Forums

Game Time!

Sort:
AWARDCHESS
AWARDCHESS
Feb 5, 2009
0
#1

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/average-time-per-game-stat

AWARDCHESS
AWARDCHESS
Feb 5, 2009
0
#2
5th February 2009, 07:01am
#3
by Karl_
La Porte, Texas United States
Member Since: Dec 2008
Member Points: 157

i understand that.  And it is very misleading if you want to find out how fast players finish games, not make individual moves.  for example:  Awardchess is the leaderboard king.  His average time per move is under 2 hours I believe.  But he has over 700 games in progress.  In that case the time/move stat only means he makes a lot of moves each day.  But it takes him a long time to complete each game as he makes one move in a game and then goes to the next available game and makes one move there and keeps repeating this.  Therefore if playing against him you will be lucky if he makes one move a day in your game.

Here is a playing tip if you play against someone with a high number of games in progress.  Keep the game as complex as possible and don't trade off your pieces early on.  Those types of players are prone to blunders and they don't have time to use the analysis board.  So they will fall for traps and long combinations.  All they are doing is playing all their games like speed chess.  So players that like to think and plan in their games have a huge advantage over them.  I have at least one game won against a player rated over 200 points above me using this stategy.  And in my second game against him I was up a piece only to blunder it away later and ended up drawing the game.  I gained a lot of rating points for those 2

 

5th February 2009, 09:42am
#6
by erik
Mountain View, CA United States
Member Since: May 2007
Member Points: 7814

Karl_

Actually, the average time per move takes into consideration how many games are being played. It is the average time per move per game. So we take the TOTAL amount of time it was your move in ALL of your games, and divide that by the number of moves you made (or something like that... :D ).

Point is, it does what you want it to do already!

 

Edit | Delete
5th February 2009, 10:29am
#10
by AWARDCHESS
Los Angeles United States
Member Since: May 2008
Member Points: 8362

Actually,my average Game is 27.4 moves!

 

 

 

 

 Wins Losses Draws Games Moves
Total 2372 (58%) 1332 (33%) 368 (9%) 4072 111569
White 1212 (59%) 657 (32%) 169 (8%) 2038 (50%) 54979 (49%)
Black 1160 (57%) 675 (33%) 199 (10%) 2034 (50%) 56589.5 (51%)
Moves
Total Moves: 111569
Avg./game: 27.4
Avg. time/move: 1 hr 53 mins
Avg./game
as White:		 26.98
Avg./game
as Black:		 27.82
Avg./game
when Won:		 22.77
Avg./game
when Lost:		 33.44
Avg./game
when Draw:		 35.38
AWARDCHESS
AWARDCHESS
Feb 5, 2009
0
#3
#12
by Beelzebub666
Great Britain
Member Since: Feb 2008
Member Points: 240

Awardchess, your time/move stat is 1 hour 54 mins, and you are playing 688 consecutive games.

Would you say that stat is an accurate depiction of your average move time in a game, or would you say it takes you more like a day to make two moves in one game?  It seems that either you are online 24/7, or playing 700 games at a time is a recent thing, or Erik has his math wrong.

5th February 2009, 10:50am
#13
by LucenaTDB
Johnson City TN United States
Member Since: Oct 2008
Member Points: 278

Awardchess is acually a poor example to use for this discussion as they is a possibility that his stats are not quite correct.  His stats show two timeouts that he has said in the past did not occur.  I was following his stats closely when the second one was given to him coming off a vacation status and I never saw a game that he actually timed out on.  Just an observation.

Edit | Delete

5th February 2009, 11:02am
#14
by AWARDCHESS
Los Angeles United States
Member Since: May 2008
Member Points: 8363

I would like to say, that most statements of Karl are not correct here!

Erik pointed some right corrections on that, already...

I finished a lot of games just in one day or close to it!

When I has some times, at least a few!- I played not only current games with less time for me, as urgent response, but rather I played a players!

 I choose a few partners, who respond quickly, and try to finish our games! It works in most cases well!

Another way for me is looking and playing the whole Tournaments! I choose a few Tournaments from my list, and makes all my moves on! It works well, mostly...

