Slow tournament entries


Slow tournament entries

Back to forum

George Clement    (2012-03-14)
Slow tournament entries

It sure looks like the tournament entries are going down in almost all classes.

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-03-14 22:28:13)
Slow tournament entries

That's right & I'm working on... Let's see the next month.

Garvin Gray    (2012-03-18 10:50:34)
Slow tournament entries

WBCCC and infinitychess have had competitions starting in the last couple of months, so from previous comments on here some players have reduced their playing load to accommodate playing in those competitions.

Also the after Xmas period is usually quieter.

George Clement    (2012-03-18 16:16:34)
Slow tournament entries

I think part of the problem is the slow play on the standard tours. Why not cut the increment time from 40 days to 20 days? That would greatly increase the speed of the tour.

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-03-18 17:30:29)
Slow tournament entries

Rapid tournaments are fast enough... anyway I'm working on another solution, please be patient!

Garvin Gray    (2012-03-19 12:54:51)
Slow tournament entries

George, I have said before that I think that the best time control on here is 30 days initial time plus 3 day increment.

George Clement    (2012-03-19 17:52:20)
Slow tournament entries

Garvin, are you saying 3 days for each move?

George Clement    (2012-03-19 17:53:40)
Slow tournament entries

@Thibault, ok I'll be patient! Can't do anything else anyway, You do good work!

Scott Nichols    (2012-03-20 17:39:19)
Slow tournament entries

3 days increment! It would be more fun to watch paint dry or grass grow. Some players, and we all know there are plenty of them out there, could keep a totally lost endgame going for over a year, just out of spite.

Which brings up another subject that would help immensely to speed up games without hurting quality.Install the 6-man tablebases on here, or at least let a player claim a win, draw etc when 6-man is reached. In this age of computer chess, if you have the equipment to even sign on to ficgs, you have the ability to go to a tablebase site and see the result. Plus, even the oldest computers, (like mine, :), can find the mate in under a minute in 6-man positions. So for someone to be able to drag the game out just for spite, for me, is a reason not to sign up in the first place.

George Clement    (2012-03-21 00:48:39)
Slow tournament entries

I totally have to agree. When you have people that are dragging games out just becuase they have time left but it is a clear draw, win or loss; 6 man tb's should be able to handle it.

Garvin Gray    (2012-03-21 12:55:15)
Slow tournament entries

Regarding 6 man tb's. This has already been discussed before.

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-03-21 14:15:34)
Slow tournament entries

Yes, the main reason is that not all players use engines and certain want to end games that way (it may be instructive to play some 6 man, even 4 man endgames).

Also if this is a way to last a game, it is quite easy to last it before to reach such endgame. So it will not change things much.

Scott Nichols    (2012-03-21 15:05:51)
Slow tournament entries

Yes, and I thought later in the cases I pointed out, there is always the "call the referee" option.

Michael Rogers    (2012-03-21 21:57:53)
Slow tournament entries

A player's games on ICCF and SchemingMind can be accessed directly from the Chessbase interface. Has FICGS considered installing this feature? Also, would an "Open" tournament, allowing all ratings, help?

Garvin Gray    (2012-03-23 11:16:48)
Slow tournament entries

SN: Call the referee option is probably the best compromise, partly for the reasons Thib mentions.

SN: On the issue of 3 days per move increment, I think this is better than 10 moves in 40 days cause at least it keeps the games moving along.

I do think 10 moves in 40 days is wayyy too long a time control on here and as already mentioned 10 moves in 20 days might be better.

Is it possible to have a combined time control of say 10 moves in 30 days repeating, followed by 3 days per move from move 61 (or 41)?

Costantino Proietti    (2012-03-24 09:03:40)
Slow tournament entries

I suggest to limit the vacation period to 30 days in a year with a maximum of two vacations in a month.

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-03-24 20:42:07)
Slow tournament entries

@Michael: there is now an open tournament but epoints are needed.

About a way to play games directly from Chessbase, this is unlikely to happen, it has been discussed before.

Finally the main problem at the moment is that we have no new players enough but... I'm working on!

Garvin Gray    (2012-04-18 17:53:19)
Slow tournament entries

To add to this, I think another reason for STE is that the first entrant shown in a 2300+ event is a player rated 2100.

