Nice that there is such a lively discussion about it.
I think that before the game starts there should be an option whether the game (or even a tournament) will take place with or without a vacation. Then everyone can play according to their preferences.
Sometimes a match like this lasts for months or longer. Nobody can know if there won't be a period in which you might not be able to play for a few days. Then it's tragic when the game is lost because of maybe a few hours. Another possibility would be that the time control is not on every move. How about if, like in classic correspondence chess, the time control is every 10th move? So not 3 days per move but 30 days for 10 moves. This gives everyone the opportunity to organize their time individually and flexibly. And no game would last longer than now.
Manage your time according to your monthly schedules. Use the regular chess clocks.
If each player is given 43,200 minutes on the clock, that should give them 15 days worth of minutes.
The game has a total of 43,200 minutes to be completed. That means a game cannot last over 30 days, unless you add a feature to turn off the clock during sleeping hours. An alert needs to be sent to the player once it's their move to play.
Yes nice that some of us get to share experience about correspondence on lichess. I like a forum for such multilateral communication opportunity.
However, I fear the added game layers emerging strategies from complexifying the existing simple time control acting as upper bound mostly, not a Damocles, or a player micromanagement dictator. What would be next, increments?
I think the point of correspondance is to get rid of the time emergencies... So I would say a rule of thumb in the spirit of this chess variant. must be to be cool about time problems....
It is just a promise to do our best to do moves within a certain margin of time frequency. i do most of the time a move a day for all my games.. yet none of them are having that in my proposals.
Better work on some settings about accepting adjournments. on a case by case basis.. it has to be convened by both sides.. but does not need to be an automatic feature.. that is expected of all.
Also, is it the end of the world. converting a rating game into a from position later.. Maybe some related guidelines of behavior by lichess when such thing happens. for both side acceptance. on per game basis.
I assume rating is the issue.. For me it is about the level of game quality promise.. it does not matter if one game is lost..
too many games though might be a problem... Yes some typical game can last over a month.. so i would expect players not to get too hung up. on the occasional vacation.
I don't think this time management needs changing. maybe some communication helpers..
Or some amicable suggestion to accept a draw contingent upon a casual continuation from the last position. The rating snaffu would be perhaps a slight loss of motivation, but I think that might be imported from other time controls.
I think that I might not be alone as correspondence player for whom the priority or the reason to play in that time control, be to get to stare at the chess board and its mysteries and work on thinning its fog, often with the help of the opponent (! ? :). I know this might sound weird to other walks of chess time controls or most frequent attitude toward games of chess. But is it that much for correspondence players (survey needed?).
I think some comm feature, like the list of greetings already there, might come more useful and keep the spirit of the time control being played here. I wish i coud write more concisely, at times.. I wrote without a plan.
Is there no escape from the time control gizmos?
@hohes_cs said in #11:
> Nice that there is such a lively discussion about it.
(...) How about if, like in classic correspondence chess, the time control is every 10th move? So not 3 days per move but 30 days for 10 moves. This gives everyone the opportunity to organize their time individually and flexibly. And no game would last longer than now.
That's really a great proposition. Probably it would be easy to implement and makes games only longer if needed. At first glance, I can't see any disadvantage with a time control of 30 day/10 moves instead of 3 days/move.
We have now already exchanged some arguments and also discussed alternative solutions. Maybe there are still other ideas, then feel free to add them here. Nevertheless, we can do a little survey here to get a better picture of the mood. Just put a thumbs up or thumbs down for yes or no. Maybe you even give reasons for your decision.
I am very satisfied with the regulation on Lichess. You can ask your opponent if you need more time. The fair play is promoted by it.
I would like to have the possibility for vacations in correspondence chess games. The rules are the same for everyone and you don't depend on the goodwill of your opponent. For example 30 days per calendar year. Vacation pauses all running games. A move in one of the games ends the vacation in all games. When creating a game, you can choose whether the game should be played with or without vacation.
I would like to have the possibility for vacations in correspondence chess games. The rules are the same for everyone and you don't depend on the goodwill of your opponent. For each game you get a defined number of vacation days, depending on the playing time. For example 10 days for games with 1 day/move, 30 days for 3 days/move and so on. When creating a game, you can choose whether the game should be played with or without vacation.
Vacation can be abused. But there are moments in life when you can't or don't want to play chess. That's why I think it's better to have more flexible time controls. By extending the possible time controls, such times can be better managed without the games taking longer. The time control is done at every 10th move. (10 days/10 moves, 30 days/10 moves etc.)
#18 would be ideal, but I vote for #17 because it should be simpler to implement and simpler for players to keep track.
