You might have a problem with 1 or 2 hour games in that when you go to sleep you will time out. The lowest time control is 24 hours, probably because it gives people plenty of time to sleep, eat, etc., without them having to rush to the computer to check their games once every hour. It's a good idea, though.
-FirstPiece
That could work.
You might have a problem with 1 or 2 hour games in that when you go to sleep you will time out. The lowest time control is 24 hours, probably because it gives people plenty of time to sleep, eat, etc., without them having to rush to the computer to check their games once every hour. It's a good idea, though.
-FirstPiece
The members that need sleeps...etc... can choose the 24 hours per turn option...:-)
Thanks your support.
you could have like a 1 hour turn where you get say a 30 minute increment for every move that you make. If a person rattles off say 20 moves in an hour, that's good for 10 extra hours - enough for sleep.
Interesting idea. Thanks for your contribution. But is 30 min. increment too "generous" ?
@OP: But everyone needs sleep! 
Games that last an unexpectedly long time--such as drawish middle- and endgames that exceed 100 moves--would come down to which player dozes off first. Having 12 hours per move is probably the shortest feasible time control.
@OP: But everyone needs sleep! Games that last an unexpectedly long time--such as drawish middle- and endgames that exceed 100 moves--would come down to which player dozes off first. Having 12 hours per move is probably the shortest feasible time control.
Thanks for your comment.
I am just wondering whether we should cater for members who want to play faster games without waiting. Sorry, if I have asked a stupid question. 
@OP: It was not a stupid question at all. Still, that is the purpose of Live Chess.
shorter time intervals would probably only be feasible if you were playing someone you know. if it's just some random person I sense there could potentially be a variety of ways for someone to take advantage of such intervals to their opponent's detriment. once you start such a game you would be forced to stay online and near to your computer for the duration.
if a game lasts 50 moves, there are 2 hour intervals and your opponent takes the full two hours on the majority of moves, say 30 of them, you would be more or less forced to stay glued to your computer for around, what, 60 hours or about? straight? or else you would lose on time.
If I understand correctly, then this person taking the advantage will also need to glue to his/her computer for around 60 hours or straight, right ?
. Please correct me if I am wrong.
After all, you can remember and avoid persons (taking such advantage) from playing with you again.
A time control of Game in X days might be the thing. For example, Game in 7 days would require an average of 5 to 6 moves per day, which would be about 2 hours per move in a normal day (large time zone differences would require a longer time control and a long complicated game would have players glued to their computers).
A time control of Game in X days might be the thing. For example, Game in 7 days would require an average of 5 to 6 moves per day, which would be about 2 hours per move in a normal day (large time zone differences would require a longer time control and a long complicated game would have players glued to their computers).
So how would the clocks work for this? If you were to have the whole X number of days on your clock from the get-go, one player could simply abandon the game (not make a move), and the time-out duration would be even longer. A fixed, shorter clock time probably couldn't be set either, since that defeats the whole original purpose (of being able to sleep among other things).
The idea is to speed up the games. Currently, the fastest time control is 1 move per 24 hours. Games at this time control have the potential to last two to three months. Games with longer time controls can last even longer.
With a time control of Game in 7 days, the game is over in 14 days or less. There is the potential that someone will abandon a game, and you will have to wait 7 days for the game to end. Is that much different than waiting a week for a player to make 2 moves (3 days per move)?
The idea is to speed up the games. Currently, the fastest time control is 1 move per 24 hours. Games at this time control have the potential to last two to three months. Games with longer time controls can last even longer.
With a time control of Game in 7 days, the game is over in 14 days or less. There is the potential that someone will abandon a game, and you will have to wait 7 days for the game to end. Is that much different than waiting a week for a player to make 2 moves (3 days per move)?
Oh I'm sorry I misunderstood what "game in X days" meant at first. Makes much more sense now.
I'm not sure that my idea would work (Game in X days). People have to work and sleep. There's a possibility that the same person would have the move during these periods each day, and they would unfairly lose a lot of time off their clock.
