Why has time been added?

For discussion pertaining to Chess, Net-Chess, or general interests.
Post Reply
cornstalk
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 1999 1:42 pm

Why has time been added?

Post by cornstalk » Mon Dec 03, 2007 2:27 pm

Why do I suddenly discover that 15 days have been added to both player's time in Game g1104853771, cornstalk-jasperp, which is an ongoing game in the 2007 semifinals? My opponent was getting ready to time out with less than 8 hours remaining, now he has all the time in the world?

I might have played differently before this if I had realized that there would be a sudden donation of time. I protest the addition of time in this game without my agreement.

What kind of a tournament it is where the director's largesse can suddenly bail one's opponent out of time trouble?

jasperp
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:11 am

Post by jasperp » Mon Dec 03, 2007 3:57 pm

There's time added, because I asked Greg to do. It's an interesting endgame, according to me.
And what's the fun of winning by time out? I don't understand what the problem is of 15 days added.
The more because in august, when the tournament started, I wasn't able to move during almost 2 weeks..

Greetings,

jasperp

cornstalk
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 1999 1:42 pm

Post by cornstalk » Mon Dec 03, 2007 5:03 pm

jasperp wrote:There's time added, because I asked Greg to do. It's an interesting endgame, according to me.
And what's the fun of winning by time out? I don't understand what the problem is of 15 days added.
The more because in august, when the tournament started, I wasn't able to move during almost 2 weeks..

Greetings,

jasperp
I don't give a damn about your interesting endgame. I play to win, that's it. And I play by the rules. You had your 60 days; I had mine; fair is fair.

You could have played an interesting endgame if you'd played your moves faster. You were getting ready to time out and you ask for more time? What the hell kind of competition is that? Why didn't you just ask for an extra pawn or two?

I play real correspondence chess on ICCF, and I can assure everyone who reads this, what is happening here is not only idiotic, it is grossly unfair.

slowblunder
Posts: 77
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 4:23 pm

tournament rules

Post by slowblunder » Mon Dec 03, 2007 5:29 pm

If I sign up for a tournament I usually read the rules first in order to know about "surprises" in advance. In this case those rules tell
"For each round each player will be given exactly 60 days of think time (this is the equivelant of 60d+0d). Time may be added to finish a long game if needed, but is at the descretion of the tournament director. (Typically this rule will only be invoked for games which go on to 50+ moves, but will not be invoked because you had to go on vacation for a week.)"

This game has reached 58 rules so far, so I don´t see any reason to accuse the TD with these harsh words. Apparently the opponent did his homework (the rule thing) properly and used it wisely, no resaon to accuse him either. Those who are able to read usually have a great advantage, and it´s not their fault if they use it. It´s as simple as that.

islanderfan
Posts: 880
Joined: Mon May 14, 2001 10:56 pm

Post by islanderfan » Mon Dec 03, 2007 5:51 pm

Cornstalk grow up what are you playing for money??

jasperp
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:11 am

Post by jasperp » Mon Dec 03, 2007 5:53 pm

Slowblunder is right: it's all in the rules

In our game cornstalk-jasperp, my ( former) friend remarks as you can read- because I won't move for a couple of days probably- "the hell with you"... What am I still doing here when someone wishes me to hell?
Cornstalk, please take your words back!!
Greg, is this allowed?

jasperp

cornstalk
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 1999 1:42 pm

Post by cornstalk » Mon Dec 03, 2007 7:08 pm

jasperp wrote:Slowblunder is right: it's all in the rules

In our game cornstalk-jasperp, my ( former) friend remarks as you can read- because I won't move for a couple of days probably- "the hell with you"... What am I still doing here when someone wishes me to hell?
Cornstalk, please take your words back!!
Greg, is this allowed?

jasperp
Well jasperp, you should have asked me first if I minded whether a time extension be granted to play out this very interesting ending. Instead, you approached the director and only asked me afterward if I minded -- as if my objection then could achieve anything. So if my mere words can consign you to hell, I'm afraid you will just have to go there.

But what, are you angling now to get the whole point, hoping that I'll be forfeited. Don't worry about that. If the extra time that you obtained isn't subtracted, I'll leave and never play on this site again.

cornstalk
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 1999 1:42 pm

Re: tournament rules

Post by cornstalk » Mon Dec 03, 2007 7:09 pm

slowblunder wrote:If I sign up for a tournament I usually read the rules first in order to know about "surprises" in advance. In this case those rules tell
"For each round each player will be given exactly 60 days of think time (this is the equivelant of 60d+0d). Time may be added to finish a long game if needed, but is at the descretion of the tournament director. (Typically this rule will only be invoked for games which go on to 50+ moves, but will not be invoked because you had to go on vacation for a week.)"

This game has reached 58 rules so far, so I don´t see any reason to accuse the TD with these harsh words. Apparently the opponent did his homework (the rule thing) properly and used it wisely, no resaon to accuse him either. Those who are able to read usually have a great advantage, and it´s not their fault if they use it. It´s as simple as that.
Any addition of time should be on the basis of a mutual request. What sense does it make to have a time limit if one player can run out of time, then simply ask for more?

islanderfan
Posts: 880
Joined: Mon May 14, 2001 10:56 pm

Post by islanderfan » Mon Dec 03, 2007 7:09 pm

Buh bye. Oh and make sure you thank the wammmmmbbbbbuuuuuuulance you pansy. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

cornstalk
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 1999 1:42 pm

Post by cornstalk » Mon Dec 03, 2007 7:12 pm

islanderfan wrote:Buh bye. Oh and make sure you thank the wammmmmbbbbbuuuuuuulance you pansy. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Say what you like, buddy; I play a hell of a lot better game of chess than you do.

cornstalk
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 1999 1:42 pm

Post by cornstalk » Mon Dec 03, 2007 7:14 pm

islanderfan wrote:Cornstalk grow up what are you playing for money??
No; but every single game I play, I play to win. If you don't, I suggest you take up pinochle.

cornstalk
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 1999 1:42 pm

Post by cornstalk » Mon Dec 03, 2007 7:14 pm

islanderfan wrote:Cornstalk grow up what are you playing for money??
No; but every single game I play, I play to win. If you don't, I suggest you take up pinochle.

islanderfan
Posts: 880
Joined: Mon May 14, 2001 10:56 pm

Post by islanderfan » Mon Dec 03, 2007 7:14 pm

One thing I am not your buddy. Second like I could really care less. I am not the one who is . like a flamming homo cause time was added. Get a life. :lol: :lol: :lol:

islanderfan
Posts: 880
Joined: Mon May 14, 2001 10:56 pm

Post by islanderfan » Mon Dec 03, 2007 7:16 pm

No; but every single game I play, I play to win. If you don't, I suggest you take up pinochle.
It's a great game, learn it better and you can win money also. Oh I better stop you may go leave the site. Nah forget that go ahead and go but don't let the door hit you on the way out. :lol: :lol: :lol:

gmiller
Site Admin
Posts: 1329
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 1999 11:13 am
Location: Jeffersonville, IN
Contact:

Post by gmiller » Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:25 pm

If the extra time that you obtained isn't subtracted, I'll leave and never play on this site again.
Isn't your primary complaint that you thought I was changing the rules to suit one player? You should obviously know I can't change the actual rules just to help you out. I'm sorry you didn't understand the rules, and I'm sorry your upset, but that doesn't make it my fault.
Greg Miller

cornstalk
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 1999 1:42 pm

Post by cornstalk » Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:07 am

gmiller wrote:
If the extra time that you obtained isn't subtracted, I'll leave and never play on this site again.
Isn't your primary complaint that you thought I was changing the rules to suit one player? You should obviously know I can't change the actual rules just to help you out. I'm sorry you didn't understand the rules, and I'm sorry your upset, but that doesn't make it my fault.
Well, I won't play under rules that are capable of being capriciously applied to benefit one player at the expense of another. Your published rules talk about adding time to games, not about doing so over one player's protest. I had read the rules but had no expectation of this happening, having assumed that any action taken would have had to be with the consent of both players. Your published rules do not say, so far as I am aware, that anyone who wants more time can have it whenever they want. That seems to be the rule that being applied here. Or is it simply the rule that having committed yourself to something patently unfair, you're not going to back out of it?

