Correspondence Chess Rules for Variant-Chess

Very good change

All right.

Thanks for your comments. Here's my replies:

#14. Correct. You must request a reply. Most people just say "time warning". (I'll plan to add this phrase to the rules).

#15. I agree this is vague. McGoohan also asked the same question. I think we should allow vacation to be announced after a warning, but before a move is made. I'll make that clear unless anyone has a clear reason to not allow it.

#16. Yes, a time warning can be issued anytime after the time-control is exceeded. A game can sit for any number of days with no problem if a warning is not issued. The opponent is not under the 24-hour warning until the thread is bumped and "time warning" announced.

#17. Note the rule says "If a board has not been posted which is at most 1-ply from the current position, and a player requests to see a board, time waiting for the board does not count as playing time." This means that a time warning can be negated if the board within 1-ply from the current position has not been posted. The current practice of announcing "WFB" (wait for board) seems to be fine to me.

Let me know if anything might still be unclear, or sounds ambiguous.

(for items where I plan to do an update I will plan to do it be mid-September. I usually allow time for others to comment before any text is revised.)

This is also my understanding.

If one of the players is also the moderator, and for any reason is not able to post boards, I guess that player can and should post "WFB" - funny enough.

Yes, this is my understanding. Notice that for a player "A" who is moding his own game, play would go like this:

Player "A": declares move/posts board (as the mod)

Player "B": declares move.

Player "A": declares move (must do so within time-control). (board is now 2-plys old)

Player "B": Since the board is 2-plys old, this player can request a board before moving. He posts "WFB".

(The game is now paused, waiting for player "A" to post the board. Once the board is posted, the clock begins).

When I mod my own games, I always post a board with my move, so "WFB" is never seen.

But when I mod a game for other players, it's quite normal for them to play several moves (usually two, three, or more plys) before someone says "WFB".

A lot of this has not been discussed or spelled out, so it's good that we're doing it now. It's probably good that we are making this process more defined. I'll try to eventually add this to the rules in a more formal way.

I think the rules are clear on this, but I can't remember where I read them. 

IIRC - A player has the right to WFB every 2 plies, so two moves need to be made (one each player) before a player can wait for a new board without it eating into his time.

As for mod influence, I bump threads and remind players it's on them, and have issued time warnings, but I only mod friendlies. I'm not actually sure if the waiting player should be the one to issue time warnings, it wouldn't hurt to have that clarified. I don't have a problem with mods bumping threads though, in fact I'd argue it should be a requirement for the mod to give a 24 hour bump, but in practice that's probably not going to work since it's easy for a mod to forget. 

Some people (me included) rely heavily on notifications. I do have shortcuts to my games, but it's not how I usually navigate. It would suck if I were timed out without warning because I checked the notification and then forgot, so a mod bump can be helpful.

Time controls for games in tournaments need to be enforced in some way for the tournament to not go on forever. If everyone is waiting for a game to finish and the last move was 6 months ago with no time warning called, then we have a problem. Mods or tournament directors being able to call time warnings is necessary to prevent this.

Overall, I think it's not a big issue. A player that gets a timeout warning shouldn't complain, if he plays slower than the time control, he deserves it. A player that does not give timeout warnings shouldn't complain, he had a chance to do so. So, no matter whether a mod decides to make a time warning or not, I don't think either player can really complain. Of course a good mod should treat both players the same way.

When it comes to updating the board or bumping the thread, that is actually allowed by pretty much anyone, not just the players or mods. It's not private forums, so we shouldn't pretend the game is private without anyone else being allowed to say anything. We don't allow others to talk about the ongoing game, but they can say for example who they are rooting for.

Getting a quick response is a good thing and we are listening. You shouldn't expect everyone to agree with you. People view things differently and if the majority seem to agree something needs a change, then we'll try to make a change.

Diagrams should be correct, but it's up to the players to make sure that no mistakes are made and request it to be fixed if something is wrong. People try to make correct diagrams, but mistakes happen. I think I make over 99% correct diagrams, but I'm not perfect (like maybe 1 mistake for every 10 game I mod and each game has a lot of diagrams). Reposting moves when I make the diagram tend to help to avoid mistakes.

I have a query... if someone is modding their own game, what takes precedence? The posted move, or the board? I mean in my game with Ry, I typoed my move but then played my intended move on the board. I argued my board is binding, not the move I posted, but is that really fair? It's an unrated friendly so it's not an issue regarding this game, but it would help to know where I stand in the future.