I do not have any Time-Out, yet!

The Slow Tournaments is definitely not my fault, but rather a Site fault!

 A lot of players are just a freeze!

I think, that Non-Premium Members has no rights for Vacation, at all! This will be a biggest force to increase a Speed of the Tournaments + to make a Business for Site Owners!

Greg

AWARDCHESS
AWARDCHESS
Feb 5, 2009
0
#4
5th February 2009, 11:16am
#16
by AWARDCHESS
Los Angeles United States
Member Since: May 2008
Member Points: 8365

I had no Time-Out! It was a Server mess 4 Times!

2 Times the Staff corrected it, and 2 times admit the Server mistake... and declined to make corrections!

I am not proud of that Server!..

AWARDCHESS
AWARDCHESS
Feb 5, 2009
0
#5
5th February 2009, 11:17am
#17
by joetheplumber
The White House United States
Member Since: Nov 2008
Member Points: 231

You already have what you need. Time/move means each game. So if you have 700 games and you play exactly at 24 hours per move, your T/M is 24 hours, not 24/700 hours.

Your stat is very easy to calculate, just multiply the average time per move by the average number of moves:

T/M/G x #M/G = T/G

and you get time per game.

Im sure eric could add this stat, but it wouldnt mean much since the #M is quite unpredicatble when two somewhat evenly matched players play.

5th February 2009, 11:21am
#18
by Loomis
Durham, NC United States
Member Since: Oct 2007
Member Points: 2607

Karl, the time per move stat already does what you want. I think you are getting confused because you are looking at Awardchess's stats and they are misleading. There is a bug in the code that makes his time per move go back to zero. It then incrases over time until it erroneously goes back to zero again. It would be nice if the bug were tracked down and fixed, but there is a lot of work to do.

Edit | Delete

5th February 2009, 11:24am
#19
by AWARDCHESS
Los Angeles United States
Member Since: May 2008
Member Points: 8367

I played 1 day per move Tournaments, Matches, and Friendly games, 3, 5, 7, 10, 14 days!

Maybe it is not so easy to calculate my time per thoughts with my Degrees...

AWARDCHESS
AWARDCHESS
Feb 5, 2009
0
#6
5th February 2009, 11:55am
#22
by erik
Mountain View, CA United States
Member Since: May 2007
Member Points: 7819
valyar wrote:

This stats is misleading. I am playing a game now that drags for 7 weeks or so, without any vacations. My opponent has a longish average, 9h per move, but that does not add up to 7 weeks. What happened, once this person started losing, he/she started making moves once per three days- hoping for my time-out I guess. Perhaps Karl wants to weed out this type of delays. Such patterns could be detected if stats reports not only averages but also standard deviation of times per move and perhaps some other statistical measure. 

... hrmm. I don't know what to say. It seems very complicated. There is no way to perfectly predict people's future behavior with the past. I think the current stat reflects the average interaction you would expect from that person. But in the long term the only way to reliably know who you should play with is to become friends with them or organize a group :)

Edit | Delete
5th February 2009, 12:09pm
#23
by AWARDCHESS
Los Angeles United States
Member Since: May 2008
Member Points: 8372

Even if you will organize Group and Team, it will not guarantee any future results, Time-Outs, and long time gaming!

I had a lot of Time-Out in my Teams for both sides!

Greg

5th February 2009, 12:13pm
#24
by wicksta85
Cincy (The Nati) United States
Member Since: Jul 2008
Member Points: 272

Karl_,

Just because someone has a low average time/game stat doesn't mean that the games are going to last long.  In a tournament with multiple players, one or more could easily have an injury, computer problems, a power outage, or other events that could prevent them from getting on the computer.  If that person is a member, there could be auto vacation time, so the game could drag on for weeks.  Don't forget that just because someone has a quick time/game stat doesnt necessarily mean that you'll have a quick tournament.

5th February 2009, 12:29pm
#25
by Karl_
La Porte, Texas United States
Member Since: Dec 2008
Member Points: 160

Awardchess is a perfect example.  Yes, he may finish a ton of games in one day on his game list but when did he start those games?  A month ago?  There is no way he could have a low time per game unless he has a team that is helping him make all his moves.  Making 700 moves in one day is a huge thing to do.  And that means even if he does that most of his games still only get one move from him in a day if they are lucky.

