17651 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
For Quick tournaments it says that there is a 3 hour max average per move. Over how many games? I did not realize that was an issue, now it is difficult to get that average down.
Your average across all of the turn-based games you've ever played.
You can reduce this by logging in more often, making more moves per session, or better synchronisation with your opponents: you need to find opponents who make their moves shortly before you login - not shortly after you logout.
It's a very difficult thing to get down. And it becomes tougher the more games you've completed.
You have 43 completed games, at over 4 hours per move, maybe you can still do it.
Can you handle 50 simul games? Start 50 one day games, spend a few hours per day on the site, at 2 or 3 different times per day, never spend more than 30 seconds on one position before moving to the next game, be prepared to finish games in a single sitting, restart new games as existing ones finish, and in 3 or 4 weeks you might knock it down.
The advantage is that you now have a lower time over many more games, which should make it easier to maintain.
3hrs is impossible if most your games are tournaments where most players only move once a day and tend to do so in the early hours of the morning your time while you are asleep.
Also once you are up to 500 games or so even 20 immediate moves in a row only seems to reduce the average time per move by about 1 minute.. At least if time per move was over last 90 days rather than lifetime then there would be a chance.
Thanks for the information!
I was just coming to the forums to complain about this same thing.
This seems like a really difficult requirement to meet for something so unimportant. Who cares if my average time per move is 4 and a half hours? That's what the 1-day limit per turn is for. Hrm...
Tournament Directors who set the time requirement to less than 6 hours don't mind; TDs who set it to less than 12 hours don't mind either, and nor do TDs who set move speed requirement to ANY.
chess.com provides a rich set of parameters covering styles of play so that nearly everyone can get what they want. In the case of tournaments, better search facilities (e.g. tournament-filter--selection-wizard) would allow TDs to specify what they want while at the same time enabling members to view the tournaments they were eligible for.
The issue is that it limits players. Playing in the 3 days per move, sometimes one may decide to use much of that time. But if you do, that limits options for later as I have discovered. What TDs want should be the issue for the tournament they are directing not for a players prior experience. Using 1 day per move as an example - whether a players average is 2 hours or 5 hours - both are well below one day. If I am playing in an OTB tournament of game/60, I may use quite a bit of that hour minutes every game. But then if I switch to blitz - game/5, i then adjust how I play. The current format says that players are not allowed to adjust.
The logic behind it is this: All the players in the tournament are very fast, far below the limit, whatever that is. That means that small tournaments can complete within two weeks or so, which is a really good thing for free (and even gold) members who are limited in the number of tourneys they can play simultaneously.I work really hard to keep my time down, and entry into these is my reward for that work.
There are many other tourneys, just pick one you qualify for
Who cares if my average time per move is 4 and a half hours? That's what the 1-day limit per turn is for. Hrm...
The 3 hour time per move average can be more of a factor than the time control of 1 day per move. There is a possibility that players can finish a game in one sitting. (Observed just once.)
On the other extreme, players will make one move per sitting. One player has a turn the other will move 20 hours or more later. Two of the usual suspects are these players who cannot play otherwise.
That being said, Quick Knockout tournaments can last a long time and many of those who enter are not eligible for future Quick Knockouts.
http://www.chess.com/tournaments/player_summary.html?id=17152&member=butterfingers - Time/Move: 8 hrs 49 mins
http://www.chess.com/tournaments/player_summary.html?id=17152&member=Morris2000 - Time/Move:12 hrs 41 mins
http://www.chess.com/tournaments/player_summary.html?id=17152&member=batna - Time/Move: 3 hrs 40 mins
The 5 games completed, zero for premium members has a lot to do with this.
One could argue that the 3 hour time per move average favours recently joined players without an established average, who go on to have slower times than older players.
Well, my main beef is that I was wanting to get into the 10th Chess.com Quick Knockouts tournament (apparently the only official tournament happening soon), but the maximum time/move allowed was just 3 hours, which seems a bit harsh to me.
It just seems weird that in order to keep this down I need to go out of my way to avoid players who move while I'm asleep. Do unrated games count towards this as well? Could I simply play a game (or four) with a friend straight through to lower the average?
