@affstein said in #4:
A group of friends and I started playing fun tournaments with 10min+0. However since one of us is way more experienced, he usually plays with only one minute. We used to play on some other side and the strong player would just resign when he went under 9:00. There are clearly a lot of disadvantages to this concept. (games have to be unrated, else this would cause quite some chaos, it is not precise and it is inconvenient because there is no warning, when time is running low/out...)
Clearly adding time is not an option. Even if there is a way to reduce time, this is clearly inconvenient. I would guess, that this is actually an issue sufficiently common so that one should expect a nice solution for it.
Maybe add an option to Berserk, where depending on elo difference, the stronger player automatically berserks and does not get more points if he wins?
As for us, we just play casual against each other. Ranked is for fair play versus random people online.
upd: by the way, we did the same with 10:00 versus 1:00. It'd still be much much better to have an option to start as 10:00 versus 1:00 then just surrender at 9:00/8:59? it's just more difficult.
@AsDaGo said in #3:
Also, why do you need armageddon tie breakers in a friendly tournament?
Because we play best of 2N (color alternation), so there's a possibility of endless amount of games until the winner will be decided (e.g. 3-3 after bo6, 4-4 after bo8, etc), that's where tiebreak is useful.
@ItsGam3Tyme said in #2:
You can use the api lichess.org/api#tag/Challenges/operation/roundAddTime
This is useful, thank you! I'll try to figure it out.
@AsDaGo said in #3:
Or just click the button 4 times to add a minute. It's not that hard.
Sometimes it's need to be not +15 but +1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8/9/10/11/12/13/14/16/17/18/19/20/21/22/23/etc not divisible by 15. E.g. when you decide time control by betting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ankNVqF7tbo
And also imagine adding 10/20/30 minutes with +15 button, that's kinda... let's say "uncomfortable" at the very least.
@affstein said in #4:
> A group of friends and I started playing fun tournaments with 10min+0. However since one of us is way more experienced, he usually plays with only one minute. We used to play on some other side and the strong player would just resign when he went under 9:00. There are clearly a lot of disadvantages to this concept. (games have to be unrated, else this would cause quite some chaos, it is not precise and it is inconvenient because there is no warning, when time is running low/out...)
> Clearly adding time is not an option. Even if there is a way to reduce time, this is clearly inconvenient. I would guess, that this is actually an issue sufficiently common so that one should expect a nice solution for it.
> Maybe add an option to Berserk, where depending on elo difference, the stronger player automatically berserks and does not get more points if he wins?
As for us, we just play casual against each other. Ranked is for fair play versus random people online.
upd: by the way, we did the same with 10:00 versus 1:00. It'd still be much much better to have an option to start as 10:00 versus 1:00 then just surrender at 9:00/8:59? it's just more difficult.
@AsDaGo said in #3:
> Also, why do you need armageddon tie breakers in a friendly tournament?
Because we play best of 2N (color alternation), so there's a possibility of endless amount of games until the winner will be decided (e.g. 3-3 after bo6, 4-4 after bo8, etc), that's where tiebreak is useful.
@ItsGam3Tyme said in #2:
> You can use the api lichess.org/api#tag/Challenges/operation/roundAddTime
This is useful, thank you! I'll try to figure it out.
@AsDaGo said in #3:
> Or just click the button 4 times to add a minute. It's not that hard.
Sometimes it's need to be not +15 but +1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8/9/10/11/12/13/14/16/17/18/19/20/21/22/23/etc not divisible by 15. E.g. when you decide time control by betting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ankNVqF7tbo
And also imagine adding 10/20/30 minutes with +15 button, that's kinda... let's say "uncomfortable" at the very least.