I have played a lot of players with over 100 games in progress and none are fast players.  Some have acturally stayed with my game at times and made 3-10 moves with me but they only had about 100 games in progress.  And those games still took a long time.

To erik:  no stat you do will be perfect because it is a two player game and the other player does influence your stat.  Even time per move is influenced by the other player.  If he makes a move when you are in bed then the clock is ticking and it is not your fault.  And time per move is only that, I understand how it is calculated but if you have 500 games in progress what does it tell you?  Only that you make a lot of moves in a timely fashion.  It does not indicate individual game move progress.  I feel a better indicator for time per move would NOT be to average in all the games but make the stat:  time per move per game.  That would be a better indicator of game progress.  For example:  If you make one move per game each day then your time/move/game would be 24 hours.  This stat would also be influenced by the other player BUT the one you want to eliminate from joining your tourny would have to have a big number.  The other player may have a lower AVERAGE for this stat if he plays faster agianst other players.  Which the 500 games in progress guy does not do.  If I make 24 moves a day in each game I am in then my time/move/game average would be one hour.  And that stat would help TDs host faster tournys.  But when specifically looking for faster completion time for games don't you think an average of this would be helpful?  You are directly getting a stat for what you want.  And I think if you check (I don't know how fast that may be for you) you would at least find that games in progress would greatly influence and be closely correlated to this stat.  Especially if the games in progress are in the hundreds.  There will always be other types of slow players but at least it would eliminate the 500 games in progress ones.  I saw one player with over 1000 games in progress!  How long would it take to play a game against him?  Perhaps an option for TDs to set a limit on the games in progress?  It is already a stat.  It may be the easiest way to help the problem quickly.  That would at least serve the purpose of making sure you don't get those with huge numbers in your tournaments and help most of the tournys I have been in.

Awardchess said:

 I choose a few partners, who respond quickly, and try to finish our games! It works in most cases well!

What does that mean?  The vast majority of your games have to be in tournys.  Do you hand pick your tourny opponents somehow?  And if you mean you stay in games where your opponet is online with you then what about your other games?  Are they not getting neglected then?  You are currently at the top of the Leaderboard by a large margin aren't you?  Maybe I am thinking of someone else.......

And Awardchess emphasizes a stat saying that his average move per game is 27.4.  So if you make one move a day per game on average then your average time per game would be 27.4 days.  Way too long for me.

Good discussion.  I am just trying to find ways to improve the progress of online games thus shortening their times of completion.  I see the major complaint at this site is how long games, team matches, and tournaments take to complete.  If we find solutions for this then everyone will be happier here.  And I hope that is what the staff also wants.  They are doing a great job, in my opinion, and want to get the job done right.  I admire that and appreciate all the hard work they are doing.

5th February 2009, 12:58pm
#26
by erik
Mountain View, CA United States
Member Since: May 2007
Member Points: 7819

i think we need to leave outliers like awardchess out of the picture - they cloud the relevancy of any stat. most people do not have more than 100 games going (or even 50). that is an easy stat to calculate. so yes, maybe you limit your event to people who have no more than x games in progress?

still the avg. time per move stat is very accurate as to what you want to know - how long does somebody, on average, have a move to make and then make it.

5th February 2009, 01:34pm
#27
by Karl_
La Porte, Texas United States
Member Since: Dec 2008
Member Points: 160

erik:

the problem with average time per game is that that is 50% influenced by the opponent.

I can see where the misunderstanding is here and hope I can clear this up.  What you mean is the EQUATION used to calculate the time per game stat is 50% influenced by the opponent.  And I agree.  But each player has 100% control over who he plays and even if he plays at all.  Which means that the player himself is the controlling factor for this stat, not the opponent.  If I choose to play a team match and know the game might take a long time that is my choice.  If I get into a tourny and a lot of the players have huge game in progress or time/move stat that is my choice.  If I play against a faster moving player then that is my choice.  I hope that clears this up.  It is the choices the player makes that influence all stats the most.  If I have 500 games in progress then I am choosing to be a player who takes a long time to complete each individual game.  I do think the time/move/game stat would be the best indicator now after reading this discussion.  The main point I am trying to make is the time/move stat and the way it is calulated now does not indicate game progress or how fast you complete each game.  Which is what the TDs want to be able to be in control of, faster games so the tournys don't take so long.  Most tourny players want this also.

