Delay Slow down the games


Back to forum

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-03)
Delay / Slow down the games ?

An interesting idea had been submitted here a few months ago to "decrease the pressure" for all players and to slow down the games... (correspondence chess & Go are quite addictive :))

It would consist in delaying the transmission of moves or at least avoiding one can respond to a move immediately after being played.

The server works very well, but I feel there could be irregular peaks of charge in future... More and more tournaments start, faster and faster and that's probably only the beginning.

So what do you think about the "delay" idea ? .. 1 hour would be probably enough to spread out charge over time, but players may expect more or no delay at all !?

Glen D. Shields    (2006-10-04 17:52:20)
Yes Thibault - Thanks for Asking

Thibault -

I see a need to offer player defined delays. My desire would be that when a move is sent, I have the option to post the move immediately or 1, 2 or 3 days later (using my reflection time during the delay). This option allows players to stagger their games and better manage the pace particularly at the beginning of a tournament.

Servers like FICGS have become the meeting place for postal players, e-mail players, correspondence server players and real time server players. It's a diverse and interesting group. Server chess is nothing like postal chess, but it shouldn't be a substitute for OTB chess either.

Starting a server tournament is like a ping pong match. You send a move and ten minutes later you have a reply. One can't ever keep their inbox empty.
Once the opening is over, the match then moves into "Groundhog Day" mode. You wake up to an inbox full of moves, you work all day on them and then wake up the following day to an inbox of moves from the same players. It's tiring.
I'd like the option to send a move, forget about it and then chose whether it should be visible to my opponent immediately, 24 hours, 48 hours or 72 hours later. The delay allows me to manage my game load better and gives me some flexibility how fast I want to play.

Server chess has grown rapidly the last five years. Its benefits are fantastic. Curiously, however, this year is the first year since e-mail chess was officially introduced that ICCF is reportedly (unoffical source) seeing an increase in postal chess. One of the biggest reasons talked about for this change is players are worn out from the fast server pace. I can relate to that. I'd hate to give up server chess because it makes so much sense. I know no one twists my arm to move fast, but why not give me server tools to help me manage my game load? I let the server count my time, keep my game score, chase my opponent when he forgets to move and report my results. Why can't it also help me manage my game load and slow down the pace when it needs to be slowed?

You asked ... so here are my two cents :)

Marc Lacrosse    (2006-10-04 18:44:46)
no slow down by force please !

Nobody urges you to answer immediately.
Why should the one who likes playing fast sometimes be forced to wait for sending his own moves?
I cannot really understand this. His opponent has always the choice to wait before answering if _he_ prefers to do so.
As i already said in another thread I prefer a small number of games going fast than a large number of ones going slowly.
I analyse most of my very few games everyday. So when one of my opponents reply I am often already ready to answer immediately. Why should I have to wait?
I even wish that a rule for maximum accumulated thinking time be implemented.
Those who prefer slow chess just have to refrain from taking too much games simultaneously and from enrolling in "rapid" tournaments.

Wayne Lowrance    (2006-10-04 18:48:59)
Delay/Slow down games

Thibault, I see no reason to slow down play, I would be dead set against any such change. The current format is sufficient. I am playing in six tournaments,just signed up for a seventh, which I expect will open up soon. I have had no trouble keeping up and my site clock is in no danger. That is the way I feel. Wayne

Glen D. Shields    (2006-10-04 21:33:32)
Let me see if I got this right ...

Guys - let's see if I have this right. If i make a move and wait three days to enter it on the server, you're okay with that? Yet if I make a move on the server and chose the option to have the server send it three days later (using my reflection time), you have a problem with that? I don't get it. Games aren't slowed down. All that's being suggested is that we be given server tools to regulate the game pace to a more comfortable level using the server. We use the server to manage all other aspects of our game, why not this too? I don't understand your objections.

Wayne Lowrance    (2006-10-05 04:22:20)
Delay/slow down games

I dont make a move and wait 3 days or whatever to enter it in the server. Games will be slowed down if a player has an extra delay time allowed with his pondering decisions. Heck, I look at the tournaments and see no player in time jepardy. A day added to each move provides more than ample time for coorespondence play. This a bad suggestion in my opinion. I am very very much not in favour. Wayne

Glen D. Shields    (2006-10-05 05:25:52)
Wayne no one ...

Wayne - no one is time trouble because no one is using their time. That's the point! "Correspondence chess" on a server has basically become an OTB match between chess engines. Players in all organizations are complaining about server burnout. Players who swore off postal are re-considering their decision.

What Thibault is trying to find out is how prevalent is the burnout. What I'm proposing any player can do manually, but why should it be done manually when the server can do it for us? Isn't automation the whole purpose of the server?

Help from the server to manage the pace (and one's game load) is a perfectly logical extension of server play. If you want to play fast, play fast. If you want to play slow, slow the pace, use the server to do it for you. Why is that bothersome? No one is suggesting a change from the 40/10 limit. There's no proposal to deviate from the 100 maximum accumulated days (great rule - every server should follow this rule!). What am I missing? I really don't get it :)

Don Groves    (2006-10-05 08:05:37)
Why not manage the pace yourself?

If you only have time to make two moves per day then do that. You will then only receive two new moves per day maximum. If you don't want the emails in your inbox, create a box for unanswered moves, keep them there, and answer them at your own pace. Just my 2 pence.

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-09 10:56:23)
Server peaks of charge

Hi all and thanks for sharing your views.

I agree with Marc, there's no reason to slow down games by force. I'm just thinking about an emergency system that would delay (a few minutes at most) the moves to appear in 'My messages' and 'My games' with an appropriate message if too many players are sending moves at the same time - in future. Some games run particularly fast (30 moves played in half an hour).

The idea of delaying the sending of moves is interesting but I'm not convinced yet. I fear it wouldn't be used a lot and too many options is not good IMO. (more, the delay wouldn't be 100% accurate) As for me, I just 'accepted' to have 10 or more pending moves continuously, I delete emails (or set email notification off) and come back later to the server... Another way would be to filter moves responded before a defined time in 'My games'. Not so useful...