Suggestion on improved correspondence game seek

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #1


    When seeking opponents for a correspondence game, there are settings for how fast opponent you wish to have.

    However the choices are just fast, faster and fastest.

    How about adding choices for us who do not need a reply within hours, but do not wish to wait a week either?

    Adding "normal < 24h" and maybe a setting "faster than 48h". I don't mind that an opponent takes a few days now and then, just as long it is not five days every move.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #2


    I think all of these problems could be solved by a fixed time control for the entire game in correspondence. 

    Some players want to play fairly quickly and want to play in tournaments that will finish in their lifetimes.  A one month (750 hour) time control for all your moves in the game, with no increment or vacation, would be good for them.  If you spent more than a day on most of your moves you'd probably end up timing out, but you'd still have time to analyze some positions in detail if you wanted.

    A two month (1500 hour) time control would be a bit more leisurely but still lead to a reasonable expectation for when the game/tournament will be over.

    The "average time per move" for players isn't a very useful statistic because it's based on past performance.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #3


    Agree that those could be useful options.The problem is if you play someone who moves instantly, your time is always ticking. At least for me, most of my time per move goes when I am not logged in (and unaware it is my move), compared with the time I spend actually thinking about a move.

    Implementing my suggestion should on the other hand be quite easy (minutes of development time), compared to your suggestion which is more involved.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #4


    I don't think it would help any.  A lot of players that I see maxing out their time controls, slowing down tournaments and such, typically have "time per move" of like 8-16 hours.  Probably they used to play fast and now they're busy or whatever.  It's just not that useful of a statistic. 

    A fixed time control just gives a better expectation for the speed of the game in my view.  A 3 days/move game can last a week or a year depending on the players.  Seems like it wouldn't be too terribly hard to implement either.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #5


    How come people always misses the point. 

    Of course it would be better with a time control. That is not the point. But I doubt considers that feature worth the development time now (since that requires new variables, database entries, statistics and testing). While my suggestion should be a "cut'n'paste + change a number" job, and hence have a chance of getting done. Probably is faster to do than it takes to read this thread.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #6


    The time per move should reflect recent games, not all games.

    I have over 6000 games, with time per move of 1 hour.

    If I slow down to 48 hrs(or speed up to 10 minutes), it would take months(years?) to reflect a substantial change in my stats.

Back to Top

Post your reply: