On "using vacation days" on "hopelessly lost games"

Well, my two cents would be,

How does one identify when someone is trying to prolong the game...as oppose too his/her current personal situation warranting time away? How does one qualify for vacation time? Is there an interview process...and a visa stamp?

And I agree that the message itself is rather rude...questioning your motive...whatever happened to being innocent until proven guilty?

If the game is actually beyond hope, then is it not just a matter of time? And no matter what "the vacationer" does he will have to face the music, no? So, what's the fuss about?...he can run, but he can't hide...if he has vacation time, and he chooses to waste it on "lost games", then let him. You don't have to sit and stare at the board waiting for his move, you are automatically informed when it's your turn...in the mean time, occupy your time with other games...or return to reality. 

jesterville, you just know. In the case mentioned above, the player is freely playing in all of their games which are still competitive, and they are freely playing in all of their games where they're winning -- and probably complaining about opponents moving too slowly haha -- and yet they're moving at the legal minimum in just the games they're losing.

Pretty clear in that case.

Of course there _could_ be more to the story, right? What if the opponent was sort of rude, well this could be payback, right? What if the opponent started to ask things like "are you planning to play out to checkmate??" or something. There's always two sides to the story.

That's why I play (mostly) 1 0 bullet. Try it! :)

I have over a month of vacation time -- this is silly IMO, this site allows too much for a single user.

Quite the contrary in my case.  In this game we hadn't said a word to each other.  This game was the second of two in a tournament and in the first game we were actually quite friendly, and in fact he gave me a pretty good beating.  :-)

Perhaps it's time to redefine "vacation".  Perhaps something like "leave of absence".  That is what I think vacation time was meant for, i.e. for whatever valid reason (illness, true vacation etc.) one is going to be absent from online play for some time.    I was amused recently when I read one post where the person explained they were going on vacation somewhere & felt there was no conflict in using vacation-time to make a few moves off & on  because after all, they were "on vacation".  Let's come up with a term that is a bit more clear.  Vacation for Dummies?

Its one thing to inconvenience just one opponent with such behavior but when someone does this ( abuses vacation / drags out hopeless position ) in a tournament delaying the start of the next round, for example, they inconvenience MANY people and this shouldnt be tolerated. I believe such a person should receive one warning for such behavior and on a second offense be banned from tournaments or greatly restricted... ( perhaps only permitting such a person to play in " no vacation " tournies ) would be suitable punishment ? 

I believe that if you know that you are going to lose that you should do the gentlemen-like thing and resign. No reason to punish the winning player for making good moves. That's my two cents worth.

Reb, two things

First, there do exist no vacation tournaments.

Second, how would you draw the line? Surely you wouldn't want it to be at the tournament director's discretion. But what is the magic formula where F(n) = vacation abuse or not.

While it might be easy to say that an extreme example is vacation abuse, and it's easy to find cases which are not vacation abuse, drawing the line is all about degrees. Seems like a difficult problem to me.

right now I've got an opponent who is not in a losing spot but: has been on vacation for a very long time, has 71 in progress, moves in not one of them, and logs in regularly.

 I think the player in question should always get the benefit of any doubt Oz but there are such extreme cases that there can be no doubt , these are the ones that should pay a price and the price should be steep enough that they will be discouraged from the practice.

I have one similar to this. He has been on vacation a lot and currently is and yet he is here almost every day playing live chess. While I hesitate to call this abuse it is certainly annoying......  

Are you being serious, are you really implying that you think your opponent should be making moves in the games with you, and not do other things such as play live chess, just because you would prefer him to do what you wish?

Relax.

Respect that your opponents

* will take vacation from Online Chess whenever they think they need it

* will take as much of their allotted thinking time as they think they need

* will happily come to make moves in their game with you when they like to

 Yes, I am being very serious. If I have an opponent that has a game with me but is on vacation a lot I dont expect him/her to be here every day playing live chess while not making moves in our games. It makes NO sense. I said its annoying and it is. Look, maybe it doesnt annoy you , thats fine, but it annoys me. Are you seriously suggesting that I am not allowed to determine what annoys me ?!

I'd probably find it annoying too, if I hadn't stopped playing turn-based already...

Reb, if such things annoy you, do you wish to have your opponents promise before the game that "I will never play Live Chess here while it is my move in an Online Game with Reb, because he has said that this would annoy him"? Don't be surprised if there will be opponents who would react to that in a very surprised way.

Relax, and accept that your opponents are free to set their priorities as they choose. It is their time, and it is their life.

That is a strange definition of vacation time.

When I am online at my computer, this does not mean that I will have the time to analyze an Online Game.

Making a move in an Online Game without analyzing is often tantamount to utter disrespect towards that game of chess.

Respect your opponents, and respect the game of chess.

ilmago, stalling the game in lost position is disrespect of your opponent, do you remember this game(from the other thread), it's not over yet:

http://www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=15671130

Now, is there a real reason for prolonging this, except for that infinitesimal chance for stalemate, or a bit bigger (but still small) chance that opponent will timeout?

Guess there is some confusion over "freedom" here, that people can usually get away with something does not quite mean that they have the "freedom" to do in a Kantian sense.

 Wow !  That game is ridiculous and should be adjudicated. Not only is it the only game left in that group, its the only game left thats preventing the start of the next round..... it should be adjudicated and the guy warned that if he does that again he will receive some fitting punishment..... I would simply not let this guy advance to the next round..... looks like both will qualify for the next round.