Surely that can not help to attract players over 2300 or higher.

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-04-18 18:08:24)
Slow tournament entries

That's right. It is a fact that the current rules allow (in extreme cases) that all players in a waiting list be below the low rating range.

To partly avoid that, the tickets may be used to finish to fill a waiting list only (e.g. when 4 players at least entered it already)... It's just a trick of course.

But it would be unfair IMHO to retire players who lost elo points from waiting lists, so it does not completely solve the problem.

George Clement    (2012-04-18 18:35:14)
Slow tournament entries

Only 2 entries in over a month in current standard M. Their are quite a few tours that have only 1 or 2 games to go that are right at the 1 year mark and mostly the same players holding up the finish.

Garvin Gray    (2012-04-18 18:40:04)
Slow tournament entries

I think the standard time control is wayyy too long and unnecessary. 10 moves in 20 days would seem more appropriate.

Michael Rogers    (2012-04-18 20:10:17)
Slow tournament entries

I would like to see optional faster time controls as George C. suggested. At GameKnot ( no engine use ) their monthly tournaments attract over 2000 players and the time is only 2 days per move, increasing to 3 days in the final. I suspect that many players here lose interest in a game when there are several weaks between moves.

Don Groves    (2012-04-19 01:38:09)
Slow tournament entries

@ Michael: You got that right! Not only losing interest but also losing track of what your plan was after weeks of waiting for your opponent to move.

I agree with Garvin that our standard time controls are too long. Another problem is that some players have so many games running simultaneously that they can't keep up. I've noticed two different kinds of these players:

(1) Some players will ignore their new games until they've finished older ones. Thus they don't move at all in new games until they are forced to by the clock.

(2) Others will ignore their older games to play the new ones (openings are fun) and return to the older games only when their clock demands it.

In either case, this kind of behavior is what leads to games lasting 6 months to a year in some cases.

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-04-19 15:16:13)
Slow tournament entries

We must no forget IMHO that playing correspondence chess here has absolutely nothing to do with playing chess at Gameknot...

Playing with one's real name is really not the same as playing with a casual name, the involvement is different. The rapid time control is really hard enough IMHO when analyzing 10+ games seriously. Time controls at ICCF are longer than our standard's one as far as I remember. Times have changed though, engines as well but not everyone can play 1 move in each game a day.

FICGS will never compete with Gameknot in the number of players or games played, but the quality of chess games may be higher in average.

Let's not try to fix a problem too quickly by creating another one. The main problem right now is that no games enough are starting each month, I'm working on!

If once this problem is fixed you still think that standard time control is too long then we can debate it and envisage a change of the time control or to create a new tournaments category.

Ramil Germanes    (2012-04-20 05:19:16)
Slow tournament entries

In my almost two years of playing here in FICGS, I have observed one major factor why tournament entries are going down.

For me, it's because of the large difference of the rating brackets in a certain tournament class.

For example, in a standard class M tourney (2200-2400), if I have a rating of 2300-2399, I will not play because possibly almost all of my opponents there will be around 2200+ and the thing is it's very hard to win against these players now and I may lose rating points even if I draw with them.

But by decreasing the difference in the rating brackets, let's say 2300-2400 or even 2300-2350 for example of a certain tournament class, will encourage me to play in these tournaments because the possibility of losing rating points by drawing is minimal.

With these new bracketing, it will also give us an easier way to climb the rating ladder thus encouraging us to play more games!

Garvin Gray    (2012-04-20 15:24:51)
Slow tournament entries

Thib: I do apologise in advance if this reply is regarded as too strong, it is not meant to offend, but could be taken by yourself or someone else as too strong.

In my opinion, creating ANOTHER division is possibly the worst decision that could be made. Leaving the time control as is would be a better decision.

We have three divisions classical rating sections, plus an advanced rating list and multiple thematic, unrated, epoint and other options.

I think adding another division would just spread things out wayyy too far.

It is not like we have an over abundance of players and need to offer more options to satisfy a wide market.

Garvin Gray    (2012-04-20 15:28:37)
Slow tournament entries


When I first came across this site, the rating bands used to be 400 points, and then after a lot of negotiation, debates and cross topics, it was changed to 200, with the even numbers (2400, 2200, 2000) in the standard category, and (2300, 2100, 19000 in the rapid category.