It is not obvious that it would have violated your rule by first asking me if I wanted to see the game prolonged.

There is no where else in chess where anyone would dream of the TD coming along and adding time to someone's clock on the mere pretext that the player was on the brink of timing out. You can take my word for that; I am a National Master and a Senior Master of correspondence chess. Also I am a licensed TD and I regularly direct chess tournaments. Time is only added to a player's clock to compensate for his opponent's misconduct, or a clock malfunction, not just because someone is getting ready to time out and claims he wants to play an interesting position.

Time forfeits are a perfectly necessary, serious and valid part of chess. You and some other hobbyists here seem to think that it's somehow unfair if some poor fellow has to time out. That reflects a deep misunderstanding of the nature of chess competition;, both over the board and in correspondence. And this particular application of an ambiguous and poorly worded rule is simply not fair.

I won't play on a site where an amateur with no understanding of how real chess competions work can make blatantly unfair rulings to suit his whim, so goodbye. You might want to get a copy of the USCF rulebook sometime and read it, just to see how seriously these things are taken by real chess players.

For the benefit of those reading this, I also play under "captainflint," so his current opponents will score forfeit wins as well.

slowblunder
Posts: 77
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 4:23 pm

Good-bye

Post by slowblunder » Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:07 am

If different people´s opinions can´t be matched and there is no important reason for them to stay together with bad feelings all the time, it is a wise decision that each of them go their own way. No need to be angry!

All the best for your future chess career.

cornstalk
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 1999 1:42 pm

Post by cornstalk » Tue Dec 04, 2007 9:12 am

Yes, well, I'm plenty angry by the fundamental unfairness of what just happened; particularly with my opponent for not having the decency to ask me first if I would agree to a time extension. I could play on defeat him in this difficult but technically won ending (two bishops are vastly superior to a rook and pawn), but I won't because doing so would accept the absurd, unfair ruling that has just been given. I'm angry that a relatively decent cc website is turned into a joke by its administrator's ignorance of what constitutes serious chess competition. But there it is.

And it's not "different people's opinions." On the one hand, there is how time limits are treated throughout the chess world; on the other hand, there is how Greg Miller treats them, which appears to be that anyone close to timing out can have a little extra time if he asks for it. And in the semifinal round of the site tournament. Outrageous! Why have time limits at all, if that is the policy?

jasperp
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:11 am

Post by jasperp » Tue Dec 04, 2007 10:03 am

Indeed I didn't ask cornstalk to agree with my asking for more time. It's rather clear the answer would have been negative. As I saw in the rules there is an opportunity to get more time after f.e. 50 moves I asked greg to do so and he did. Would I have asked you first and then greg, my time was over ( I had only a few hours left).
Cornstalk,if you think our endgame is won, play on! In your anger you said very stupid things to me, so it won't be a pleasant continuation I'm afraid. A nice win against me and so reaching the final is better than say extreme strange things against greg and me and leave then!!

gmiller
Site Admin
Posts: 1329
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 1999 11:13 am
Location: Jeffersonville, IN
Contact:

Post by gmiller » Tue Dec 04, 2007 10:11 am

I too, am a USCF certified TD and have organized 77 USCF rated tournaments to date. I'm very familiar with the rules.

You are incorrect in your assertion that time is never added except for rule violations. The one that applies in this case is games with multiple time controls, the equivalent of 50/60d SD/14d. The second would be "insufficient loosing chances" where a delay clock would be put on a game which didn't have one to begin with, in which case the time controls could be changed to 60d+1d.
Greg Miller

cornstalk
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 1999 1:42 pm

Post by cornstalk » Tue Dec 04, 2007 10:23 am

gmiller wrote:I too, am a USCF certified TD and have organized 77 USCF rated tournaments to date. I'm very familiar with the rules.

You are incorrect in your assertion that time is never added except for rule violations. The one that applies in this case is games with multiple time controls, the equivalent of 50/60d SD/14d. The second would be "insufficient loosing chances" where a delay clock would be put on a game which didn't have one to begin with, in which case the time controls could be changed to 60d+1d.
Greg, this game doesn't have multiple time controls; it is SD-60 except for the TD's intervention for who knows what reason. In any case, neither switching to a "push" clock for insufficient losing chances; nor a time adjustment for transition to and SD control; contradicts what I said, which is that time is never simply donated to one player except on the pretexts I gave. I'm quite surprised to find out you're a TD given your weird and capricious application of the time control here. Anyway, there's no point in continuing this discussion.

As a TD you should know you'd create a firestorm of controversy, and probably get your license revoked, if you did something like this in a USCF rated event.

Have the last word if you want; I won't be back to read it.

gmiller
Site Admin
Posts: 1329
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 1999 11:13 am
Location: Jeffersonville, IN
Contact:

Post by gmiller » Tue Dec 04, 2007 10:42 am

Well, considering I've been in a "firestorm of controversy" over USCF rules many, many times in the past, I'm not surprised anytime any rule is disputed. But the people who get mad and go home because they didn't understand the rules is usually limited to kids under 10 years old. TTFN.

There is nothing 'arbitrary' about this rule, it was well documented before the tournament started.
Greg Miller

islanderfan
Posts: 880
Joined: Mon May 14, 2001 10:56 pm

Post by islanderfan » Tue Dec 04, 2007 4:23 pm

Jesus Christ will someone shut up cornstalk already. It's like being in kindergarten. WHO THE $%^#@ cares about if time was added. Are you winning? Then shutup you fairy . xxxx.

juselton
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2001 6:17 am

Post by juselton » Thu Dec 06, 2007 5:15 am

Hey gang, how about this---throw away all the chess clocks and lets rely on friendly tournament directors to bail us out when we get into time trouble!!! Hoorah---no more time troubles---if the TD is a buddy of yours!!!!!

But what if he doesnt like you islander man---you're screwed! And you would probably be crying loudest of all!!

letitbe
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 3:14 pm

Time added

Post by letitbe » Thu Dec 06, 2007 2:58 pm

Can I ask Greg why he did not consult Cornstalk about this, I have played USCF chess for almost 30 years and never heard of a thing specially in a important tournament. Greg needed to consult both players before changing rules, if Japserp wanted to continue because of a interesting game, then Cornstalk should win on time and game played for fun.

kcollins
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:44 pm

this is no longer a discussion

Post by kcollins » Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:00 pm

having been reading the comics on the subject - we seem to have been working on the point - should time be added - i sympathise with the complainent but as a even minded chap..... - the product is he has left the site and taken his bat and ball with him - why are we still degrading each other.... the world doesn't need it and personally slightley fed up - this is quite the same as a saga a few moons ago - idontknow had much the same banter - when it appeared he/she had left the site i a huff - it still went on and on...... sad people,,,,, request this is now closed..... wishing you all a very nice game - whoever plays......... :idea:

captivate
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 11:09 am

Re: Time added

Post by captivate » Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:42 pm

letitbe wrote:Can I ask Greg why he did not consult Cornstalk about this, I have played USCF chess for almost 30 years and never heard of a thing specially in a important tournament. Greg needed to consult both players before changing rules, if Japserp wanted to continue because of a interesting game, then Cornstalk should win on time and game played for fun.
I too, can sympathize with cornstalk, but you are mistaken in your words. The rules were not changed. "For each round each player will be given exactly 60 days of think time (this is the equivelant of 60d+0d). Time may be added to finish a long game if needed, but is at the descretion of the tournament director. "

I agree, it would have been nice to consult the other player but the rules do not state that this has to occur!

Just my input, those of you who think against it may speak as you please, but the rules have been slated as so!

letitbe
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 3:14 pm

time added

Post by letitbe » Thu Dec 06, 2007 4:01 pm

The point that people are missing, is that if Cornstalk wins, he advances to next round of tournament, Jasperp has no chance in tournament. Jasperp has nothing to gain and should have taken his time defeat and asked Cornstalk about playing for fun. Jasperp is probably just a poor loser and being a jerk about it.

gmiller
Site Admin
Posts: 1329
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 1999 11:13 am
Location: Jeffersonville, IN
Contact:

Post by gmiller » Thu Dec 06, 2007 4:39 pm

I was very aware that Cornstalk needed a win in this game to proceed to the final round, and was really hoping he could pull it off. I was also aware both players were low on time, and had set my e-mail up to page me if it contained either of the two game IDs Cornstalk needed to win so that no one would time out waiting for me to respond.

But there's no reason Jasperp shouldn't have requested extra time, in the same way no one is required to resign when they've obviously lost the game. There is no need for me to consult both players because that's not what the rule says. It doesn't matter if you like the rule or not, once announced, it became just as valid and important as any other rule in the book.
Greg Miller

letitbe
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 3:14 pm

Post by letitbe » Thu Dec 06, 2007 4:48 pm

whatever reason you choose, it was the wrong one

slowblunder
Posts: 77
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 4:23 pm

rules are rules

Post by slowblunder » Thu Dec 06, 2007 5:21 pm

When I wrote about "those who can read" I didn´t refer to those who only know that the black things on the screen are the letters. I meant those you can read AND understand the intention of a complete text:
"Time may be added to finish a long game if needed, but is at the descretion of the tournament director. (Typically this rule will only be invoked for games which go on to 50+ moves, but will not be invoked because you had to go on vacation for a week.)"
This intention is evident if you read (and understand) the explaining text in brackets - long games (50+ moves) yes, vacation trouble no. I can´t see any reason to complain afterwards, just because you are used to it in another way and therefore misread this rule.
In my eyes "... any action taken would have had to be with the consent of both players" is a very free interpretation of "at the descretion of the tournament director", maybe because English is a foreign language for me.

Greg´s action is fine with me, it´s according to the site´s rules and it has been done frequently in the past. (An opponent of mine requested this extra time in our game as well. He had a won position but little time, I resigned after my hope had gone that he wasn´t aware of this. No problem, but I was not that courteous to remind him ...)
And of course, this rule has to be applied to everyone in the same way, regardless of the current position, tournament standings or whatever.

jrichner
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 6:04 pm

Adding Time

Post by jrichner » Fri Dec 07, 2007 2:00 am

"I don't give a damn about your interesting endgame. I play to win, that's it."

An interesting quote from cornstalk. I'm surprised he's the same as captainflint. I've always gotten along with flint, but cornstalk strikes me as childish. Last year, davidswhite had time added on at a crucial moment, so this is not a new thing.

The score in the group is irrelevant. What if the player in 1st was only a half point ahead? Jasperp would owe it to this player to fight. Jasperp has a right to play on and defend the draw.

As for adding time, I'm sure the rules were in place before the tournament started ... one suggestion for Mr. Miller: Maybe post this all more clearly in advance? Once 40 (or 50?) moves are reached you add 15 days?

And for those of you who think that cornstalk "deserves" to advance to the final, I would simply add that he finished a distant 4th in his group under his CaptainFlint handle. :D

juselton
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2001 6:17 am

Post by juselton » Fri Dec 07, 2007 6:37 am

I've always thought time management was part of the chess struggle. If you squander your time away---for whatever reason---tough, you lose!!!

If the rule states otherwise then the rule should be changed. No TD should have the authority to allow someone to snatch victory from defeat through no skill of their own. And then have the guy stand over you and taunt you??? If that happened to me I'd take my ball and glove and find another playground ---quick!!!!!!!

slowblunder
Posts: 77
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 4:23 pm

reason behind this rule (an attempt to explain)

Post by slowblunder » Fri Dec 07, 2007 9:08 am

I will try to explain the intention behind this rule - as far as I understand this intention.

Basically there are two ways of time limits in chess:
You get a certain amount of time for the whole game, when this time is over you lose (most common example: blitz games with 5 minutes) or
you get some amount of time per move which means "the more moves the more time".

