Vote Chess: Game 2 - Page 17

LaurV · 2014-07-03, 03:19

Just to make it clear (after a small discussion on the private forum with the "referees board", who said that retracting move is not fair and should be forbidden, "touched piece is a moved piece"):

We are not retracting any move. If I said that "the damage is done", I was referring to the argument with cheesehead that I posted too early, and not to the fact that the move might be wrong.

I reaffirm my position that the move was the best we could do, and the game should go on as it is. If this was not clear for the other team, then please consider that I just now posted the move, and you still have your 7 days to think about an answer.

jasonp · 2014-07-03, 15:20

Discussion on the last move is now closed. Further posts on the last move will be moved to the Useless thread.

henryzz · 2014-07-05, 08:22

34...Kf7

LaurV · 2014-07-05, 13:24

35 Rb7

Brian-E · 2014-07-12, 11:47

35...Bb4

LaurV · 2014-07-12, 18:34

36 Nxe7

gd_barnes · 2014-07-17, 05:32

This is an excellent example of why if-then moves are needed -or- a game time limit is needed. Something like 40 moves in 150 days by each side followed by 30 more moves in 90 more days with continued multiples of 30/90 if the game goes past 70 total moves...or something of that nature. (The total time is cumulative such that if a person only uses 100 days for the first 40 moves, they would have 50 plus 90 days for the next 30 moves...just like a chess clock in an over-the-board tournament.) Not only does this give extra time for tough moves, it allows a team to build in "rest" time by making moves quickly so that it can possibly take a 2-3 week break later on if it so desires*. An admin can easily keep a running tab of total time taken and post it after each move.

IMHO, waiting more than 1-2 days with a 7-day turn-based time control to make a virtually forced move is not sporting.

I used to play turn-based games including Chess and Pente on a gaming site called itsyourturn.com. It's move-based time controls eventually drove me away. I had suggested multiple times that they go to game-based time controls and they refused.

* Correspondence snail-mail tournaments were usually played this way. In the case of a person intentionally delaying a loss by not moving for weeks in a clearly lost position, an admin can step in after a pre-determined period of time (such as 14 days) and after an appropriate warning, declare the game forfeited but I don't see that ever happening here.

paulunderwood · 2014-07-17, 06:40

Some of us have a life. Plus we all need time to consider the possible moves thoroughly and in a coordinated manner ready for a vote, before we announce our decision.

Batalov · 2014-07-17, 06:45

These might be all good ideas for the next game.

This one should rather go along the original guidelines that were set forward at its start. One doesn't change horses in midstream, as it were.

gd_barnes · 2014-07-17, 07:04

Serge, I wasn't suggesting changing this game. Like you said, the rules in place at the beginning of the game have to stay. It's just for future reference.

Paul, having a game-based time control would give more time for people to "have a life". They could move quickly when they have time and take a couple of weeks when they don't. Regardless, wouldn't you agree that there is nothing to consider about the upcoming move?

Brian-E · 2014-07-17, 07:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by gd_barnes

IMHO, waiting more than 1-2 days with a 7-day turn-based time control to make a virtually forced move is not sporting.

I don't recall either side ever doing this in our game.

2014-07-03, 15:20	#178
jasonp Tribal Bullet Oct 2004 3562₁₀ Posts	Discussion on the last move is now closed. Further posts on the last move will be moved to the Useless thread. Last fiddled with by jasonp on 2014-07-03 at 19:27

2014-07-17, 05:32	#183
gd_barnes "Gary" May 2007 Overland Park, KS 2·19·317 Posts	This is an excellent example of why if-then moves are needed -or- a game time limit is needed. Something like 40 moves in 150 days by each side followed by 30 more moves in 90 more days with continued multiples of 30/90 if the game goes past 70 total moves...or something of that nature. (The total time is cumulative such that if a person only uses 100 days for the first 40 moves, they would have 50 plus 90 days for the next 30 moves...just like a chess clock in an over-the-board tournament.) Not only does this give extra time for tough moves, it allows a team to build in "rest" time by making moves quickly so that it can possibly take a 2-3 week break later on if it so desires. An admin can easily keep a running tab of total time taken and post it after each move. IMHO, waiting more than 1-2 days with a 7-day turn-based time control to make a virtually forced move is not sporting. I used to play turn-based games including Chess and Pente on a gaming site called itsyourturn.com. It's move-based time controls eventually drove me away. I had suggested multiple times that they go to game-based time controls and they refused. Correspondence snail-mail tournaments were usually played this way. In the case of a person intentionally delaying a loss by not moving for weeks in a clearly lost position, an admin can step in after a pre-determined period of time (such as 14 days) and after an appropriate warning, declare the game forfeited but I don't see that ever happening here. Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 2014-07-17 at 06:22

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Vote chess game 4: To be decided? Some chess variant will be interesting to consider with!	Raman	Chess	6	2016-12-06 06:50
Vote Chess: Game 4	Xyzzy	Chess	14	2015-11-12 20:54
Vote Chess: Game 3	Xyzzy	Chess	267	2015-10-30 09:34
Vote Chess game 1: the post snort'em	Brian-E	Chess	36	2014-01-23 16:22
Vote Chess: Game 1	henryzz	Chess	306	2013-07-08 18:29

2014-07-03, 03:19	#177
LaurV Romulan Interpreter "name field" Jun 2011 Thailand 24055₈ Posts	Just to make it clear (after a small discussion on the private forum with the "referees board", who said that retracting move is not fair and should be forbidden, "touched piece is a moved piece"): We are not retracting any move. If I said that "the damage is done", I was referring to the argument with cheesehead that I posted too early, and not to the fact that the move might be wrong. I reaffirm my position that the move was the best we could do, and the game should go on as it is. If this was not clear for the other team, then please consider that I just now posted the move, and you still have your 7 days to think about an answer.

2014-07-05, 08:22	#179
henryzz Just call me Henry "David" Sep 2007 Liverpool (GMT/BST) 2·13·233 Posts	34...Kf7

2014-07-05, 13:24	#180
LaurV Romulan Interpreter "name field" Jun 2011 Thailand 5×11²×17 Posts	35 Rb7

2014-07-12, 11:47	#181
Brian-E "Brian" Jul 2007 The Netherlands 2×11×149 Posts	35...Bb4

2014-07-12, 18:34	#182
LaurV Romulan Interpreter "name field" Jun 2011 Thailand 24055₈ Posts	36 Nxe7

2014-07-17, 06:40	#184
paulunderwood Sep 2002 Database er0rr 4568₁₀ Posts	Some of us have a life. Plus we all need time to consider the possible moves thoroughly and in a coordinated manner ready for a vote, before we announce our decision.

2014-07-17, 06:45	#185
Batalov "Serge" Mar 2008 Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2 2⁴·631 Posts	These might be all good ideas for the next game. This one should rather go along the original guidelines that were set forward at its start. One doesn't change horses in midstream, as it were.

2014-07-17, 07:04	#186
gd_barnes "Gary" May 2007 Overland Park, KS 2·19·317 Posts	Serge, I wasn't suggesting changing this game. Like you said, the rules in place at the beginning of the game have to stay. It's just for future reference. Paul, having a game-based time control would give more time for people to "have a life". They could move quickly when they have time and take a couple of weeks when they don't. Regardless, wouldn't you agree that there is nothing to consider about the upcoming move?