5th February 2009, 01:41pm
#28
by erik
Mountain View, CA United States
Member Since: May 2007
Member Points: 7819

time/move/game - you mean what we already have? we'll think about adding max games. probably not going to do more than that now.

5th February 2009, 01:45pm
#29
by Karl_
La Porte, Texas United States
Member Since: Dec 2008
Member Points: 160

erik:

i think we need to leave outliers like awardchess out of the picture - they cloud the relevancy of any stat. most people do not have more than 100 games going (or even 50). that is an easy stat to calculate. so yes, maybe you limit your event to people who have no more than x games in progress?

still the avg. time per move stat is very accurate as to what you want to know - how long does somebody, on average, have a move to make and then make it.

Yes, being able to limit the number of games in progress for tourny options would help the problem.  And they are the minority.  But there are enough of them here so that most of the tournys on the list usually end up having at least one of them in it.  They play in so many tournys at one time.  Probably most only play tourny games as they must care about leaderboard points.  Even the small tournys get these players.  Having an option to limit games in progress would be a huge help.  And they would still find tournys to play in as I bet a lot of TDs don't even look at the options.  But a least the smart ones would limit it and the players can choose those to get in.

And I still think the average time per move stat the way it is calculated now is very misleading and does not indicate how fast the player completes his games at all.  Awardchess is the perfect example of this.

Edit | Delete
5th February 2009, 03:01pm
#30
by AWARDCHESS
Los Angeles United States
Member Since: May 2008
Member Points: 8372

 As I told before most your statements here not correct!

I played here not just 700 hours games at once, but 1,200 games at once, as nobody alco did.

And I handle it, without any Time-Out, and without a Team, as you badly suggested, when pointed, that there is no way to do it without a Team! Everyone measured by own!

Now, you wanna limit me at the # of games!

Who are you to do it?

I has Contract with a Staff, not you, where it was stated, that Platinum Member can play unlimited # of games!

I did, what I can!

You wanna limit not just me, but a biggest and best part of the Tournament Winners! They will not appropriate it, as well!

They playing a few dozen Tournaments each! And it will be more on time! or many of them will leave the Site forever...

They will lost the Interest to play here!

You have disgraceful Comments!

I ran a couple hundred Tournaments, as a TD!

If you wanna play fast Tournaments, go to Live Chess...

And now just looks at Stats of 50 Best Tournament Players at www.chess.com, while they are still playing here!

AWARDCHESS.

Tournament Points Leaderboard 2009

My Tournament Points: 7,088

 

« Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ...  99  | Next »
Name# TournamentsPoints
#1 AWARDCHESS (1738) United States 355 7,088
#2 NM ozzie_c_cobblepot (2196) United States 50 3,742
#3 RathiDragon (1795) Poland 85 3,326
#4 NM TheChessGym (1883) United States 82 2,284
#5 jcamargos (2300) Mexico 79 2,053
#6 fcpanginen (1965) Philippines 129 2,008
#7 albatros1 (2292) Slovenia 37 1,702
#8 GaryD (1763) United States 73 1,559
#9 Hammers (1849) England 67 1,482
#10 lordbobbetti (1619) United States 194 1,385
#11 Nf6 (1820) England 48 1,342
#12 bobbo52 (1796) England 36 1,321
#13 Aron58179 (1729) International 22 1,312
#14 NM Zug (2667) United States 13 1,185
#15 Dozy (1826) Australia 39 981
#16 Robik (1835) Austria 26 977
#17 orejano (1740) Argentina 67 972
#18 papabear (1568) England 54 968
#19 PerfectGent (2381) Scotland 28 936
#20 JMack207 (1545) United States 84 924
#21 Tom543 (1760) United States 48 913
#22 tarkus (2254) United States 26 888
#23 SeMastaa (1849) Austria 42 874
#24 WolfStriker1 (1804) United States 33 868
#25 mmikeman41 (1804) United States 47 858
#26 bigkahoona (1660) Canada 35 858
#27 zion (1921) France 24 856
#28 jbduhadaway (2100) United States 51 851
#29 phobias13 (1479) United Kingdom 50 830
#30 RoE66 (1817) International 13 827
#31 CBA (2004) England 37 814
#32 Amr14 (2343) Egypt 24 791
#33 mozerdozer (1252) United States 92 791
#34 zinedin (1753) Romania 37 791
#35 LABRAT12 (1578) United States 38 777
#36 wolfette (1503) Croatia 65 774
#37 Sulla (1972) Russia 24 772
#38 itsMEEHdude (2210) Philippines 22 752
#39 phantomfears (1750) Scotland 39 749
#40 nieldale (1375) United States 55 744
#41 MackGarner (1929) United States 52 734
#42 bravedave (1757) England 30 724
#43 rjlanc (1507) England 93 723
#44 Preachrboy (1677) United States 48 717
#45 bogdanekifor (2033) Romania 34 708
#46 MM78 (2448) Ireland 14 706
#47 Gonnosuke (2776) United States 16 701
#48 pob (2062) United Kingdom 24 699
#49 rdallison (2120) United States 9 695
#50 polleke (2089) Belgium 26 690
Edit | Delete
5th February 2009, 03:05pm
#31
by AWARDCHESS
Los Angeles United States
Member Since: May 2008
Member Points: 8372
Tournaments
All Tournaments
Leaderboard Points: 143
Events Entered: 15
1st Place Finishes: 2
2nd Place Finishes: 0
3rd Place Finishes: 0
Withdrawals: 1
Tournaments Hosted: 0
Total # Players Hosted: 0
Tournament Games
Total: 131
Won: 79 (60.3%)
Lost: 46 (35.1%)
Drawn: 6 (4.6%)
In Progress: 20
Edit | Delete

5th February 2009, 03:06pm
#32
by AWARDCHESS
Los Angeles United States
Member Since: May 2008
Member Points: 8372
Tournaments
All Tournaments
Leaderboard Points: 7,088
Events Entered: 355
1st Place Finishes: 56
2nd Place Finishes: 0
3rd Place Finishes: 2
Withdrawals: 0
Tournaments Hosted: 100
Total # Players Hosted: 605
Tournament Games
Total: 3,731
Won: 2,172 (58.2%)
Lost: 1,217 (32.6%)
Drawn: 342 (9.2%)
In Progress: 377
Mm40
Mm40
Show your flair!
Feb 5, 2009
0
#7

Awardchess, what they mean is, a tournament director has an option when setting up a tournament saying that a player can not join if they have more than x amount of games going on at the present. You will still be unable to play unlimited games, just not join some tournaments.

AWARDCHESS
AWARDCHESS
Feb 5, 2009
0
#8

They already limited me! I do not like it!

When they will limit all players, they will loose best ones!

Greg

AWARDCHESS
AWARDCHESS
Feb 5, 2009
0
#9
5th February 2009, 03:19pm
#33
by Loomis
Durham, NC United States
Member Since: Oct 2007
Member Points: 2609
erik wrote:

time/move/game - you mean what we already have? we'll think about adding max games. probably not going to do more than that now.

What he wants is what you already have (if you just multiply it by moves/game you get time/game -- not the toal time, just the time contributed by that user). Unfortunately, you don't calculate time/move correctly for every user (example: Awardchess).