While I understand your point that perhaps these should be changed to 100 point bands as this is what I think the market is trying to say, I think it is an issue of total number of players.

If we had many more players, then each category would fill quicker. Your point is certainly worth discussing and I would not be upset to see it work in practice, but we have had quite a few changes, and another change might just be a bit much for Thibault to consider at this stage.

I could be wrong though ;)

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-04-20 16:42:44)
Slow tournament entries

Garvin, I agree of course... I said that in the case it would be possible and reasonable only... we're far from it :)

Anyway, no need to envisage such changes right now, we'll discuss it when we have players enough...

Ramil Germanes    (2012-04-21 00:49:35)
Slow tournament entries

Garvin and Thib:

The way I see it, the problem is not how many registered players here in ficgs but how many wants to play.

Look at the case of the ficgs world championship. why there so many wanted to play? the waiting list fills up quickly. because they know that there is more to gain than to lose in the championship.

Not like in a tournament that higher rated players tend to refrain in joining due to possible loss of rating points with very little to gain.

Also even if more players registered here, but if they waited very long for others to fill the waiting list then they might lose interest and might not play or even come back again. (This is also what I felt before when I first join here.) And we also see many players in the rating list without games played and not connected here for a long time. Maybe this is the reason why.

Anyway these are just my observations and not pushing Thib to change the way I see it.

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-04-21 01:30:16)
Slow tournament entries

Well, about the WCH that's quite hard to say, maybe the last rules changes (in this way but everyone may not agree) helped to have more participants but actually I'm not sure at all. But it is clear that those WCH games take a lot of time to all players, so less registrations for other tournaments...

But you're probably right about the time to fill waiting lists... so more players would help anyway. It is true also that many registered players do not actually play, any idea to motivate them is welcome :)

Thanks Ramil for sharing your views!

Daniel Parmet    (2012-04-21 01:34:43)
Slow tournament entries

Well my reason for not playing at FICGS (despite the fact it is the best site out there!) has been that I can't play the stronger opponents. The rating restrictions have forced me to ONLY play unrated events here or seek other places to play.

However, other than ICCF which costs money there are no other places to play strong players. I just had the most horrendous chess experience of all time at LSS. So my conclusion is that I have probably reached the end of my correspondence career altogether save the ocassional unrated ficgs game if I notice a strong cue up in one of them. I certainly won't be playing my rating class ever again.

The problem IS NOT the time control. The time control here is lovely. I am curious what Thib's solution might be.

Ramil Germanes    (2012-04-21 01:42:02)
Slow tournament entries

Another thing:

Why only tournaments?

Why no option for only one or two games where you can challenge a player of your choice directly in a longer time control? (what we have now is we have no control of who our opponent is, as long as the fee is met anyone can challenge anyone, but that is not attractive to higher rated players. see it's mostly about rating points!)

Often newly registered players don't easily see how to play correspondence chess here (many asks in the chat bar how to play) because they are expecting they can play a game instantly but here you have to wait for the waiting list to be filled for the tourney to start and that may take weeks or even months. And that's kind of turn-off to them even for me before.

Ramil Germanes    (2012-04-21 01:44:52)
Slow tournament entries

In this way you can play a game to the players at your rating level and that's more exciting!

Daniel Parmet    (2012-04-21 01:48:03)
Slow tournament entries

FICGS strengths:
Well Managed
Well Programed
Easy to Navigate
User friendly
Great rules
Great vacation settings
Great Time controls
Great variants / choices

Lack of players
Lack of ability to play stronger players.

For all the awesome things here.... the one weakness makes it hard to continue to find people to play.

Ramil Germanes    (2012-04-21 02:01:43)
Slow tournament entries


If we have the option to challenge a player of our choice then your second problem is solved.

Your first problem is partly due to negative reactions of players here due to not able to play stronger players but if that is met we all be satisfied and might give good overall reactions about ficgs which might help to attract more players in the long run.

The more important part is the current players here must be satisfied for the site to attract more players.

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-04-21 02:21:24)
Slow tournament entries

"Why only tournaments?" : Because rated 2 players matches may lead to easy cheating (silver/gold ones makes it possible). I'm not sure if unrated 2 players matches would be interesting...