For serious games the second way is more suitable because you can figure out all your moves in a sufficient time which guarantees (?) higher level games, especially in the endgame. Furthermore you can do easy moves quicker and save your time for the more complicated situations.

Years ago, I had three minutes of time per move in OTB, no matter how long the game would last - 40 moves within 2 hours and then 20 moves in the third, fourth, ... hour. The result were games with 10 or more hours, so it was changed to "40 moves within 2 hours and then one extra hour to complete the game".

The current net-chess rule for the 200x tournaments seems to me to be more like the former rule: "Do your first 50 moves within 60 days and then both players will get extra time in packages of 15 for the next 15 (?) moves".
Nothing new, nothing arbitrary, the only problem is that you won´t get that extra time automatically (not supported by the system) but you have to request it and then get it "manually". I can´t tell how much effort a program change would be, but the current situation seems to me a reasonable compromise between effort and effectivity. The only bad thing is that it can be misunderstood as "influence by the tournament director".

In my eyes there really is no need to limit the all-over-duration of a whole correspondence game (2 x 60 days = 4 months) like in OTB because one point in CC is to play/think whenever you have spare time.

Another example why 60 days for the whole game is not fair and won´t lead to fair results AND high level games:
Many games between two decent players won´t end with mate within 80 moves - positional opening, non-tactical midgame, hard endgame. One might have a promising advantage in move 50, but it´s still a long way to the pawn promotion and/or the following mate (although the final result is evident for both of them). Assume this player only has internet access in the evening (after work from 7 to 10) and thus he moves once per day/evening. Two hours later his opponent does his move (because he lives in another time zone, because he has different working time or because he has found out that the opponent won´t move within the next 20 hours ...). So one "spends" 21 hours per move and the other only 3. The result will be that the player with the inferior position can easily win the game by timing out his opponent - not because he moves faster or better!
"Bad luck, move to another time zone, change your job to get access during daytime or just play during your worktime and risk your job" - that can´t be serious answers to this problem!
The answer net-chess provides with this rule is "keep on playing a decent game as long as you don´t stall it and your frequency of one move per day is preserved". Seems perfect to me for correspondence chess with players from all over the world!

These thoughts are my interpretation of the reasons fixing the time rules as they are at net-chess. Greg, feel free to confirm, comment on, correct, complete ...

gmiller
Site Admin
Posts: 1329
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 1999 11:13 am
Location: Jeffersonville, IN
Contact:

Post by gmiller » Sat Dec 08, 2007 1:27 am

Slowblunder's description is pretty much exactly the idea behind the additional rule. I'll just add that the fact that everyone is playing at least 10 game simultaneously, it's really not feasible for anyone to move once a day in every game in positions that require a lot of analysis.
No TD should have the authority to allow someone to snatch victory from defeat through no skill of their own.
There was no victory snatched from defeat here, the only reason Jasperp let his clock get so low is because he knew he could get more time.

-----

This is all good discussion. I'm actually planning to change this rule for the 2008 tournament now, namely the "at the discretion of the TD" part. I'll change it to read more like you're hitting the second time control, as well as make the additional time automatic. The only purpose of the discretion disclaimer was so that no one could get time added and delay the tournament for two weeks when they're sitting at a mate in 1 position.

The 2007 tournament rule will stand as announced for the remainder of the tournament, so time will be added only when it's requested. Since there's 11 qualifiers (possibly 12 if Cornstalk changes his mind), I think I'll be adding time to a lot of games though.
Greg Miller

islanderfan
Posts: 880
Joined: Mon May 14, 2001 10:56 pm

Post by islanderfan » Sat Dec 08, 2007 7:18 am

Greg what about putting the time limit higher than 60days??

gmiller
Site Admin
Posts: 1329
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 1999 11:13 am
Location: Jeffersonville, IN
Contact:

Post by gmiller » Sat Dec 08, 2007 10:35 am

Most games do finish before 50 moves are made. The only problem with making it G75 means every round will take an extra month to complete. Having a second time control entices people to play faster and finish enough games to determine who the winners are earlier.
Greg Miller

islanderfan
Posts: 880
Joined: Mon May 14, 2001 10:56 pm

Post by islanderfan » Sat Dec 08, 2007 6:05 pm

ok or minus the add time. Ie 60d+2d.