5th February 2009, 03:26pm
#34
by valyar
Russia
Member Since: Oct 2008
Member Points: 465
erik wrote:
... hrmm. I don't know what to say. It seems very complicated. There is no way to perfectly predict people's future behavior with the past. I think the current stat reflects the average interaction you would expect from that person. But in the long term the only way to reliably know who you should play with is to become friends with them or organize a group :)

 Erik, your are right here of course but you did not really address my point. I do not think this person in my example treats me differently from others. And if so, such games would be reflected if more detailed statistics was available. Some tournaments have their restrictions, including those on average time per move and frequency of time-outs. But I think the what most people want is to play at a comfortable rate. It could be one move per week for some and one game per day for others. Stats could help us to make an educated guess what to expect from a person. Standard deviation is a standard function in all worksheets, for example Excel. It could be easily computed, the same way you do for averages. People who drag on with some games would have unusually large standard deviation. And that could help decide whom to invite to a tournament.

 

Another solution of course is to impose stricter time-out rules for a tornament and limit total time per game (that is, when it is your turn) in addition to time per move.  

5th February 2009, 03:27pm
#35
by Beelzebub666
Great Britain
Member Since: Feb 2008
Member Points: 242

I remain unconvinced that the algorithm used is functioning as it should be.  700 games is a lot of games.  If the man sleeps 8 hours, and plays chess for the other 16 at 43.75 moves per hour, then he can make 700 moves in a day, and even then only the first 12.5% of them will be done in under two hours.  Sure behaviour can change, by some miracle of timing all his opponents could make their moves shortly before he is ready, some will not move every day etc, but there's a long way to go to bring the under 2 hours figure to feasability.  And i'm yet to play anyone with a lot of games on the go whose performance bore the slightest relation to this supposed time/move/game stat.  I favour the Erik made a boob hypothesis.

 

An an unrelated note to awardchess, noone is suggesting limiting how many games you can play, just adding another option for tournament directors who want to choose it.

5th February 2009, 03:34pm
#36
by Karl_
La Porte, Texas United States
Member Since: Dec 2008
Member Points: 161

To Awardchess:  you will still be able to play in tournys if they make the new option for TDs.  Not all TDs will use it I am sure.  I'm sorry you feel the way you do and there is nothing personal here.  I am just trying to make help make the site better for all and I even submit bug reports when I find bugs just to help out.

The thing is I see many complaints in all groups I visit about games taking too long.  And guys with too many games in progress are not the only problem.  And I am also frustrated by long times to complete tourny games and tournaments themselves.  So come on now.  Any solution to the slow game play is a plus for the vast majority of players.  If you really cared about chess.com and its members you should be happy with anything that would speed up games being finished faster.   If you and your fellow tourny leaders did not get in so many of the tournaments I would not even know you exist now.  If your are platinum you can make all the tournys you want for you and your leaderboard friends so all will be happy.  I can't see the downside or why you have a problem with that.

If you and the other point leaders want to go that is up to you.  I doubt you will though.  But it might make a lot of players here happy.  I really don't care as I have already solved the slow game play problem in tournys for myself.

Edit | Delete

5th February 2009, 03:41pm
#37
by AWARDCHESS
Los Angeles United States
Member Since: May 2008
Member Points: 8381

The Staff already limited me to Run new Tournaments, they shut off all 42 my new Tournaments, where a lot of players already signed on! It happen a couple months  ago...

What they lost it is a few hundred Tournament Players to Joy Chess!

This was outstanding decision to break me out! It not happen! They squeezes me, but unable to make me a puppet...

Greg

AWARDCHESS
AWARDCHESS
Feb 5, 2009
0
#10
5th February 2009, 03:46pm
#38
by Beelzebub666
Great Britain
Member Since: Feb 2008
Member Points: 243

You are insane, but in an amiable way.

Edit | Delete

5th February 2009, 03:49pm
#39
by AWARDCHESS
Los Angeles United States
Member Since: May 2008
Member Points: 8385

Are you Doctor?

Show me your License!