About Daniel's main reason for not playing anymore at FICGS, I'm working on and I'll let everyone know when it's solved!

Ramil Germanes    (2012-04-21 02:34:13)
Slow tournament entries

ok thib good luck!

hoping for a better ficgs

Garvin Gray    (2012-04-21 09:27:58)
Slow tournament entries

I have proposed previously that a new tournament should be created for all players, similar to the current ficgs world champs, except that ALL players need to start from round one. No knockout series, or separate m groups.

All players of all ratings start from round one.

Daniel Parmet    (2012-04-21 15:47:02)
Slow tournament entries

Yep, that would solve the problem Garvin. That is the problem with the WC cycle event.

George Clement    (2012-04-21 16:39:58)
Slow tournament entries

That would indeed be an interesting tournament to play in.

Garvin Gray    (2012-04-21 16:42:15)
Slow tournament entries

I am a fan of the ficgs wch and I think it has many positives. One negative I am starting to notice is that since I am now above 2200, I am getting exactly the same opponents (give or take one or two) who I play in the normal tournaments.

So the groups start to blend into one and it can be difficult to remember if I am playing a wch game, or a normal game, against the same opponent.

I think it would be an interesting exercise to see if the same person can win both events.

The ficgs wch could be held twice a year, and this idea could be held in the other quarter of the year (twice a year also).

Then after some time, see which format gets the most entries and positive reviews.

Daniel Parmet    (2012-04-21 16:49:34)
Slow tournament entries

I won't play in the ficgs wch because I am the top seed and this is disgusting to me. Not only does it mean I won't get strong players, it also means I will lose massive ratings points which will in the future ALSO prevent me from playing strong players. Two awful effects!

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-04-21 18:05:09)
Slow tournament entries

The FICGS WCH is held every 8 months, so about twice a year. I'm still not opposed at all to organize a "CUP" event but it would take many rounds as well and I'm afraid it kills regular tournaments, so we probably need more players for this.

@Daniel: your current rating is 2080, I cannot believe that it is not possible for you to win points in CLASS A... If you win one (or reach 2150) you could enter a CLASS M with 10 Epoints, seems far from impossible.

Garvin Gray    (2012-04-21 19:04:37)
Slow tournament entries

Thib: The FICGS WCH is held every 8 months, so about twice a year. I'm still not opposed at all to organize a "CUP" event but it would take many rounds as well and I'm afraid it kills regular tournaments, so we probably need more players for this.

Garvin: I understand what you are saying, but currently numbers for each of the divisions are small and taking a long time to fill, if at all.

The 'cup' could even attract a few new players, or at least drag a few inactive players out of the woodwork.

I understand your point about the number of rounds. I think this could be alleviated by having nine or eleven players per group.

One of the biggest issue, which feels like it is starting to plague the ficgs wch, is a draw rate of about 95 percent.

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-04-21 19:35:42)
Slow tournament entries

I agree about the draw rate... unfortunately there's no solution there :-/

On the cup format, you may be right after all. I'll have to think about it again, if a CUP cycle starts 4 months after each WCH (between 2 WCH cycles), with 2 rounds of 11 or 13 players tournaments (rapid time control, only 1 qualified for next round), this would be ok for 121 to 169 players, but it is a lot of rapid games (as for me I couldn't play it) and we may have less players for the next WCH... Anyway, thinking about it, it will be worth to open another discussion.

Daniel Parmet    (2012-04-22 06:47:38)
Slow tournament entries

yes the draw rate. Realize if I enter a section as you suggest. I played 5 1900s. And I must score 5 to maintain my rating and 5.5 or 6 to gain points. This is difficult to do against anyone... Such rating bands are preposterous and only lead to a constant shedding of points as often 4 is enough to win a tournament.

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-04-22 15:03:40)
Slow tournament entries

Sure but I don't get it, all players in next class A (or previous one) are over 2000 !?

Peter W. Anderson    (2012-04-22 15:39:16)
Slow tournament entries

Let me start by saying that I really like this place. The software is reliable, the interface is clean and people are generally polite. Thank you Thibault.

I don't buy Daniel's argument about the bandings. It is quite possible to score 5 or 5.5 in a class A, and it is quite possible to move swiftly through class A.

