Should Chess.com Change How Vacation Works?

MGleason
aamidano wrote:

I think vacation time should only be granted with consent of both players.

People would abuse that by refusing vacation time to get a cheap win from an opponent who has a genuine need to go offline for a few days.

And some people do genuinely go offline, away from internet, from time to time.  Sometimes people want to go to a remote area and completely unplug from internet, everything, for a few days.  Sometimes work, family, or religious requirements force people offline for a few days.

I rarely use vacation time, but one time I did was after I got married - I didn't want to have to keep up with my chess games on our honeymoon.  After we got back, I came off vacation time and resumed my games, and my opponents did not suffer greatly from having the games last a few days longer than might otherwise have been the case.

NelsonMoore wrote:

... Matt Gleason's 3 categories of players above...

Matt?

ChessinBlackandWhite
MGleason wrote:
aamidano wrote:

I think vacation time should only be granted with consent of both players.

People would abuse that by refusing vacation time to get a cheap win from an opponent who has a genuine need to go offline for a few days.

 

Perhaps he means they consent at the start of the game. For example I think it makes perfect sense to be able to make open seeks that are no vacation. Since right now the only option for no vacation is select tournaments

RonaldJosephCote

     "be able to make open seeks that are no vacation".......... +1                                                  You wouldn't have to "change HOW vacation worked" if you added THAT option.

MGleason

Yes, allowing no-vacation seeks as well as no-vacation tournaments would be very reasonable.

Brian-E

Indeed!

Perhaps groups should also be able to issue no-vacation challenges to other groups for a match.

 

FedeBau

+1. To expand no-vacations options for both individual and team matches would be a step in the right direction for everyone.

I still would like to hit a “healthier” vacation balance. I don’t think any extreme is good. But you have to start somewhere.

aamidano

ChessinBlackandWhite wrote:

MGleason wrote:
aamidano wrote:

I think vacation time should only be granted with consent of both players.

People would abuse that by refusing vacation time to get a cheap win from an opponent who has a genuine need to go offline for a few days.

 

Perhaps he means they consent at the start of the game. For example I think it makes perfect sense to be able to make open seeks that are no vacation. Since right now the only option for no vacation is select tournaments

This is an excellent idea. Agree before the game. Another option I was thinking of to avoid abuse is to add that consent cannot be unreasonable denied. If there is a dispute let the coordinator decide but this might put too much work on the coordinator. My concern is how to balance a cheap win vs. a delayed sure win for a winning opponent. An agreement to no vacation time before the game puts all on notice as to the risks and the benefits of doing so. I hope this idea is implemented. Thank you for the responses.

aamidano

ChessinBlackandWhite wrote:

MGleason wrote:
aamidano wrote:

I think vacation time should only be granted with consent of both players.

People would abuse that by refusing vacation time to get a cheap win from an opponent who has a genuine need to go offline for a few days.

 

Perhaps he means they consent at the start of the game. For example I think it makes perfect sense to be able to make open seeks that are no vacation. Since right now the only option for no vacation is select tournaments

This is an excellent idea. Agree before the game. Another option I was thinking of to avoid abuse is to add that consent cannot be unreasonable denied. If there is a dispute let the coordinator decide but this might put too much work on the coordinator. My concern is how to balance a cheap win vs. a delayed sure win for a winning opponent. An agreement to no vacation time before the game puts all on notice as to the risks and the benefits of doing so. I hope this idea is implemented. Thank you for the responses.

MGleason

Any system that is going to result in frequent disputes that have to be settled by appealing to staff is not going to work.

checkmatemark04

Yes, I’m not sure if they could even program it to do that

aamidano

In this this day and age you can program computers to do anything. 

aamidano
NelsonMoore wrote:

But then you're still suggesting it's all or nothing. I can't play a 3-day no-vacation game because once this year, in 2 weeks time, I will need to be offline for 3 whole days.

And my belief is that by making vacation kick in automatically and it being hourly etc. will mean players will be able to play faster time controls in general, e.g. 2 days instead of 3, because they will have less worry about what happens if they occasionally can't play in 2 days. We'll probably see more 1 day games too.

And yes, there will be players who need 90 days. They will just have to only join games that allow it, if they can find opponents who are happy with it. Those who have 100s of games on the go will be more accommodating.

It's no different I guess from someone who has 20 minutes to play chess and then must run off looking for a game that's 10+0 or faster.

 

I don't see a problem.  All you would need to do is press vacation game. If an opponent wants to play vacation game then no problem.  Everyone has different circumstances in their lives. Not everyone likes to wait for vacations to end. On the other hand there are others who won't care. A vacation/ no vacation option would give all a choice to choose what is best for them. What do you think?

Brian-E
NelsonMoore schreef:

[...]

Gives me, and my opponent, a choice as to how much we're prepared to wait around.

 

Your suggestions are, in my opinion, well thought out and make good use of an ideal that players should be given as much choice as possible. That is a principle I think most of us would support.

 

Where I think your suggestions fall down, however, is that vacation in correspondence games is actually a rare incidence where choice is not really appropriate. Vacation is intended to be an abnormal part of the game. It can, and is, used for scheduled occurrences like annual holidays, but it is also intended for unexpected events, life problems, tragedies, serious illness, you name it. These are not something which a player should really make a choice about before a game lasting months actually starts because they can happen to anyone without warning.