davidswhite
Uranium
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 1999 1:31 pm

Post by davidswhite » Sun Dec 09, 2007 6:53 am

Indeed,as jrichner points out,at a critical moment of the 2006 final round I was the beneficiary of added time along with my opponent,mikeh,who didn't
need any.
The circumstance was different,however. As I recall,I was down to my last
15 or 18 hours of time,couldn't afford to go to sleep,hunched over my computer waiting for mikeh's next move to come in,and when it did come
I was appalled to find that he'd moved some 3 hours before I'd been notified
or so I was convinced.
Consequently,I e-mailed Greg to confirm that there hadn't been some server
malfunction that had cost me 3 hours before being notified of mikeh's move.
I mentioned to Greg that anything was possible considering my sleep-deprived state.
Greg responded that he was adding 15 days to each of our times since we were well past the 50 move requirement .
Were it not fpr this fortuidous serendipity the liklihood is that I'd have wound up in a 3-way tie for 1st place and by virtue of the fact that I'd have only obtained a half point in my match with Mikeh,while I'd beaten the other player twice,that the tie-break would have had me finishing 2nd(again!) and mikeh would have won the championship.

I had been completely unaware of the applicable rule which Greg had in place to cover such situations because neither I nor any of my opponents had ever before in any game been so time-challenged that it would have arisen.

Mikeh was very good about accepting my explanation of what had happened . I'd contacted Greg hoping,at best,to recover 3 hours of time
and inadvertently hit the motherload !!! If I hadn't contacted Greg to
doublecheck the accuracy of the move-notification process because I
was in such time distress, my ignorance of the provision in the rules which
allowed extra time upon request in just such situations would very likely
have doomed my chances of holding the draw.

Incidentally,if Mikeh had been determined to exacerbate my time predicament by timing his moves accordingly,as was his right,the same situation could have been forced on me several days earlier. That he didn't elect to go that route,I considered then,and still do today,to his credit as a gentleman and I give my guarantee to behave similarly if,and whenever, I find myself in his position.

Regards,
David

juselton
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2001 6:17 am

Post by juselton » Mon Dec 10, 2007 6:03 am

If this isnt a chess expression-it should be;

Anyone who would ask the TD for more time,

Would pick your pocket!

If people dont want to stay within the time constraints---let them play checkers.

does playing like a gentleman mean letting people take their move back? Well, thats the gentlemanly thing to do. Where does it end?

davidswhite
Uranium
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 1999 1:31 pm

Post by davidswhite » Mon Dec 10, 2007 6:40 am

You continue to dismiss the fact that the rules at Net-Chess specifically
provide for this after each player has made 50 moves.

Anyone who was in time trouble after 50 moves,and was familiar with the
site rules would have to be an idiot not to ask the TD for more time,period!

What is your particular malfunction in being unable to grasp that?

slowblunder
Posts: 77
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 4:23 pm

gentlemen and chess

Post by slowblunder » Mon Dec 10, 2007 7:22 am

Gentlemen in chess MAY
- remind their (OTB-)opponent to press the clock after their move
- tell their net-chess opponent that they can request additional time after the 50th move
- resign in obviously lost positions in order not to steal their opponent´s time (OTB and CC)
- spend a couple of minutes (OTB) or lines (CC) after the game to exchange thoughts
- shake hands afterwards, congratulate or thank for an interesting game (no matter what result it had)

Gentlemen in chess MAY NEVER
- ask to take back own moves
- allow the opponents to take back their moves (exception: practice games)
- disturb their opponents during the game (telling names, permanent draw offers, making noise, ...)
- disparage their opponent after the game (no matter what result it had)
- talk or write comments on running games (no matter if they are playing them or other people are)
- stall their games only for the reason to annoy their opponent
- drop their games because they are angry with someone
- loose intentionally (in order to manipulate their rating, help others to win a tournament, ...)
- whine or complain if their opponents know better about opening lines, endgame studies or rules than they do (they just learn from it for the next game)

juselton
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2001 6:17 am

Post by juselton » Tue Dec 11, 2007 3:48 am

Well, I didnt know about the rule---but it is stupid. The tournament director will decide if you get more time or not. You dont get extra time for a vacation but if you say ---hey, this is an interesting end game, please put more time on my clock. That is acceptable?? Who made this rule?

