Ok ART SO WHAT IS THE POINT OF LOGGING IN AND VISITING A SITE AT LEAST ONCE DAILY BUT PERMITTING 3 AT LEAST SUCCESSIVE AUTO PROTECTS TO ACT BEFORE MAKING even one small MOVE?
In 7day game that is of course 3 weeks
During that time I also expend my valuable time checking if a move is due and being available if the person wishes to play another move also WHILE HE IS THERE such as any obvious ones arising .
It really surprises me how many people seem to think that is ok behavior
And I hasten to add to keep it as impersonal as possible considered ok that the site allows such a facilty
Ok ART SO WHAT IS THE POINT OF LOGGING IN AND VISITING A SITE AT LEAST ONCE DAILY BUT PERMITTING 3 AT LEAST SUCCESSIVE AUTO PROTECTS TO ACT BEFORE MAKING even one small MOVE?
In 7day game that is of course 3 weeks
If he took 3 weeks for a single move in a 7 day game, then that cost him 14 days of vacation. He can't do that very often before all his vacation time will be gone.
And what does it mean to you -- he made 1 move, instead of 3. Not that much of a difference...
If one player can lose on time and the other cannot, you really think that is fair? I know it's a small gripe but it's a gripe never-the-less, worthy of acknowledgement.
It is quite amusing, as much as it is unnecessary, to see the overreaction to some minor "critical" feedback.
Both players can lose on time, and a dilligent non-premium member can turn their vacation on manually just as frequently as a premium member can have it done for them. It's merely the automation of a feature that everyone has access to.
I'm unclear where the notion that premium members are immune to timouts comes from.
Artfizz, most of the things in your table are available to someone with money whether chess.com sells it to them or not. For example, the games explorer on chess.com probably isn't even your best choice for a comprehensive, up to date, quality games database if you want to spend money on it elsewhere.
Hotflow wrote> If one player can lose on time and the other cannot, you really think that is fair?
Losing on time in correspondence time controls isn't like losing on time in blitz games. With days to make each move, no player should ever lose on time. You can be sure this is the belief of chess.com beause there are punishments for time-outs outside of losing that single game (over 10%, can't join tournaments, for example).
That's just not true. Free members can only turn on vacation when it's not their move in any of their games. Auto-timeout protection turns it on when it's your move, by definition.
Oh, good point - I'd forgotten about that. I think that if anything is fundamentally unfair and in need of correction it's that.
I've suggested in the past that non-premium players be able to turn their vacation time on and have those games in which it's not their move set to vacation mode so that they don't have to worry about additional moves being made in those games while they make moves in the remainder.
A player with many games on the go, particularly with active opponents and conditional moves, might find it near impossible to clear all of their games in order to enable their vacation.
Well in the interest of fairness (paying and free members playing under the same rules, as much as possible) I'd say it should be possible for them to turn on vacation whenever too. Same as for paying members, turn it on and all your games are on vacation, your move or not.
And I still like the idea of a minimum vacation time of 1 day to prevent abuse.
Yes -- agreed on the minimum as well. I can think of no valid reason to go on vacation for less than a day anyway.
Losing on time in correspondence time controls isn't like losing on time in blitz games. With days to make each move, no player should ever lose on time.
Good point.
It's clear that the real point at issue is not AutoTimeout-Protection, nor number of days vacation, nor any other feature where there's a difference between membership levels.
xqse's grievance is with vacation abuse: artificially and regularly using vacation to prolong a game so that the time between moves is longer than agreed at the outset of the game.
Here are some of the threads where it has been discussed:
another-form-of-vacation-abuse
not-playing-their-vacation-games
worst-feature-of-chesscom-vacation
It is not acceptable behaviour on chess.com and members are encouraged to report it using the Report Abuse link.
Hi guys,
This is a small advantage. This site needs to be profitable. This is one of the incentives they offer so that users will pay for a premium membership. So, we should just accept it for what it is. Bitching about it seems (to me) a waste of time.
Watch your backrank.
And whose fault is that? Chess.com's? Of course not, it's the player's fault! I've lost many a game because I wasn't paying attention, and I never cried that it was unfair.
Apologies for my woolly argument and thanks both to cognoscenti and condescenti for replies. In summary 1089 views 65 comments 14 contributors and 4 clearly pronounced agreements that changes desirable to deal with abuses by some means such as altering period of protection or other sanction action. Personally I think nomenclature should also be changed to clarify rules. For example simple "vacation" stops all games whereas "auto protection vacation" only affects individual games. These could perhaps be better called "on protect" because the agreed game time offender could indeed be present swanning about the site all the time and not actually absent on vacation....
Personally I think nomenclature should also be changed to clarify rules. For example simple "vacation" stops all games whereas "auto protection vacation" only affects individual games.
No it doesn't. From post 1 in this thread you've demonstrated you simply don't understand what auto timeout protection does.
"Auto protection" simply turns on perfectly normal vacation mode, for all your games. It's not something different at all.
The subtle difference is that, you can't switch vacation on manually while it's your move in any game.
Auto-timeout switches you into vacation mode as soon as you would otherwise timeout in any game. By definition, it was (and remains) your move in that game. It may also be your move in other games.
Sorry Scarblac if I am getting picture wrong again .Please explain to me how a person can be genuinely on vacation;by definition unable to honour the agreed time limits he undertook to abide by and therere needing protection ;when he in fact was logging in and out of site more than once a day on several occasions and kept this up for about 3 unbroken weeks THEREBY SHOWING THAT PROTECTION WAS NOT NEEDED, AND WAS BEING ABUSED.I asked staffto look into it for it clearly required some form of surveillance , but they apparently read or received only half of my message and made same ruling as yourself.
HE OUGHT NOT TO BE ALLOWED/ ABLE TO ABUSE IN THIS WAY
fizzyart:
"If one player can access more than 3 moves per day from his mobile phone and the other cannot, would you that consider that unfair?"
Perhaps, but maybe that is for another topic. All I would say is: how and how often a player accesses a site is within each players control.
My point in raising it is that it is another feature that premium members can buy.
Basic
Gold
Platinum
Diamond
Mobile Chess
3 moves/day
25 moves/day
Unlimited
Unlimited
Auto-Timeout Protection
no
yes
yes
yes
A premium member can make more moves per day so he can keep more of his games ticking over. To me, it seems the same issue as AutoTimeout: a convenience that some people choose to pay for.
.. No harm in having a little niggle about though, hey?
No harm in a little amicable debate. What would be doing otherwise? Playing chess!