New time controls for Correspondence games, opinions please ?

Actually, I favor the addition of having a weeks vacation time available. 14 days is too much imo, but I wouldn't be opposed. All players have the addition of 7 days per year.
The reasons for having vacation time are valid ones.
However, vacation time when taken has to used in ALL games. All games are halted after the player taking the time has moved. Use time in one game, the days come off the yearly allotment.
Vacation time is for unseen circumstances, preventing a loss due to flagging. If it is needed in one game, then surely it is needed for all with similar controls.
The suggestion of having optional times, length of, arbitrary use of, every game having it's own unique time control is not practical and would only lead to abuse of the system.

@jposthuma Interesting ideas, but the timebank+timeout system is exactly a Bronstein delay system, if you think about that. With the difference being correspondence: the delay is enough to make any move within it.

I still would immensely appreciate timebank, because I like to play many games at once, I like the exercise of keeping track of them. But I may go through a very busy week, so I can't just play 3-7 days without worrying about my games. I'm not concerned about consistent opponents more than my own management and possibility to take my time choosing my next move. My experience with correspondence timeout is painful, made me underrated in another site, and that would take very long to fix.

I love my lichess account, so I don't risk any shorter than 14 days. Mind you, I also do my best to warn an opponent when I see they are close to forfeiting.

Edit: I don't like being suggested that I change my user experience as I really prefer it, just so there's an excuse to reject my suggestion. That's not a proper way to argue. I know what I'm doing.

The timebank feature ( which really shouldn't be thought of as vacation time, it's different) and correspondence tournaments are the only thing keeping me at RHP rather than playing all my games here.

@Spartako has this exactly right. We seem to be in a similar position.

I#d love to be able to commit to shorter correspondance time controls as I also feel the frustration of waiting for ages for a very slow game. Playing a 1 day or 2 day time control would vertainly solve that.

However, I also know that my personal lifestyle means I am sometimes unable to make *any* moves at all over a weekend (for example) would mean that should one of those periods hit me all timeout on all my games.

Adding a small time surplass I can dip into in those times is ideal. Yes, it may mean it is a slightly slower game than a strict 2 day per move, however I am willing to make that compromise in exchange for the utility and the quality of life improvements it gives.

That's really all there is to it.

Objections around "They'd need to change X, and add Y, I don't like it, and you should play differently" are all irrelevant. How an idea gets coded is irrelevant as an objection. For those that see no need for it, great. Implementing it would not change your experience one jot, so again no reason for an objection.

I am also fully aware this site is run by a single developer, again, not an argument for the idea not to be suggested.

Not sure what #56 is trying to say by pasting that feature priority equation unless they also have actual data to start putting numbers into the sections. Something concrete rather than feelings and resistance to change?

I wounder why hourglass is so uncommon?

@BaronVonChickenpants

Apparently you did not click on thibault's link explaining the formula and how new features, additions come to pass.

@Nordlandia (#60)

Then they should make another thing called "Hourglass Chess" - after all, the current Correspondence Chess works perfectly well, and people who don't want their time to be given to the opponent can play this. While those who do can play that.

The fact that his thread already has 7 pages indicates that this is a demand feature, likely to become popular.

In regards to "development and maintenance", I believe it is a simple change. We just need to update the clock properly at each move, almost like in Fischer time (which we already have in all other rating categories) but with an slightly different equation. Our clocks already support up to 14 days and we can set that as a limit for TimeOut+TimeBank. That way we won't even interfere with the 30-day rule, which aborts infinite time games.

I speak from almost 30 years of experience on software development. Yet I'm not a lichess developer nor studied scala language. Are you a lichess developer, @mdinnerspace ?

again, in my opinion a time bank is too complicated.

But i like the idea of a vacation flag. I have more or less the same opinion about it like @mdinnerspace #61.

Especially that it should be a global flag. When active any lichess page should just show a message 'You are on vacation. You have <time> left.' and a button 'im back from vacation' which clears the vacation flag.