 

I don't think site staff would be happy with dealing with numerous whines from players that they need to pauze a game because of, say, some family emergency, when they didn't anticipate it beforehand and chose a time control with inadequate vacation/delay/what-you-name-it.

 

The idea that vacation time should be any sort of extension to thinking time also doesn't sit well with me. It is there for abnormal circumstances, normally it doesn't get used in anything like its entirity for a game anyway, and that is how it should remain in my opinion.

 

I think vacation time should be analagous to compulsory insurance in life, such as health insurance in those countries where health insurance is indeed compulsory for everyone. You use vacation as and when you have to, including and especially in circumstances which you could not forsee beforehand, not as part of the normal way of things.

checkmatemark04

I think that there should be a way to get more vacation time. Like one week every 10-15 moves you play. That way, people who needed the time could get it, and abusers would be forced to play to get more.

TimmyDuck

I would say that you should get a week of vacation time for each game you play and it can only be applied to that game

aamidano
Brian-E wrote:
NelsonMoore schreef:

[...]

Gives me, and my opponent, a choice as to how much we're prepared to wait around.

 

Your suggestions are, in my opinion, well thought out and make good use of an ideal that players should be given as much choice as possible. That is a principle I think most of us would support.

 

Where I think your suggestions fall down, however, is that vacation in correspondence games is actually a rare incidence where choice is not really appropriate. Vacation is intended to be an abnormal part of the game. It can, and is, used for scheduled occurrences like annual holidays, but it is also intended for unexpected events, life problems, tragedies, serious illness, you name it. These are not something which a player should really make a choice about before a game lasting months actually starts because they can happen to anyone without warning.

 

I don't think site staff would be happy with dealing with numerous whines from players that they need to pauze a game because of, say, some family emergency, when they didn't anticipate it beforehand and chose a time control with inadequate vacation/delay/what-you-name-it.

 

The idea that vacation time should be any sort of extension to thinking time also doesn't sit well with me. It is there for abnormal circumstances, normally it doesn't get used in anything like its entirity for a game anyway, and that is how it should remain in my opinion.

 

I think vacation time should be analagous to compulsory insurance in life, such as health insurance in those countries where health insurance is indeed compulsory for everyone. You use vacation as and when you have to, including and especially in circumstances which you could not forsee beforehand, not as part of the normal way of things.

I do understand your point. There are times when unforeseeable things happen in life. I know it does not happen very often, however, what if an individual is clearly losing and he in trying to in avoid the inevitable by using his vacation time period. This is not fair to the other player. I have never had this happen to me by I have read of a couple of situations of this type.

Also I will tell you about my situation. I am a lawyer and night time I like to relax and calm down from the stress of my day. Playing chess (I love playing chess), and listening to my music calms me. I play one game and I play 1 move a day daily . This helps me to calm down. I am far from being a grandmaster nor will I ever be one but this is how I like playing. I do not like playing more than 1 game at a time. If I played an individual who vacations a lot for an extended period of time then I'm not playing all the days until he gets back. Conceivably if he were to be gone a week or more I would not be playing for one week or more and this undermines my entire purpose of joining chess. com. I am a very reasonable person. If an individual had some type of a serious problem as you suggest I would definitely agree, sacrifice and give him the time . That is why I suggested that the request for the vacation should not be unreasonably denied.
Also how can a person be prevented from abusing the system and holding back losing a game by using vacation time to delay the inevitable. I have read a couple of stories on the forum about this. I don't think that is fair to do. How would you handle that type of a situation? I think if both sides communicate with each other and told the other person what the problem was a reasonable person would agree to the vacation time. However you might get some jerk who would refuse the vacation request. What would one do in that situation? This kind of reminds me of a judge I was once before in family court in which he would tell the parties who would fight over stupid things to text their messages with respect to visitation time and if the other party denies the change in a visitation unreasonably they would be subject to sanctions by him. This cut down on the amount of visitation cases in the court. I don't think this could be done here but if people would just be reasonable maybe some type of agreement could be reached .
Basically what I'm trying to get at is how do you avoid abuses of the system and how do you make the vacation system reasonable for everyone. What are your thoughts?

Toire

@jdcannon:   After nearly 2 months and verbiage that makes one's head spin, it is hopefully clear to you that everyone has a different opinion on "Vacation" and you'll never please all the people etc.

Leave as is would be my decision, it's survived this long hasn't it?

MGleason
checkmatemark04 wrote:

I think that there should be a way to get more vacation time. Like one week every 10-15 moves you play. That way, people who needed the time could get it, and abusers would be forced to play to get more.

You do get more, on the 1st and the 15th of every month.  1 day (2 per month) for free members, 1.5 (3 per month) for Gold members, 2.5 (5 per month) for Diamond and Platinum members.  See https://support.chess.com/customer/portal/articles/1444787.

TimmyDuck wrote:

I would say that you should get a week of vacation time for each game you play and it can only be applied to that game

What if that game lasts a year, as some games do?  Then you have one week that has to last you for an entire year - and for many people, that's not enough.

Brian-E

@aamidano The established procedure for handling the situation you describe, a procedure which has been in place for all the time I've been a member here, is to ask the staff to intervene. They will generally ask the player to continue the game or resign it if it's clearly a case of using vacation to drag it out unnecessarily. (However, like you, I have never had a problem with an opponent doing that in any of my 500+ daily games played here.)

87654321

Number of games in progress and rate of play can be more of an issue towards slow play than vacation time.