The typed move is binding. The rules already say so.

Don't tell Ry,

I mean, it was an obvious typo, no doubt about my intention. But yeah if I won't get away with that in a rated tournie game, then I need to be more careful.

I think we need rules on what to do if someone posts comments about an active game.

If it is someone that is not a player, then it's easy. Block that person.

But if it is a player, then what to do? Blocking him would prevent him to post on the games he play, so that is not ideal. For now, I have removed ry from the leaderboard for 1 month for repeatedly commenting on ongoing games. @McGoohan suggested 100 minus points in the rating could be appropriate punishment.

I agree we need some type of "probation" for players who post comments about a game. One idea is this:

Definitions:
Minor infraction: Any comment about who is stronger (example: White has no chance to win, he should have resigned X moves ago).

Serious infraction: Any comment about the position of pieces (example: "This looks bad for Black. White's knight has forked two pieces")

Players who make a minor infraction are warned (one time) to stop talking. If the player makes another infraction he goes on probation (see below).

Players who make a serious infraction immediatelly go on probation.

Consequences of probation:
1) The player is not allowed to join any tournaments (including the Candidates Tournament)
2) The player will be withdrawn from any ongoing tournaments (allowed to finish active games, but is withdrawn at completion. Opponent advances).
3) The player is removed from the leaderboard (as Martin suggested).
4) All moderators are asked to not mod games for players on probabation.
Duration of probation: 6 months.

Any comments on this idea?

And what happens if someone still makes comments? I think there should be an immediate and noticeable consequence for every single rule violation, such as the loss of 10% of the rating points. This seems more effective to me than a probationary period (about which someone would have to keep a record!) with restrictions on participation.

I don't think docking rating points is an effective way to punish someone. The rating is supposed to reflect someone's strength, and other peoples' ratings are affected. If Ry loses 100 rating points, and then beats me in a rated game, I lose more points than I otherwise would have done. It doesn't seem fair to the punished player's opponents that they gain less and lose more through circumstances beyond their control.

I think vick's ideas above is a better framework. Perhaps the first instance of probabition should be three months so as to not be overly harsh. We don't want to drive people away from playing, we want people to realise what they are doing is unacceptable in forum chess.

I would be a lot more annoyed if I couldn't sign up for a tournament than I would be if my rating was docked. The ratings measure relative strength, docking points doesn't make someone weaker. It's a symbolic punishment that lacks any actual substance, and has effects on other players.

That's true, I hadn't considered that.

We should probably clarify what is acceptable.

I just posted "ambiguous move" in vick vs gyrados in infinite, because the posted move has two legal interpretations. I might also post "illegal move" in a game i'm watching. I consider this to be helpful  since it decreases the time taken for the move to be clarified or corrected. I've only posted what vick would have done when he arrives online.

The temptation to post "nice move" has cropped up in the past, but I would deem this unacceptable as it alerts the opponent to potential dangers he might have been unaware of, or perhaps even alerts the attacking player to something he didn't see.

I've also posted "ouch" when someone loses the queen. This is where I'd say we enter a grey area. Posting "oops" BEFORE the queen is collected would be very much unacceptable. But posting "ouch" AFTER the queen has been collected is a reaction to an obvious game changing moment.

Maybe if such a comment annoys a player, or a mod, they should ask the offending poster not to do it again, and if they do, then it's an infraction. But that should only apply if the comment is deemed as merely annoying and does not give away any potential info.

As for moderators and tournaments, we have to take into account - and accept - that moderators and Tournament Directors might take their own individual decisions.
The rules in this thread rather dictate what is 'official' and what isn't with respect to ratings and rated games.

So my suggestion is simply to delete the person's rating immediately and when the person is allowed to return he/she will be assigned some default rating.

In the case of ry he is willingly and consciously continuing his actions, stating explicitly that is has no issues his behaviour or with the consequences. I keep him blocked as long as this is the situation, and that is my personal decision.

Somehow a consensus should be found as to what sanctions the moderators should impose in such cases, and these should, in my opinion, be uniform. I see the individual scope of the moderators only in the decision whether AFTER a move an "ouch" or otherwise a spontaneous remark is tolerable or not. And if that were handled absolutely restrictively, we would have a dead silence because none of the viewers would dare to say anything else. I think that would be a pity, because the comments can also be invigorating, as long as they don't give hints on the further course of the game.