FREE - In Google Play
FREE - in Win Phone Store
if you are the slow player, or just want to be one of witness to see how a tounament ended after 40 years, please join:
I will join, but only on one condition. You will change the name of the tournament. The abominable grammar is something that I would rather not see every 10 or so days. So if you mind, please change the name to The Longest Tournament at Chess.com.
I will join, but only on one condition. You will change the name of the tournament. The abominal grammar is something that I would rather not see every 10 or so days. So if you mind, please change the name to The Longest Tournament at Chess.com.
Hahahaha... I was thinking the same here!
Ok why not. I dont mind it being long at least i get plenty of time to work and then come back to it when im ready.
hahaha, yes,the grammar looks stupid
let's imagine，there is one spaceship named "the tournament at Chess.com" will be launched on Oct 1,2009 and fly to another end of universe, who knows where this spaceship will reach after 20 years ? if at max speed based on current technology.
The spaceships launched by US in 1972 flied out of solar system in 1987.
up to now, 16 astronauts already on the ship.
Is the tournament 'Longest tournament at Chess.com' is confined to Planet Earth only or we can make our moves from else where?
Yes, you could make the move in the outer space.
if you are the slow player, or just want to be one of witness to see how a tounament ended after 20 years, please join:
Considering the intent of the tournament, this rule does not appear to fit "- if both players in the same group "won on time", I will remove them all.".
By removing players you may shorten the tournament from the usual eight rounds to seven thereby leaving a loophole for the next similar tournament to be even longer.
Do you think there will be collusion so that two players can advance? If not a collusion issue, is it that you want to ensure players have an opponent in the next round who may still be on the site?
This is so ludicrous I have to join.
can you make a lot of these tournaments? in lots of different rating ranges... pre-set openings, 960, age groups, regions...
it would be lovely if you can lure away all the slow players, especially the ones who love to abuse vacation time. [you know, the ones that continue to sign up for new tournaments even though they already have 200+ games but only play 10 of them and put the rest on vacation.]
there is a whole world of slowness you haven't addressed yet... if everyone has to take their maximum vacation time each year, but each of the pair of players can't be on vacation at the same time.
Great spaceship analogy. I'd join but I go in and out of chess phases and chances are by the end of this thing I'd be long gone. Good luck to everyone involved.
... [you know, the ones that continue to sign up for new tournaments even though they already have 200+ games but only play 10 of them and put the rest on vacation.]
Until the site addresses the issue as it did with open seeks you will have to limit yourself to tournaments where the Tournament Director uses the Max Avg Time/Move setting. You could set these up for yourself.
Note: Past behaviour indicated by a low Avg Time/Move does not guarantee these players continue to play quickly in the future.
Funny idea! Still, the rules designed to purposedly drag the tournament out seem a bit much to me (no resigning). Playing for months in a lost position without timing out, resigning or making the moves too fast will really require dedication on the part of the contestants! It also seems weird to forbid resigns while allowing consensual draws!?
I have always assumed that most good chess players were unemployed or wished they were.
i am in this category. the wishing part. although good is a stretch for me.
chess.com should start insisting on shorter time controls and tournaments; 1 move/day or 1 move/every 12 hours would be worth trying.
Such an event would only attract unemployed patzers. Few, if any serious players.
Just like those no-vacation tournaments.
Looking at your blitz rating of 1300 Shachgeek, you don't seem much better than a patzer. You just try to convince yourself you are not by spending huge amounts of time on each move in turn-based chess. When the analyzing assists and databases are off, you are clearly in trouble.
Looking at your blitz rating of 1300 Shachgeek, you don't seem much better than a patzer. You just try to convince yourself you are not by spending huge amounts of time on each move in turn-based chess. When the analyzing assists and databases are off, you are in trouble.
Kindly review my live chess archives and forum posts about live chess disconnects , or those about my opponents chess clocks running backwards after they had time forfeited before making such an assumption.
Or, better yet you can look up many of my games in chess base, chess.com's game explorer, ECO or informant. Well, I assuming you know what ECO is. I'll bet more of my games have been published than...you've eaten at the golden arches this week.
Last weekend I took 6th place in the open section of an OTB tournament. That's right, the OPEN section. The average rating of my opponents was 2100.
Me, a patzer? Six beers down the hatch and I'm still more than a match for you.
Ooooo defensive. My point being you made the statement that one would have to be unemployed to be interested in fast (and by fast, the blazing speed of one move per day was mentioned - or *gasp*, 2 moves per day!) turn-based games. So I instantly thought, I bet this guy is garbage at any chess that doesn't involve hours on end pondering over a database and analysis board. Like many other higher rated turn-based players are. So I checked your Live Chess stats, and sure enough I saw garbage. So it was a disconnecting spree you are saying? Super.
Anyway, impressive OTB results man, wow, I guess 2100 is considered a high rating in your little chess circle? That's adorable.
Shouldn't it have been "The Mostest Longest Tournament" ?