A guy who will ask the tournament director for more time---is a guy who will pick your pocket!

slowblunder
Posts: 77
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 4:23 pm

Post by slowblunder » Tue Dec 11, 2007 4:57 am

juselton wrote:Well, I didnt know about the rule---but it is stupid.
First half may be correct, second part is your personal opinion which is based on misunderstanding.
juselton wrote:The tournament director will decide if you get more time or not.
Wrong if you mean that the TD decides as he likes to - he decides by looking at the number of moves as the only criterium (more than 50 then the requested time is added, if not more than 50 you have to play your missing moves until 50 or you loose. Simple as that!)
Partially correct if you compare it with a hockey referee: It´s a goal, a penalty or whatever if he makes this decision (it´s not the players´ job to decide!). The difference is that a hockey referee can decide wrongly, it´s hard for the TD to do so unless he doesn´t know which numbers are more than 50 and which are less...
juselton wrote:You dont get extra time for a vacation but if you say ---hey, this is an interesting end game, please put more time on my clock.
Vacation thing - correct.
Interesting end game thing - wrong. This is neither covered by the rule nor was it decisive in this case (and in any other). 58 moves and a request raised by jasperp, simple as that! gmiller did his math thing perfectly: 58 > 50. If jasperp mentioned the "interesting end game" in his request or not or if he wrote "I like your site very much, please do me a favour" - no one knows and no one cares, especially not the TD. Anyone gets the time if he writes "50 moves are made, please add the time" (exception: see gmiller´s remark about the mate-in-one situation which is the reason for the "TD´s discretion").
juselton wrote:That is acceptable??
With the knowledge (and understanding!) of the 50-moves-rule: definitely yes!
juselton wrote:Who made this rule?
The site-owner gmiller himself. Some posts above I wrote some thoughts about the reasons behind this rule, and gmiller confirmed that this description is "pretty much exactly the idea behind the additional rule".
juselton wrote:A guy who will ask the tournament director for more time---is a guy who will pick your pocket!
Wrong! A pick-pocket steals money from another person illegaly, the guy asking for more time just claims his legal right.
Of course, his opponent may not be happy about that. But it´s not the guy´s job to make his opponent happy. It´s not my job to make my insurancy happy if I have a car accident. If they don´t pay (and I think they have to) I will claim my legal right as well, maybe with external help and by an official decision. Nothing to get angry about, not on my end and not on the insurancy´s end. Too bad that there are rules that are much more unclear than "50 moves" ...

jasperp
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:11 am

Post by jasperp » Tue Dec 11, 2007 11:27 am

It wasn’t my intention to react, but when I read I am a bad loser and a jerk (according to letitbe), a pickpocket (juselton), angling to get the whole point for free (mister c.) and so on, I wonder why there are such upset reactions. So is the ridiculous remark gmiller is my buddy.
The bare fact I could not reach the final round isn’t a reason to give the game away. When in my opinion it’s drawish, I don’t resign! That’s logical and a case of good sportsmanship. When my position was lost I would resign and that’s logical and a case of good sportsmanship too! Two things are sure: our game is still going on, and it’s not my intention to resign.

dfourandwin
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 1:36 pm

Final

Post by dfourandwin » Thu Dec 13, 2007 9:51 am

Greg, If cornstalk stays true to his word and the game ends in ~ 9 days, when will the Final Round start?

gmiller
Site Admin
Posts: 1329
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 1999 11:13 am
Location: Jeffersonville, IN
Contact:

Post by gmiller » Thu Dec 13, 2007 10:48 am

Probably the second weekend in January. I'll post an announcement when the game is finally over.
Greg Miller

Post Reply