AWARDCHESS
AWARDCHESS
Feb 5, 2009
0
#11
#5
by AWARDCHESS
Los Angeles United States
Member Since: May 2008
Member Points: 8391
5th February 2009, 03:52pm
#40
by erik
Mountain View, CA United States
Member Since: May 2007
Member Points: 7820
Beelzebub666 wrote:

I remain unconvinced that the algorithm used is functioning as it should be.  700 games is a lot of games.  If the man sleeps 8 hours, and plays chess for the other 16 at 43.75 moves per hour, then he can make 700 moves in a day, and even then only the first 12.5% of them will be done in under two hours.  Sure behaviour can change, by some miracle of timing all his opponents could make their moves shortly before he is ready, some will not move every day etc, but there's a long way to go to bring the under 2 hours figure to feasability.  And i'm yet to play anyone with a lot of games on the go whose performance bore the slightest relation to this supposed time/move/game stat.  I favour the Erik made a boob hypothesis.

you fail to consider 2 things:

#1 - it is not always his move in all of his games. his opponents may make moves every 1-72 hours. so a lot of time he is just waiting for his opponents to move.

#2 - he probably has several slaves chained to computers in his home. he gives them food when they win a game, and punishes them when they don't.

Edit | Delete

5th February 2009, 04:07pm
#6
by AWARDCHESS
Los Angeles United States
Member Since: May 2008
Member Points: 8391
5th February 2009, 04:03pm
#41
by AWARDCHESS
Los Angeles United States
Member Since: May 2008
Member Points: 8390

#1 My oppnents make a moves every 1 day-14 days, it even 4,5 more than 72 hours!, unless they Time-Out! And it also happen very often!

#2.I have no home! I am homeless last 7 years...

#3. I can consider to buy some Chess slaves at ebay, when I can afford it! or maybe just buy some Unemployed Staff Members... At least they can play at Live Chess! for me...

Greg

AWARDCHESS
AWARDCHESS
Feb 5, 2009
0
#12
5th February 2009, 04:06pm
#42
by Beelzebub666
Great Britain
Member Since: Feb 2008
Member Points: 244

I considered #1 in saying some will not move every day, but I just don't think it's feasible for him to be playing that number of games in under 2 hours a move.  #2 would of course explain things, but i'm going to test my boob hypothesis by challenging him to play.

edit: not accepting challenges.  If you are up for a game awardchess, issue a challenge to me instead.  I suggest 3 days per move, and the game name should be 'cuckoo'.

5th February 2009, 04:13pm
#43
by DeepGreene
Vancouver Canada
Member Since: Jan 2008
Member Points: 364
erik wrote:

the problem with average time per game is that that is 50% influenced by the opponent.

Wow, that's news to me!  I always thought it was the average response time, once it was the relevant player's move.

Think about the fact that only half of the contributing data actually represents the behaviour of the player that the result presumes to describe...  This metric is hardly worth the space it takes up on the page. 

Edit | Delete

5th February 2009, 04:14pm
#44
by AWARDCHESS
Los Angeles United States
Member Since: May 2008
Member Points: 8394

I do not think that you will like to hold it name forever, after loosing...

If it say on my profile : 'not accepting challenges", than it is! No accept Challenges! I have my own planes to do!

Greg

vagamundo
vagamundo
Feb 5, 2009
0
#13

I also wonder about how that rate is taken...  I played awardchess in a tourney & even when winning he took the whole 7 days grace period allowed by the settings. That much is ok with me. I always reply the morning after every move & yet, his rate is 1h 53min while mine is 4h 6min...  How's that???!!!???

AWARDCHESS
AWARDCHESS
Feb 5, 2009
0
#14

I use a Soviet Clock! They are best!Tongue out

Greg

AWARDCHESS
AWARDCHESS
Feb 5, 2009
0
#15
#45
by Beelzebub666
Great Britain
Member Since: Feb 2008
Member Points: 245

Oh sure, I can quite see how 701 games would just be far to much to commit to.  I'll just keep an eye on a couple of your current ones picked at random.

Edit | Delete

5th February 2009, 04:43pm
#46
by AWARDCHESS
Los Angeles United States
Member Since: May 2008
Member Points: 8398

Go ahead! Make my day!

You like to get a free lessons? Get it!

Greg

AWARDCHESS
AWARDCHESS
Feb 5, 2009
0
#16
5th February 2009, 05:02pm
#47
by DeepGreene
Vancouver Canada
Member Since: Jan 2008
Member Points: 366
DeepGreene wrote:
erik wrote:

the problem with average time per game is that that is 50% influenced by the opponent.

