Should Chess.com Change How Vacation Works?

Agree, vacation time is necessary.

But we could:  

• Having the same opportunities to all level of membership, i.e. auto-vacation (limited to once by match or month) and equal amount of days for everyone.
• change the maximum to 45 days?
• limit the days in a row to 15 days?
• allow the players to set up the maximum time of vacation in their game
• put an option to claim victory when an opponent is using vacation time just to prolonging a losing match (waiting the opponent dies or something)

I like many of these suggestions, but the players should be free to use their allotted vacation however they decide.

If the last option, adjudication, is to be implemented, it must be the end of the game. In other words, a premature claim could turn a technically winnable bu not overwhelmingly won position into a draw. And if the position is even marginally inferior, it should be ruled a loss.

I have no problem with that if someone wants to run it.

This isn't as bad, then, although even in blitz it's a problem, but it's generally easier to detect, even with a single tournament.  Even without prizes we occasionally get cheaters in Untitled Tuesday, and of course they occasionally show up in Titled Tuesday too, but it's not as bad as it would be in daily.

Till now I have organized about 10 or so awarded tournaments and we have not experienced a schocking surprise e.g. someone that has just signed up storming the event or someone 1800 defeating 2500s. And I have not recieved any feedback on my tournaments from the participants suspecting or accusing others of cheating. But my tournaments barely reached 20 participants. That was the highest number I attracted

There are advantages to being small and not widely advertised.

Yes, you continue to accrue while you are vacation. And to clarify again. There never was some extra month. 

We have to define what it's a "losing match".

For example, if you are in a situation where no matter what you dou, even the worse possible move and you still won or conserve a big advantage, then your opponent has a losing match.

On the other hand, if you have lot of material and positional and space and other big advantages but it exists the posibility of a minute mistake (for example a chance of checks repetition) that can change everthing, then it's not a losing match.

Most of the time this situation will happen in the endgame, as you mention.

Other case could be if you can demostrate that have a forced mate in "N" moves. You report the match, the time that your opponent is in vacation, the time you will have to wait and the forced secuence to win.

For example, you are white and have this position: 

your opponen has been a week on vacation and still has 70 days to spent. You submitt a report saying "I will win with 1.Ra4+, 2.Rb3+, 3.Ra2+, 4.Rb1#"

A position where no matter what you do you maintain a winning or large advantage is incredibly rare. In your posted position it's actually quite easy to find a way to draw a white if you played badly enough. 

In that position yes, but in this another one, White can do several stupid moves and still have an easy winning position:

Sure, but also, its not hard to draw if that is your goal  

Obviously. But I believe it's a better way to define a winning or losing position than just establish an engine number like +/- 3 (a whole piece) or 5 (a rook) or 9 (a queen) or whatever. 

I agree to Pancho!! A kitten who looks like a lion is always right   

lol

With an attitude like that I'm comfortable in my decision to never play long games online.

I understand there's no easy fix for time abuse, but 2R + K vs lone K should not only be adjudicated a win, but the person wasting time should be penalized.

I also agree it should be adjudicated; I am just saying if we adjudicate that, our rule cannot be "Any position that is still a win no matter what you play." If that is the bar for adjudication, then we would almost never be able to adjudicate. 

The problem is finding a rule that is fair and includes enough positions that it's actually useful. 

Yeah, I have no good suggestions that would be simple. You'd have to take into account a lot of things.

It would even have to be different depending on the rating. For example not all beginners can do basic mates... and if you ended their game "early" it would confuse them and make them mad.

I never said "automatic" adjudication, but "claim of victory".

And I also suggested the possibility to report the case indicating the moves to give the checkmate.

It would still confuse the losing side if they're a beginner because they may consider positions like K vs K+Q not a sure win.

One thing that would be cool is conditional moves (like in daily chess) but allow them to be set up in live chess.

Make the input a little clunky so that people would only bother to do it in rapid games... for example when every continuation is an easy win.

That way they could set up the moves then walk away from their computer.

Do you mean, like premove?

Yes, but with multiple lines.