HansCoolNiemann was right- there is an exceptional amount of time cheaters now.
I TOLD YOU TIME CHEATER THERE !!
What is a "time cheater"? I hear this term a bit, but nobody has explained what it means. I doubt one's lag could be manipulated to give a player an advantage. Please explain @HansCoolNiemann
So is it possible that we are suggesting a tournament with only people with good connection can play?
>>Then a lagger has an advantage, right?
>Not in any single game. When you play someone with high lag, the experience is the same on both sides. BOTH sides see their opponent's clock drop slowly and see a long delay before their opponents move arrives. BOTH sides have extra opportunity to premove during the delays.
@isaacly But here is the point: suppose we have a skilled Ultra player A with ping 100 ms playing against a less skilled Ultra player B. Player A needs to spend 200 ms in average to make a reasonable pre-move and B who is less skilled needs to spend 500 ms for this purpose. Next suppose A got lower on time getting better position or just cause he was not very lucky in this game. Now it is time scramble and now we suppose two cases:
1) B has the ping 100 ms. Therefore total delay between moves for both players is 200 ms. This means that if both players will make reasonable pre-moves, A will not lose a single millisecond on every move while B will lose 300 ms for every pre-move. Clearly the more skilled player A will have a good chances to win the game on time, unless he becomes checkmated or caught into checking gun in several moves. Or B will be forced to make some bad pre-moves and maybe will get checkmated himself.
2) B has the ping 1000 ms. Now total delay between moves is 1100 ms and thus both players can make reasonable pre-moves in 0 time loss on the clock. And because B has time advantage, this is likely to result in defeat of A due to occasional failed pre-moves because of checks.
You can argue that in the second case A can make even more reasonable pre-moves than usual. But the problem is: the nature of goodness of pre-moves is such that you will not make much better pre-moves using much more time. Therefore in 2) lagging B has more chances to win than non-lagging B in 1).
>Not in any single game. When you play someone with high lag, the experience is the same on both sides. BOTH sides see their opponent's clock drop slowly and see a long delay before their opponents move arrives. BOTH sides have extra opportunity to premove during the delays.
@isaacly But here is the point: suppose we have a skilled Ultra player A with ping 100 ms playing against a less skilled Ultra player B. Player A needs to spend 200 ms in average to make a reasonable pre-move and B who is less skilled needs to spend 500 ms for this purpose. Next suppose A got lower on time getting better position or just cause he was not very lucky in this game. Now it is time scramble and now we suppose two cases:
1) B has the ping 100 ms. Therefore total delay between moves for both players is 200 ms. This means that if both players will make reasonable pre-moves, A will not lose a single millisecond on every move while B will lose 300 ms for every pre-move. Clearly the more skilled player A will have a good chances to win the game on time, unless he becomes checkmated or caught into checking gun in several moves. Or B will be forced to make some bad pre-moves and maybe will get checkmated himself.
2) B has the ping 1000 ms. Now total delay between moves is 1100 ms and thus both players can make reasonable pre-moves in 0 time loss on the clock. And because B has time advantage, this is likely to result in defeat of A due to occasional failed pre-moves because of checks.
You can argue that in the second case A can make even more reasonable pre-moves than usual. But the problem is: the nature of goodness of pre-moves is such that you will not make much better pre-moves using much more time. Therefore in 2) lagging B has more chances to win than non-lagging B in 1).
@Wolfram_EP says:
"Then a lagger has an advantage, right?
Not in any single game. When you play someone with high lag, the experience is the same on both sides. BOTH sides see their opponent's clock drop slowly and see a long delay before their opponents move arrives. BOTH sides have extra opportunity to premove during the delays."
See my previous posts. You're incorrect. The lagger has the advantage because when the game starts, they KNOW they're lagging, but their opponent doesn't. Their opponent might misinterpret their slow moves as just playing slowly rather than lag, causing them to get down on time.
The experience might be the same, but the information each player has going into the game is different.
"Then a lagger has an advantage, right?
Not in any single game. When you play someone with high lag, the experience is the same on both sides. BOTH sides see their opponent's clock drop slowly and see a long delay before their opponents move arrives. BOTH sides have extra opportunity to premove during the delays."
See my previous posts. You're incorrect. The lagger has the advantage because when the game starts, they KNOW they're lagging, but their opponent doesn't. Their opponent might misinterpret their slow moves as just playing slowly rather than lag, causing them to get down on time.
The experience might be the same, but the information each player has going into the game is different.
@Aquinas That was the quote of @isaacly . My point is that even if you know that your opponent is lagging, this doesn't help much. If you can artificially increase your time supply (and you can in today's system, slowing down Internet connection), you can gain more time to think. Your opponent also gains time to think, but there are curcumstances where this doesn't matter much.
As a possible solution I see that refunds of time for both players must equal to the average lag of less lagging player. Then the bigger lag is always a disadvantage. But for Ultra the typical value of this disadvantage (for example, USA player vs. French) would be critical. Something will be unfair in any case. Maybe the current mechanics is in fact the best one can do.
As a possible solution I see that refunds of time for both players must equal to the average lag of less lagging player. Then the bigger lag is always a disadvantage. But for Ultra the typical value of this disadvantage (for example, USA player vs. French) would be critical. Something will be unfair in any case. Maybe the current mechanics is in fact the best one can do.
My bad, just ignore my post then :)
I dont really have any good suggestions as i am not knowledgable on the technical side of things...this is someone else's job. I will say this though, if I play someone in 15 second bullet, and i make 31 moves and even throw in a few checks that they have to deal with, and they still have 13 seconds on their clock at the end of the game, something is definitely wrong and needs fixing...apart from my horrible play....
@penguingim1 , In that case i think we need to come up with a kind of software where it can detect who is lagging to what extent , and who has won due to his lag ....the ones winning unfairly due to their huge lag shall be deducted rating points and ranks in the tournaments. Eventually, Winning due to lag is same as an athlete winning due to an unintentional substance abuse.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.