?
I can't find such a thing. Where is it?
You could prohibit more than one 7 day time control tournament at the same time. That would diminish the problem of too many games.
Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman (2008-12-16 06:43:01)
If you want fast games why not play the 2 hour blitz? Isn't the idea of correspondance games to have time to analysis in depth? I find at least my opponents play to fast, do they really make a concise analysis of a game?
Don Groves (2008-12-16 11:06:48)
Blitz is not the same
Blitz games require you to play the game in one session. That can be difficult when players are in widely separated time zones.
What I am proposing still allows complete analysis of each move, just that the moves must be made more quickly than longer time controls.
I realize this will not suit everyone, but no one other than those who want faster games has to play. It's just another option for those of us who would use it, just as is blitz.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-12-16 11:12:07)
Rapid time control
Sorry, I meant 30 days + 1 day / move :/
I suppose that it is possible to find a compromise theorically, but it adds some rules and restrictions... I'm still not favourable to this.
Nadia Kaif (2009-03-20 05:33:00)
[Chess forum] [Rating lists] [Countries] [Chess openings] [Legal informations] [Contact]
[Social network] [Hot news] [Discussions] [Seo forums] [Meet people] [Directory]