Based on the fact that obviously, when someone throws the word "anytime" around it's once in a while, obviously, when they say obviously they mean obviously.
On the other hand, since anytime someone throws the word "obviously" around it isn't, obviously when Erik says obviously he doesn't.
Sometimes you read a comment, so genius, that you start crying. TheGrobe...Thank You
Wasn't it nice of CarlMI to start a thread where he thought he wasn't going to get any non-staff responses? We've had 4 pages of fun! Thanks, CarlMI! Say, did everyone notice he still has all his games on vacation while he "awaits clarification of chess.com policy"? Apparently we haven't helped out enough yet and the poor guy's only got 2 months and 27 days of vacation left, so we'd better speed up our action here . . .
Here's a definition of Lost Position: Any Chess game position from which a player must lose with accurate play. Many complex lost positions may still offer winning or drawing chances with alert play. (From http://www.chess-poster.com/english/glossary)
In my opinion, the staff has acted very reasonably to adjucate certain games in very specific circumstances. And as far as I can tell, there has not been a change in policy.
And if players always played accurately the result would always be a draw and it wouldn't have arrived at a lost position in the first place. The definition presumes the player with the advantage would not make a mistake. Once I get a winning advantage and my opponent goes on vacation can I claim a win since I must be presumed to be incapable of further error in my play?
Don't be a sententious git. Asked. Answered.
Its actually pretty funny that one complains of adjudications here and then mentions ICC, as if they dont have them there. I have been a member of ICC since 1996 and they have always had adjudications there..... they even adjudicate blitz/bullet games ! <GASP>
Trite as it sounds, to me, it is the principle involved, and this really has nothing to do with adjudication. ICCF and ICC have adjudications and the rules are clear. Time for the tournament has elapsed (around 2 years in correspondence, 20 minutes a round in blitz, etc.) or a game has been abandoned. Also at ICC I just play blitz, noescape, vacation and abandonment are never issues. I admit I should not have cited ICC as it is irrelevant to the present discussion.
My point is the vagueness of the policy here and the walkarounds I've been hearing, most admittedly by members rather than staff. On the other hand, the staff does seem to respond to the vocal members thus the original implementation of the policy. Vacation belongs to the player to use as they wish. As the FAQ says, its for when I need a break (see earlier thread). If my opponent wants to play with move allowances and vacation time hoping I'll drop dead while one move from mate, so be it. The vacation is the player's whether as part of his free membership or if he paid for it. What's next, "My opponent uses all 3 days for his move when I'm winning"? The horror!
If, as Erik says, the policy has very rarely been invoked, why was it even necessary? To invoke the policy, two adjudications have been made, vacation was abused, and the game is lost. My point is, vacation can't be abused and a game is not lost if you lack material to win, or your opponent has overwhelming material or whatever. Opponents make mistakes, nonwinnable games can be drawn, etc.
If the length of vacations is a problem, reduce vacation time across the board (for a site solution), play no vacation tournament/games (for individual solution). As a final thought, how do you know the vacation is not being used for legitimate reasons? If I say I am on vacation. I have valid reasons. How can that be challenged?
BTW, the current vacation is the first I've taken in a couple years, I started it with 2 months, 29 days on the books, and although I've had games drag and many a win on time I've never called for an adjudicaiton.
... My point is the vagueness of the policy here and the walkarounds I've been hearing, most admittedly by members rather than staff. ...
If, as Erik says, the policy has very rarely been invoked, why was it even necessary? ...
You may not like chess.com’s Terms & Conditions, which contain many contingencies e.g.
The problem is people abusing it when they have only a king vs. the Spanish Armada - it's a bit one-sided... The reason we have vacation threads is to complain about abusers: people using vacation in lost games and continuing to play games where they actually have chances. Of course we can pretend that we don't really know whats going on and plead the fifth but it's quite obvious when a user uses vacation to prolong ONLY losing games that they are being very unsportsmanlike. And pretending that this doesn't happen is simply denial on your part and in fact it's very annoying.
You could have simply stated that since staff can't prove with a preponderance of the evidence that certain people are always abusing vacation that nothing can be really done. Instead you are playing a sort of devils advocate and are trying way to hard to do it.
A 2300 rated cc player should obviously know what lost positions are which makes it even more obvious that you really seem to be in denial here... But that's not important since nothing can be done without punishing the wrong people. I'm sure that's the point you wanted to make but you could've done it a lot simpler than this.
I didnt know one could still do this ? I thought if you are on vacation in one game you are on vacation in ALL games ? Is this not the case ?
... people using vacation in lost games and continuing to play games where they actually have chances. ...
Reb wrote: I didnt know one could still do this ? I thought if you are on vacation in one game you are on vacation in ALL games ? Is this not the case ?
Explained in this thread ... vacation-protection-unfair.
1. No-vacation tournaments.
2. Auto-timeout protection cutting in for premium members.
I am sorry for being slow, but I had learned that one could put on the vacation "flag" ONLY after having made one's move in ALL games. On this basis one cannot choose to vacate certain games only, which I think is the way it should be. Has this been changed?
lynch mob eh? strange metaphor in this case.
Sorry, but that did not help me or my query - can someone enlighten me?
lynch mob eh? strange metaphor in this case.
Sorry, but that did not help me or my query - can someone enlighten me?
yeah, this couldn't have helped you. it was a reference to something stupid the schackgeek said.
I am sorry for being slow, but I had learned that one could put on the vacation "flag" ONLY after having made one's move in ALL games. On this basis one cannot choose to vacate certain games only, which I think is the way it should be. Has this been changed?
No change. As discussed in the thread ... vacation-protection-unfair, if you have joined any no-vacation tournaments, those games won't be put on vacation.
Secondly, if you are a premium member then you have auto-timeout protection; when the first game is about to timeout, vacation mode will be switched on. Status will show as vacation on that game - and probably all games where it is your move, but will remain as waiting on games where it is not your move.
As it becomes your move on any of these waiting games, the status will be changed to vacation.
Thus a member's game list can display all three statuses - waiting, your move & vacation - at the same time.
2. Auto-timeout protection cutting in for premium members.
That's the same as #2.
... people using vacation in lost games and continuing to play games where they actually have chances. ...
Reb wrote: I didnt know one could still do this ? I thought if you are on vacation in one game you are on vacation in ALL games ? Is this not the case ?
Explained in this thread ... vacation-protection-unfair.
1. No-vacation tournaments.
2. Auto-timeout protection cutting in for premium members.
3. If you are a paying member you can go on vacation while it's your move in some/all of your games. So you can go back and forth on and off of vacation status without ever making moves in games in which you are losing. Effectively you are only on vacation for the games you aren't losing.
Many thanks for the replies! I am a paying member and I have the impression that going on vacation MUST be preceded my me making a move in ALL my games. So there is obviously something I still don't understand, and if so, that "something" is clearly a bug in the system.
That's the same as #2.
Actually, it isn't. Auto-protection kicks in when you are about to lose on time without your action. I'm talking about a paying member changing the status themselves.
The only difference is the mechanism that turns the vacation time on (i.e. automated versus manual) -- the underlying issue is something that's common to both of them -- the fact that you're not required to make your moves prior to starting your vacation however you might initiate it.
Based on the fact that obviously, when someone throws the word "anytime" around it's once in a while, obviously, when they say obviously they mean obviously.
On the other hand, since anytime someone throws the word "obviously" around it isn't, obviously when Erik says obviously he doesn't.