I am trying to move through Class M. I may or may not suceed. If I don't, I won't be complaining about not being able to play stronger players, I will blame myself for not playing better.

My only concern is what happens if I do manage to reach 2300. The rapid time control suits me (I am retired) and I would not have the patience for the slower time control. As far as I can see no-one over 2300 enters rapids. So I might end up having nobody to play apart from in WCH.

There are two solutions that I can see. One is to adopt Garvin's mixed ability group suggestion; this could be in addition to the existing banded tournaments.

The other is simply to get more members, so that there are more people willing to play in a particular category. I for one will try to do my bit to recruit some people onto here.

Daniel Parmet    (2012-04-22 17:08:16)
Slow tournament entries

It is my fault that I don't get to play stronger players? Interesting... logically impossible but I'm curious how you drew such a wrong conclusion.

Of course, whether or not you accept my argument is irrelevant because my argument is why I don't play. It is why others don't play. It is also why many don't sign up. I showed my roommate this site when he wanted to start corr chess and he saw he would be forced to play weak players for years before he'd get ONE decent game. He decided to join instead.

Peter W. Anderson    (2012-04-22 21:27:28)
Slow tournament entries

That wasn't really my point, but as you rasie it, it is a combination of two factors that prevent you from playing stronger players outside of the WCH - the banding rules and your perfornmance. That is just fact.

My point was that it is possible to get good rating results against weaker players and it is practically possible to move up a category in months not years. Equally you should not fear playing in the WCH on the same basis. Win your group and then you will get plenty of strong opposition.

I accept that if someone is finding it hard to break through the top of one category then they will not get practice against much stronger players outside of the WCH. That is a disadvantage of the current banding rules, and might prove frustrating to some people.

However, the alternative has disadvantages. If you remove the banding you will end up playing not only stronger players but much weaker ones too.

Perhaps the best answer is to offer a mixture of both types of tournaments.

Goran Guichsen    (2012-04-29 11:08:29)
Slow tournament entries

Wouldn't it speed up entries if you could start playing as soon as there are two entries in a group? Then you know that you could start play almost at once. Now it could take quite some time before you may start playing because you have to wait until the group is complete.

It could also support speeding up finishing the group unless the slowest player is the last to enter (in case it will be the same as now).

Does it have to be exactly the same rules for low resp high rated players? Guess that lower rated players are not so concerned about the rating (as higher rated players are) but to play. To prohibit to have too many games going could also stimulate to end lost/draw games quicker.

Don Groves    (2012-04-29 13:59:38)
Slow tournament entries

The groups could also be made smaller in those categories that are hard to fill. Maybe a group of 6 or 5 would be better. It can always be changed back as the situation improves.

Garvin Gray    (2012-04-29 15:18:06)
Slow tournament entries

The concept of reducing the groups down to 5 players to get tournaments moving was discussed in detail a few months ago and gave birth to the standard open division.

So that item has been done to death. FWIW, I am in favour of changing the main list groups to 5 DRR's, but Thib is not, so it is what it is.

The idea of starting games asap and letting the group fill as it goes has also been discussed previously (like almost all ideas).

Scott Nichols    (2012-04-29 23:37:18)
Slow tournament entries

Maybe not all ideas. Have you ever thought of a "swiss system" tournament Thib? Make an open tournament with as many players as you can get. And then pair it according to the swiss system, :) 5 or 6 rounds would be plenty to achieve a champion.

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-04-29 23:59:06)
Slow tournament entries

Hi Scott! Of course I thought about it, but swiss system is really too slow for correspondence tournaments, and it is difficult to automatize (I don't even know if this would be possible to figure all cases).

Don Groves    (2012-04-30 05:23:35)
Slow tournament entries

The only idea that seems to please everyone is penalizing slow players. But not everyone agrees on what "slow" means. The current rules say it is 60 days per move. But others think it should be 30 days or even less.

My own feeling is that having too many games causes most slow play, so slow players should not able to begin new games until all their games over a certain age are finished.

Perhaps a better method would be to put an upper limit on the average number of days between moves in a game.

Goran Guichsen    (2012-04-30 09:38:32)
Slow tournament entries

As I understand it (I am new here since 3 days ago)the problem is not players using the time allowed in a game. It is more spending a lot of time deliberatley when the result is obvious.

