Proposal: New type of daily chess with only a specific time for the whole game shall be used

I don't think that ratings need be considered a factor in this. Online ratings, even in blitz, are a fairly rough measure of player's strength, and especially so in online/correspondence chess. It is quite obvious that the way different people approach this form of chess here on chess.com varies greatly: from almost casual, short-calculation play which centered on the idea of being able to play one move whenever you get to find a brief moment off your other occupations, to actually treating it like a true correspondence-chess challenge, with accuracy of play even exceeding that of serious OTB games. All of these varieties of players participate in various online ("correspondence-like") chess events and everyone has to come to terms with the innate inadequacies of these encounters.

I think that the crux of the discussion is: which is more important -- the sporting aspect of the leagues (which definitely wants tighter schedules) or the big participation, the sort of bring-them-all-in approach? To me, both hold merit, but I probably lean towards the latter. Nonetheless, I think that Rehubelent's idea for a potential reform is a very commendable initiative.

xarxziux's point about sometimes wishing to think longer for one move is a valid one especially for the most serious correspondence chess players.

In my experience, here on chess.com on the one hand side, the thing that can be used in such cases is vacation time.

On the other hand side, as opposed to computer engine based correspondence chess, games here are of course more on the lighter side focusing more on fun than on scientifically working out the very last details of every position, so typically doing without extra thinking time is a real option for most cases even for top players in games with 3 days per move.

Ruhubelent, it is normal that there are matches that can take many, many months to finish. The leagues are made in a way that has no problems with the duration of such matches.

The time control is 3 days per move because it has been established that it is quick enough for the purposes of the league, and long enough for as many players to be able to take part as possible.

An alternative could be not to regulate each game's time, but to fix a reasonable time limit for each team match: victory would be awarded to the team leading the score after a set time, say three or six months.

This will not, of course, prevent any match from finishing earlier (with all individual games finished); but it would give timely results in each season, and would incite team admis to incite their own players not to abuse vacation...

What do you think?

Sure there is move abuse and vacation abuse but I think reducing it to such a tight schedule will only reduce the # of players participating. Not everyone is online every day, that's the whole purpose of 'correspondence chess' is to allow some of that freedom.

I also disagree with the no vacation idea, should players not join matches because they are going on vacation soon and don't want to be penalized? I think these ideas are only going to discourage registration.

However, as for vacation abuse, perhaps a rule could be instituted that max vacation for purposes of the matches be 30 days unless prior consent is granted by the WL? If someone merely takes 2 or 3 months vacation and holds up the match from completion, they can be counted as losses even if they win their games. Sorta like is already done with those playing for 2 or more teams in one season. 

Was going through threads after a while. Totally agreed with your thorough reasonings. You've an incredible sense of how life works.

Appreciated Mago! 👍

Curious why later fixtures don't begin until August / September in a calendar year event.

I do not like the suggested change. Keep  the standard 3 day/move limit. Most players do not abuse it.

I would not be able to play in WL matches with a timing of less than 3 days and neither would many Team Scotland players.