I think the problem here is that the tournament in question was not a small tournament that a TD was hoping to get over with quickly, but the official chess.com tournament for the month. I could see having an official tournament like that available, but not if it's the only one for the time period-- it excludes a lot of people.
I generally don't care what my average time per move is, but for those who do, the rule using a "lifetime" average makes it extremely difficult for some people to bring down their averages, even if they make real changes to their playing rate. Chess.com recently started using only a 90 day period for determining time-out percentages (which I think is too short). I think something similar should be introduced for average time per move. Instead of a lifetime average, list their average time per move during the past 6 months, or their past 25 or 50 or 100 games, or something like that.
Do unrated games count towards this as well?
Could I simply play a game (or four) with a friend straight through to lower the average?
Yes. Time per move is the only stat counted in unrated games. If not so, the fast players would likely quit being greeters to keep their time per move average below 3 hours/move.
Yes. Your ability to be online to play as intended in Quick Knockouts would remain the same though, but no worse than the examples above.
Just another crazy thought would be to alter the way the number is calculated. I don't know about others, but my style of play evolves over time. When life is busy and I can't log in daily, I play long-time tournaments that kill the average time/move. Other times I virtually play a game in one sitting.
Idea: cap the average at the last 100 games. It at least gives people who've been on here a long time to change their average and later join these quick knockout tournaments.
3 hours per move seems like weeks... haha
It's kind of hard to word, but I think I just don't really like feeling constantly pressured to check chess.com every 30 minutes all day every day to make sure I can lower my average in a reasonable time.
If it's really that important to make sure everyone is making more than one move per day, why not add additional time limits for online games (I believe the most rapid move time allowed is 1 day), like 12, 6, or 3 hours?
Because nobody can make a move every three hours.
But many of the sub 3 hour players are capable and willing of finishing a game in one sitting.
You say you don't like feeling pressured into bringing your time down. That's fine, but there are other players who work hard at keeping it down, and now complaining that there are tournaments especially for them seems a little odd.
I have to agree though, that the official site tournament should include more players, or there should be 2 tournaments.
The current tournament has less than 500 players, the previous official tournament had over 1000.
Presumably the purpose of a low maximum average time per move as an entry requirement is to reduce the number of people who will not be able to maintain the time requirement for the tournament. In the case of the current Official Quick Knockout tournament, a maximum 3-hour move average was imposed for a tournament with a 1-day/move rate.
It seems to me that someone with a 12-hour average who has never timed out in a game is a much better prospect for staying in the 1-day tournament than someone with a fast move average who has several timeouts in his record. The person with no timeouts has demonstrated a history of keeping tabs on their games, and entering events with time commitments they knew they would be able to maintain. Having entrants who will stay the course is a legitimate concern, but the tournament addressed that by looking at the wrong statistic.
The purpose of the low time-per-move requirement is to provide a tournament for players that like to play at a faster than normal pace. The typical player with a low time-per-move average makes several moves a day, and the games are over in 10 to 15 days. Meeting the time control isn't a problem for these players.
No new information there. The intent of the restriction is clear. But I still maintain that if chess.com has only one official tournament starting during a long period, it should not be a tournament that excludes a large portion of its membership. The official tournaments have several advantages over regular tournaments, including fixed starting dates known well in advance, and multiple rating tiers, not to mention that basic members can enter official tournaments even if they are already playing in another regular tournament. If they want to hold a restricted official tournament, it should be in addition to a separate open tournament starting during the same time period.
What's your favorite excuse for why you lost a game of chess?
by now_and_zen a few minutes ago
Is black cheating ?
by X_PLAYER_J_X 6 minutes ago
3/27/2015 - A.W.Fox vs Bauer, 1901
by bvlnrao1234 7 minutes ago
What's On Your Bookshelf?
by Milliern 8 minutes ago
White Stonewall v black stonewall
by robbie_1969 12 minutes ago
Podium Prediction Plus (PPP) - "Nakhchivan Open 2015"
by ThomasJEvans 16 minutes ago
8/3/2014 - Mate in 2
by EulerTheToiler 16 minutes ago
Chess.com Computer Playing
by ChessKingT 17 minutes ago
Draw Pending Bug
by skotheim2 19 minutes ago
University Kyoto: "Chimps are potential Grand Masters"
by MelvinDoucet 19 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2015 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!