I really think Don Groves has some very good suggestions.

Another way could also be (probably already discussed) to "Claim" the result Win/Draw when the result is obvious (eg TableBasis says draw). Perhaps some higher rated players could be assigned to be arbiters.

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-04-30 13:25:51)
Slow tournament entries

Hi Goran and thanks for participating into the discussion, that's always useful to have more voices here :)

There are already rules that allow a player to claim a victory before the end to shorten a game. There is no perfect solution to the famous "DMD" (Dead Man Defense) but IMO this remains a minor problem here.

Don's suggestion is interesting. There is already such a rule (max 50 games running)... I don't know what better criteria, not too complex, could be used instead. I really think that things must avoid to get more complicated at the end.

Anyway once more the real problem right now is the too low number of new members, and I'm working on.

Daniel Parmet    (2012-04-30 14:20:00)
Slow tournament entries

I think the players complaining about the time they have to wait for a move are really just impatient. The reality is most have picked correspondence chess because they want extra time to think about moves. If you do not want extra time, then go play OTB or ICC. The honest answer is that while a move returned every day is the norm for best players -- is not a requirement!

Garvin Gray    (2012-04-30 16:32:04)
Slow tournament entries

I think most players do not mind if others are taking their time, it is the unnecessary time wastage that can be an issue.

Maybe Thib can answer this- What is the average number of games that players have going at one time across the different rating ranges?

George Clement    (2012-04-30 18:12:41)
Slow tournament entries

I think Garvin hit the nail on the head. It is the unnecessary time wasted that is the problem. Noone is saying not to take all the time needed to make a move, but waiting until your time is about out and making just enough moves to get the new increment is a problem!

Garvin Gray    (2012-04-30 19:16:14)
Slow tournament entries

I think it is ridiculous that any player can accumulate 74 days in total on their clock and they can still get another 40 days.

That seems like a completely unnecessary amount of time to have.

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-04-30 20:32:31)
Slow tournament entries

I really have no idea if something can be improved there. One thing is sure, the average time for a game is not the same according to the rating... I guess that it would be not reasonable to set a rule for each category so...

About the standard time control, if a player has 74 days on his clock and is to add 40 more days, he'll never have more than 100 days anyway.

Maybe this limit can be changed but once more players are free to choose the rapid time control and as for me I really appreciate not to feel too much time pressure in my games and I know that many share this view. Let's not forget that the FICGS Chess WCH is (as far as I remember) much faster than e.g. IECG or ICCF Championships...

Scott Nichols    (2012-04-30 23:03:10)
Slow tournament entries

Is it that you are not familiar with swiss system pairings Thib? Garvin and Daniel are TD's and I'm sure they would help. The wbccc is a swiss. At least it would eliminate a 2300 playing an 1100. Top half plays bottom half right? And winners play winners, I just don't see why it wouldn't work.

Daniel Parmet    (2012-05-01 00:50:29)
Slow tournament entries

Scott is correct. I would be most happy to help.

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-05-01 01:36:08)
Slow tournament entries

Well, sure swiss system is great (FICGS freestyle cup is a swiss tournament too) but IMHO it is quite bad for the correspondence chess format (because of the number of rounds and the human factor)... Of course it would have some advantages but I think that inconvenients are more important, added to the fact such tournaments couldn't be 100% automatized.

Garvin Gray    (2012-05-01 02:34:43)
Slow tournament entries

I would rather just get ficgs world cup started than worry about swiss system tournaments.

Scott Nichols    (2012-05-02 14:26:47)
Slow tournament entries

What I was hoping was that the World Cup could be a swiss system.

Garvin Gray    (2012-05-02 18:46:59)
Slow tournament entries

So would I Scott, but unless it was to be played at a time control and format similar to WBCCC, it is not possible, unless it was run over 3 years :o

Scott Nichols    (2012-05-02 20:33:06)
Slow tournament entries

The WBCCC is very successful with a time control of game in 30 days with a 1 hour per move increment. We could easily play 6 games in a year.

Gino Figlio    (2012-05-02 23:16:16)
Slow tournament entries


FWIW I don't see anything wrong with your current setup. Good work and do what you think is best.

