Vacations To Avoid Losing On Time Is Cheating!

 well said!!!  the vacation option is also just a part of strategy....and if a person gets more vacation time by upgrading membership/ ie. paying more; that's life!!

The thing is though, that being your view, wouldn't you be violating your own rule? I mean, aren't you imposing your personal values about what's fair game for criticism on this site? Aren't you drawing rather personal conclusions just because you don't see things the same way? It seems like you're trying to eat your cake and have it too. The problem with trying to downplay someone's opinion just because it's an opinion, is that by doing so you downplay your own. Should we never speak up when we find something unethical or inconsiderate because others might not share our view?

I did not read every post in this thread so what I am saying may already have been written somewhere.  There is "vacation time" in old-fashioned/regular/ traditional correspondence chess.  The difference is that it is individually agreed upon by both players based within the league rules.  Now, YES, chess.com included the automatic vacation acceptance in the user agreement (not in a formal way, but YOU choose to play on this site, no one makes you), but it would be nice to have a way to ASK for vacation against an opponent so that the request could be accepted or denied, or have some optional league (I think this suggestion is stupid by the way) just like the "Circle of Trust" groups that honor the "no databases" honor code with each other (I don't agree with them but I think it is great that they CAN do that). 

So, on chess.com, it's not cheating because it's agreed to, unless they give the option to NOT agree to it some time down the road.  Sure, it doesn't make it the best part of the deal, but as you and I are very familiar, since we aren't paying to support the system right now, we don't really make the decisions.  I am not complaining, just calling it as it is.  I love the options on chess.com, I do all of it except vote chess, since I would just get annoyed. 

I use vacation on an as needed basis, and I hate winning on time more than losing, but I agree that some people abuse it.  Fortunately, if someone actually IS using it to prolong a hopelessly lost game, there is a way to report it and have some staff guy end the game or maybe they send some really buff and mean chess thugs (dressed in bad sports jackets with suede elbow pads probably) to break your opponent's mouse hand.  Just a thought.

Hey deep-greene, I like your overall analysis of the chess.com player archetypes.  I'm curious; YOUR ideas, or did you get it somewhere and adapt it.  I'm not judging you based on it either way, I'm saying that it's full of solid reasoning (I know, I know, CHESS PLAYERS who use reasoning, crazy).  Kudos, regardless.

:)  Well, thanks.  I was thinking a bit about the sorts of personality profiles that get done in corporate environments (I'm a blue-green personality, for instance), or those guides to the Chinese zodiac that describe not only the signs' personalities but also complementary and conflicting 'marriages' between the signs.

As for the descriptions, that's just what I've gleaned from reading a few too many of these forum threads. ;-)

Uh..  I haven't drawn any "personal conclusions" here, have I?  I'm not saying that inconsiderate behaviour doesn't exist; I'm just questioning whether or not a lot of the system features or user behaviours that get so much air-time in these sorts of forums should actually be attributed to disrespect or ill-will.

I thought every discussion along these lines comes to the same conclusion, that the tools of the site can be used for ethical and nonethical reasons, and that the distinction depends on player strength, whether you know your opponent, whether it is in a tournament, whether it is the beginning of a tournament, or the last game of the tournament, how you were playing in the game before that, all of these things.

What is clear is that sometimes people take longer, just because they think it will annoy their opponent. Or because they don't want to lose. Or because their mother is ill and they need to refocus away from chess.

Just start a new game.

OK..  Not sure why you think I need this 'reminder,' but thanks.  I certainly haven't said anything here that would discourage discussion about ways to improve the experience.

 Well, in response to some of my assertions you said things like, "Not beneficial", "Waste of Energy." and "Going too far". I got the sense that some personal conclusions were being drawn.

oh, hey, deepgreene: I noticed I'm not categorized in one of your types.

I am primarily interested in utilizing this site to get better at OTB, and play some 1 0 games too I guess :-)

While I most closely match the traditionalist in your listing, I actually am not really interested at all in getting better at CC chess. Perhaps it is a subtype, as a result?

  I'm not sure I'm up to creating a comprehensive typology of chess.com users, but sorry for leaving you out.  That sample was just a nod to the diverse motley that use this site daily and (mostly) get along quite nicely.

Every once in a while though, it does seem like "live & let live" = fighting words.

I think this tournament involves compulsory vacation on each and every move and has penalties if you move a day earlier than required on any move...

http://www.chess.com/tournament/truly-the-longest-tournament-ever

I certainly meant no offense.  As far as "personal" goes, I do see a significant distinction between A. calling someone's ethics into question because they use one or more features of this site and B. simply arguing that bringing ethics into the debate is counter-productive.

Cheating is an act of lying, deception, fraud, trickery, imposture, or imposition. Cheating characteristically is employed to create an unfair advantage, usually in one's own interest, and often at the expense of others.Cheating implies the breaking of rules. The term "cheating" is less applicable to the breaking of laws, as illegal activities are referred to by specific legal terminology such as fraud or corruption. Cheating is a primordial economic act: getting more for less, often used when referring to marital infidelity. A person who is guilty of cheating is generally referred to as a cheat (Br. English), or a cheater (Am. English). -Wikipedia, entry on "cheating".

     Launguage is important, and one should strive to be correct while using it. "It's in the rules so there can be no wrong," that statement is debatable, and one is free to decide for him or herself whether something should or should not be in the rules. The statement, "It does not break the rules, so it is not cheating." is correct by definition of the word "cheating".

 Why not ask artfizz to make one out, I am pretty sure he'll be happy to do one.

i don't see a problem-if you have a winning game, they gonna lose eventually anyway

haha very funny

I fear that is beyond even artfizz's formidable talents.

Guys, I think we are already going over board on these issues.

Correspondence chess is not for you to test your real strength in chess play. It is meant for you to enjoy and maybe experiment a few moves or two - different from the normal lines of play that you would regularly use/applies in OTB chess play. (I'm sure in real OTB tournament, you wouldn't dare venture into those unfamiliar lines BUT in correspondence chess, if you don't try it here, where else would you have the opportunity to try out your creativity?)

OTB chess play, in a Swiss-Round, you could only play those ratings who are almost similar with yours and if you wins, you're tagged with the winners and so on... This will help to identify your real strength.

In correspondence chess, anybody could play with you as long as you has agreed to the game - be it they are a lower rated player or a highly rated player. If you wins, your ratings will goes up. And if you lose, your ratings will goes down. The ratings that you get in correspondense chess may goes up as high as 2000+ if you keep on playing against a lower rated players and wins all your games. But this doesn't mean that your actual strength in chess is 2000+

Talking about cheating, if you are worried about being cheated, I think the only place for you is in real OTB chess tournament. This is my advise, go and play real OTB chess and join the tournament at your local area. Whatever is the outcome of your game in that tournament is your real strength and rating in actual chess play.

I agree.  One of the items in Webster's New World Dictionary under "cheat (root word of "cheating") is to "behave dishonestly, as at games." What's "dishonest"? It's the opposite of "honest" which among various items Webster's cites "held in respect; honorable" "virtuous."

You might argue that I could have chosen an even better word, and you might have a point, but to suggest I have used the word "cheating" incorrectly" is well...incorrect.