Get an iphone or android phone or play longer time games. I would disapprove of this change because it would take a longer time for games to complete and I have not noticed a problem with the current format.
New time format for correspondence chess
Sort:
Not saying this should replace the current play completer, why even?, this should be another option for the true correspondence lover, in olden time it would take several days for a letter to arrive.
I hate leaving things unfinished, so many times i play a losing move hoping my opponent would reply quicker. So in turn i play blitz moves in correspondence, like many others.
Nov 20, 2010
0
#4
What about considering seven days per move? I understand that the other guy can still play a move in one day, but you would have seven full days to think it over when the position is complex.
I'm going to switch from 3 to 7 days. It will give me more freedom. I could play one day per move if it's just simple opening theory stuff, all the way to 7 days for the really tricky stuff.
rdecredico wrote:
Not a fan of this.
I prefer for all to have the freedom to move at whatever rate they choose, at whatever frequency they choose, and to be allowed to change frequencies whenever they choose.
I agree.
Why not stick with the current format, but not submit your move until you're sure? You can make a candidate move day one and day two on the analysis board, but not make the actual one until day 3. Or, if you need more than three days plus opponent time, play longer time controls -- it accomplishes similar.
Estragon wrote:
tonydal wrote:
lol...with all the people constantly complaining that their opponents take too long to move? Somehow I don't think this is gonna wash.
Obviously we need to get them all in the same room to work out the differences. Can't we all just get along?
NO!!!
I like the current setup.Turn on the e-mail reminder if you would need additional warning and that's it.
Thanks for your replies. I was very upset about losing on time in lots of my games, even think most of my loses were time related either real or imaginary (in general i play people with sismilar ratings mostly without easy crushes).
Now i have learnt to play bullet and try to look for the best move in any position (on Kingscrusher's advice) so i am a bit quicker (in blitz) and more patient (in online), say, even though someone is not resigning i will try to mate them in the least possible number of moves and not just exchange down quickly.
Still i think this is not bad idea, knowing precisely when a move is played and having no excuses for bad blunders, i'd assume this kind of time format would be really hard to play.
Regards, nk
EDIT Heading: Another alternative for playing (not replacement).
HI all,
I am certain there are many of you out there who are playing live chess and are really frustrated with the current time format, with people taking "random" amount of time to play. I just lost a game against a stronger opponent after achieving a good advantage, because i was very busy and he played his move in 1 day instead his custom 3.
Why not have a game in which you have preset amount of time to play, say 3 days to make a move and in exactly 3 days the move is made. You need to preset the move and can change it as much as you want, but when the agreed time is up your preset move is played by the server. You cannot play 10 moves in 1 day, and then 1 move in 10 days like now. You can play (set) your move 5 min after your opponent has played, but still have to wait 3 days until your move is played out.
This way you will know in advance when your opponent will play his/her move and don't have to log in all the time to see if he/she has played, as well as having consistent playing system.
Tell me what you think...
Nick
EDIT: If you make the first move on Monday 00:01 and time control is 3.5 days you can always make the most thinking on Sunday. Downside is the time taken in the opening but i like the consistency of play this idea presents. There was a tournament everyone of equal strength, almost all the games were over but for one player who was on move 5 at most.