Wow, that's news to me!  I always thought it was the average response time, once it was the relevant player's move.

Think about the fact that only half of the contributing data actually represents the behaviour of the player that the result presumes to describe...  This metric is hardly worth the space it takes up on the page. 

Mea culpa: Comment cheerfully withdrawn.  Thanks for pointing out my error, Erik.  I read this too quickly/out-of-context.

AWARDCHESS
AWARDCHESS
Feb 5, 2009
0
#17
5th February 2009, 07:03pm
#48
by Karl_
La Porte, Texas United States
Member Since: Dec 2008
Member Points: 163

Awardchess:

The Staff already limited me to Run new Tournaments, they shut off all 42 my new Tournaments, where a lot of players already signed on! It happen a couple months  ago...

What they lost it is a few hundred Tournament Players to Joy Chess!

This was outstanding decision to break me out! It not happen! They squeezes me, but unable to make me a puppet...

Greg

And what does this tell us?  That something was done that was perhaps abusive for the staff to limit you.  If I were you I would start keeping a lower profile.  I have just noticed something very fishy going on in your game list...................

Some of it could be causing the time per move bug they say Awardchess has.

Edit | Delete

5th February 2009, 07:09pm
#49
by AWARDCHESS
Los Angeles United States
Member Since: May 2008
Member Points: 8413

If you just noticed something very fishy going on my game list - Report to Staff!

Othewise just keep your nasty comments out of my name!

You Abuse me!

Greg

AWARDCHESS
AWARDCHESS
Feb 5, 2009
0
#18
5th February 2009, 07:03pm
#48
by Karl_
La Porte, Texas United States
Member Since: Dec 2008
Member Points: 164

Awardchess:

The Staff already limited me to Run new Tournaments, they shut off all 42 my new Tournaments, where a lot of players already signed on! It happen a couple months  ago...

What they lost it is a few hundred Tournament Players to Joy Chess!

This was outstanding decision to break me out! It not happen! They squeezes me, but unable to make me a puppet...

Greg

And what does this tell us?  That something was done that was perhaps abusive for the staff to limit you.  If I were you I would start keeping a lower profile.  I have just noticed something very fishy going on in your game list...................

Some of it could be causing the time per move bug they say Awardchess has.

Edit | Delete
5th February 2009, 07:09pm
#49
by AWARDCHESS
Los Angeles United States
Member Since: May 2008
Member Points: 8420

If you just noticed something very fishy going on my game list - Report to Staff!

Othewise just keep your nasty comments out of my name!

You Abuse me!

Greg

5th February 2009, 07:22pm
#50
by Karl_
La Porte, Texas United States
Member Since: Dec 2008
Member Points: 164

Awardchess:

If you just noticed something very fishy going on my game list - Report to Staff!

Othewise just keep your nasty comments out of my name!

You Abuse me!

Greg

Thank you very much for the suggestion.  I was waiting for it.

Edit | Delete
5th February 2009, 07:29pm
#51
by AWARDCHESS
Los Angeles United States
Member Since: May 2008
Member Points: 8420

I do not need you thank you!

You Abused me!

Greg

Edit | Delete

5th February 2009, 07:30pm
#52
by AWARDCHESS
Los Angeles United States
Member Since: May 2008
Member Points: 8420

cheekychops0'

Rating
Current: 1432
Highest: 1539 (3 Jan 2009)
Avg. Opp.: 1365
Best Win: 1990 (Earlengray)
Today's Rank: #18040 of 56,912 (68.3%)

 

Games
Total: 4069
Won: 1584 (39%)
Lost: 2415 (59%)
Drawn: 70 (2%)
Unrated: 41
In Progress: 16

 

Moves
Timeouts: 12 (0%)
Avg./game: 29
Time/move: 1 hr 23 mins
TheGrobe
TheGrobe
Feb 5, 2009
0
#19

What is this nonsense?  You've just posted the entire contents of another thread into this one.

Are your member points more valuable than everyone else's ability to navigate this site?

Please stop cluttering the forums.

Saccadic
Saccadic
Feb 5, 2009
0
#20

Why the need to copy and paste tables in every post?