Back to forum
Scott Nichols (2008-10-30)
I would like to see a new time format of game in 10 days with a 4 hour increment per move. A lot of players like to play fast but need more than one day, but do not need 30 or more days. Would anybody else be interested? Any thoughts?
Josef Riha (2008-10-30 10:38:45)
Hello Scott, I agree with your idea. Hope that others do so too.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-10-30 12:12:34)
10 d + 4 h / move
A strange format, very stressful and difficult to play.. I think many players would try it but it would cause forfeits (losses on time) and rating problems quite quickly IMO :/ .. 30 days + 1 day per move is very fast already. Then, the "correspondence blitz" format seems a good choice to me.
Benjamin Block (2008-10-30 14:14:34)
Extrem fast time.
The fastest time control i ever seen in corr is 7 days+0 on a whole game. The game chould not be more then 14 days. But it is too fast for me. I did test it. It is more a time game you need to play on the day and night. 30+0 Did i also play it was hard but it did work if the games did not get over 100 moves.
30+1 is a good time control! But if you want a max time control it is better with the other.
Normajean Yates (2008-10-30 14:53:51)
I agree w/Benj.,even more so w/Thibault
10 d + 4 h / move??? that's not correspondence, except technically, IMO.
But if enough ppl want to play it, and M. Thibault is willing to arrange it, who am I to complain :(
So long as no one forces *me* to play that format... ;)
Don Groves (2008-10-30 20:15:01)
I would like see some way of making players play more regularly. Some players join a tournament and then play only a very few moves until their clock turns red. Others take sometimes a week or more between moves until the are forced to speed it up or lose on time.
I have a couple of these games going now and it is frustrating to wait so long. If a player does not have the time to make moves regularly, they shouldn't enter so many tournaments at the same time. </rant>
Don Groves (2008-10-30 20:19:24)
Response to Scott
Hi, Scott -- How about specifying a minimum number of moves per day rather than a time increment? Four hours per move would interfere with my sleep pattern ;-)
Marc Lacrosse (2008-10-30 20:29:24)
To Don : better "fast" correspondence
If you wish a faster but still really "correspondence" play I would recommend the following : 7d + 1d/move with a maximal time capital of 7 days (anything over 7 days is cut off).
No vacation allowed during course of the game (or vacation pause not working for these precise games so that you may take leave for other kind of competitions but still need to play in these ones).
I am ready to play any kind of test games/tournaments at this timing.
Normajean Yates (2008-10-30 21:22:29)
1 min / game IS 'correspondence'..
internet 1 min/game is correspondence isnt it. I mean it is not OTB!
You people want what - quick slow-chess, slow quick-chess, whatever...
Well, one person's meat is another person's poison, and all that...
Scott Nichols (2008-10-30 21:23:12)
The 4 hours is not "per move", it adds up. Like if you played six quick "book" moves at the start, you would have an extra day right there. Also, an 8 hour increment would be more appealling to some :). We are getting some interest, that is for sure.
Normajean Yates (2008-10-30 21:27:23)
what I *really* miss is 1 move/month...
Wish there was a site with one move / month, one week increment after every move, max 400 days vacation every decade...
It will have health benefits also - I mean you may be a B up in the middlegame and opp may have no counterplay, but you have to maintain good health to live long enough to deliver checkmate! :)
Preferably, resignation should not be allowed in such a format :)
Don Groves (2008-10-30 22:26:08)
I like the idea of not allowing one's clock to become greater than the stated length of the game! That should be applied to all games, regardless of length. Right now I have some games with 75 days on my clock. If I decided to quit one of those games, my opponent would have to wait 75 days to get the win!
Scott Nichols (2008-10-30 22:37:09)
Nice response, some players I think do rely on their opponents health failing because that is the ONLY way they can salvage a lost cause. One game I heard of was the guy was playing his friend. He lived in Alaska, he waited six months for a reply, when the sled dogs pulled up the mailman gave him his letter. He anxiously opened the envelope to discover it said "J'adoube"
Normajean Yates (2008-10-30 22:46:54)
Scott Nichols - hahahahaha :):):)
mate[*], chess site comments/anecdotes have occasionally made me smile, but yours is the first really funny enough that I cant't stop laughing for 2 whole minutes ans still counting!
I am going to shamelessly plagiarise an retell it orally - my version will be -- 'when *I* used to play postal chess back in the '70s-'80s [I did actually], <your anecdote will go here> and after 6 months I recieve this postcard with "j'adoube" written on it! ' :)
[*]if a woman may address a man thus - but why not?
Normajean Yates (2008-10-30 22:50:24)
no no, 'envelope' and 'anxiously' !
no no, my version will have 'envelope' and 'I opened it anxiously' just like yours - works much better that way. For this one, a postcard doeasn't quite cut the mustard :)
Wayne Lowrance (2008-11-03 18:30:23)
Well seems to be a lot of interest here by many players. My thoughts on super short games here are, if that is what you all want I am for it. I wont enter most likely any super short games however. The original post of 10 days + a increment of 4 hrs/moves is too fast for ole gramps here. Like several have commented here, allowing time build up to enormous value is very very bad. I agree with Don and Mark on these notions. I think the suggestion of not allowing the timer to exceed the base limit is practical and VERY desireable Thibault ! I like the discussion on this topic, It is good.
[Chess forum] [Rating lists] [Countries] [Chess openings] [Legal informations] [Contact]
[Social network] [Hot news] [Discussions] [Seo forums] [Meet people] [Directory]