Garvin Gray    (2012-05-03 04:23:36)
Slow tournament entries

Gino: That is because you are high rated and so play only other high rated players.

Which is good for you, but I am not sure if that is in the best interests of the site as a whole when it is one of the only formats offered.

Scott: I would like to use swiss pairings and have one game paired a time with a time control of something like 20 days plus 1 hour increment. It short, fast and with only one game, the time control should be long enough.

It will take more than 1 year, but that is not so much of a concern here.

I proposed the group and final idea to fit in with existing arrangements on here.

I would also be willing to do swiss pairings on here, like I do on WBCCC.

Daniel Parmet    (2012-05-03 04:30:30)
Slow tournament entries

That time control is impossible (20 days plus 1hour). 30 days plus one hour was barely playable! Minimum increment needs to be 12 hours to cover for sleep/work times but more like 24 hours. The WBCCC was awful directly because of its bad time control. The only reason I played the WBCCC at all was to play strong players.

Garvin Gray    (2012-05-03 04:31:45)
Slow tournament entries

Daniel, but in WBCCC you are playing 2 games at once. In my post above, it would only be 1 game at a time.

Gino Figlio    (2012-05-03 04:36:12)
Slow tournament entries

You imply that I look out for myself only while you attempt to find the best for the site.
Either you don't know what you are talking about or you got it right but inverted the roles.

Daniel Parmet    (2012-05-03 04:38:02)
Slow tournament entries

That doesn't matter... there was an IMMENSE drop in the quality of games from 30+1 day to 30 +1h now imagine the drop from 30+1h to 20+1h. The game quality would probably not even be better than an over the board tournament at that point.

You have two major problems 1) the poor time control driving the quality of games to utter crap and 2) the increment is not even enough to cover your sleep/work zone. So you are actually losing massive amount of time that had nothing to do with your number of games but rather your daily functions of survival.

If you think about 20+1h you are effectively saying the entire game should be played in 23 days per side.

Don Groves    (2012-05-03 08:28:00)
Slow tournament entries

Here is another way to improve speed of games:

Look at Game 59984. My opponent in this game is a slow player and has the maximum of 50 games in progress. His next move is about as obvious as any move can be. He offered to trade queens and I accepted. His next move is clearly to recapture at b3. Any other move is suicide.

However, I made my last move on April 16th, a full two weeks ago and he has yet to respond even though his move is obvious!

I don't always make a move in every game every day, but at least I LOOK AT every game every day to see if any moves are obvious. If we all did this, the games would proceed at a better pace.

Garvin Gray    (2012-05-03 13:45:17)
Slow tournament entries

Yes, for conditionals :)

George Clement    (2012-05-03 17:21:48)
Slow tournament entries

Garvin, I'm for conditionals; but the slow players still wouldn't use them.

I still think that an increment of, let's say, 20days is better then the current of 40 for 10 moves. It would force the people that are gaming the system and waiting 25-30 days to move after getting the 40 days to at least make faster moves. They would still have plenty of calculation time. Now they make 10 moves in 10 days. Thus 40 days plus 20 days for 10 moves.

Peter W. Anderson    (2012-05-03 18:28:20)
Slow tournament entries

Of course there is no perfect time limit. What is too slow for one person will be too fast for some others. The current Rapid speed seems to get the balance about right - quick enough to allow a sensible length to the tournament but slow enough to allow some real thought even if you are working or have significant family commitments.

But perhaps the acid test is how many people are prepared to play at that speed. It does not seem to put people off playing in the current WCH, so whilst it will not be everyone's favourite, it does seem to have a broad enough appeal.

In terms of format, I think large groups (say 11+ people in each group) work well and I think better serve the idea of giving people a chance to play stronger players better than a Swiss, which is fine for a game or two and then flattens out.

In summary, I think Garvin's original suggestion works well.

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-05-03 22:57:23)
Slow tournament entries

Many interesting things have been said in this discussion, thanks to you guys for defending sometimes opposite views, that's constructive.

I'm still thinking about all this (not so easy!), I should make a clear proposal within days.

Don Groves    (2012-05-04 13:52:49)
Slow tournament entries

I wasn't suggesting conditionals, just making forced moves when they occur. That game could be several moves along if my opponent would just do that.