I'm not sure that my idea would work (Game in X days). People have to work and sleep. There's a possibility that the same person would have the move during these periods each day, and they would unfairly lose a lot of time off their clock.
I agree, so that would not be feasible.
Online Chess is for making a move when you have the time. Anytime during your day, in parallel with your everyday life. Your opponent will do the same. So this is a great way of playing with people from all over the world, without needing to be online at the same time as they are. Here, it makes no sense to try to force anybody to make a move more than once a day per game. Don't hurry. The game will be finished when it is over. It does not cost you any of your time while it is not your move.
Live Chess is for playing a complete game of chess while both players are online at the same time for the duration of the game. Of course, people who wish to (and are able to) commit to being online for that entire game will choose this way of playing, and of course, such a game will be finished in much less than a day, within minutes or maybe an hour.
Some people tend to like playing Online Chess in a way that is very similar to the spirit of Live Chess (or OTB chess). They best look for like-minded opponents who usually are online at the same times, for example because they live in a similar time zone of the world.
Of course, this way of playing Online Chess so fast has nothing to do with a competitively reasonable use of your thinking time. Every OTB player knows that if he uses only seconds per move in a 2 hours game and loses, he will have made the very silly mistake of not having adequately used the time he had. Every Online Chess player should know that if he has 3 days per move, it is very reasonable to use many minutes, an hour or even some hours of analysis time for one single difficult move in a complicated situation on the board. Of course one can just play for fun and just make moves without analyzing at all, but be aware that an opponent of equal strength who will take his time to analyze his moves more deeply will perform much better just because of making better use of his time.
When I first thought of a Game per X day time control, I wasn't thinking of speeding up games. I was thinking about dealing with situations that are common at my level: spending a month or so playing a K + 2 connected pawns vs. K endgame; waiting 3 months for two players to finish a heated battle for last place in their group so that a tournament can proceed, etc.
Don't mix up things there: You are not really spending a month playing this K+2P vs K endgame. You spend some seconds per move each time it is your turn, or even less if you use conditional moves. And you are not "waiting" 3 months for a tournament to proceed to the next round. You just play when the next round starts, and you do lots of other things with your time until then.
When it is not your move in an Online Chess game or in an Online Chess tournament, it does not cost you any of your time. You move when it is your turn in your game, and you do other things in your life when it isn't.
Online Chess is played in parallel with your everyday life. That is completely different from Live Chess and OTB chess.
@ CM ilmago
My problems with Online Chess are minor, and you're correct, my time is not wasted. However, I would like for Chess.com to provide an alternative (not a replacement to the current system) in which games would be completed in 2 months or less. I don't think that this is feasible, and there probably is not much demand for such an alternative. However, there's nothing wrong in wishing for something that is different from the present.
There have often been impatient users new to correspondence chess who look for ways and structures to force their opponents to play faster and faster. Such structures are feasible, and the more voiced "demand" there is, the more pressure is created to introduce them even if they do not really work and make sense.
For example, an existing alternative chess.com is offering is called "no vacation tournaments". In these Online Chess tournaments' games, players are not allowed to take vacation, resulting in many tournaments with timeout ratios of 30% or more.
Thanks to everyone who reply so far.
I am wondering if it is possible to find out (from the site) what other members are offering (via "Custom" ?) and other members can join and play with these offering if they like.
i.e. A bit like a "Match-making" (match as in "agreement") mechanism for Turn Interval Agreement.
I hope this can make the site more lively than it is now
If such mechanism is already in place, then I am not aware of it. Sorry, I am a newcomer to the site and too lazy to explore all the features.
Hello,
Can the site offer shorter Turn Intervals for Online Chess ? e.g. 12 hours per turn, 6 hours per turn, 3 hours per turn, 2 hours per turn, 1 hours per turn...etc ?
Such that members, who are too busy [with other things :) ] to play Live Chess ,can play faster games without waiting.
I hope this can attract more members to play.
Is there any technical difficulties in implementing this ?