Life In 19x19

<unpopular_opinion>This is yet another reason why I like the KGS escaper policy. In my mind, the perfect solution to the problems dani highlights with allowing an arbitrary long game is the ability to just leave the game without suffering a loss.</unpopular_opinion>

daal wrote:Let me toss in a suggestion. Let's create an upper limit not for the game, but rather for a single move. If we set the maximum time for a move to 10 mins, after which the game is forfeited, it would become too much of a bother to abuse the system.

Excellent idea. Ten minutes is a good time. Even in my longest and most serious matches I have never pondered for longer than seven minutes for a single move.

A slightly less invasive idea would be to just change the game from rated to unrated.

karaklis wrote:

daal wrote:Let me toss in a suggestion. Let's create an upper limit not for the game, but rather for a single move. If we set the maximum time for a move to 10 mins, after which the game is forfeited, it would become too much of a bother to abuse the system.

Excellent idea. Ten minutes is a good time. Even in my longest and most serious matches I have never pondered for longer than seven minutes for a single move.

A slightly less invasive idea would be to just change the game from rated to unrated.

I don't think this is a good idea. Not only is it relatively easy to spend 10 minutes on a L&D problem (surely you've spent that long on a L&D problem in a book, why not in your games?) but it is especially easy if you want to, for example, count the score or get a good sense of the position elsewhere in the board before reading out a difficult sequence. Further, one reason for long time limits is to give you the flexibility to grab a drink, answer the door, or relieve yourself without having lost the game by the time you come back. Surely a contingency like one of these, plus a few minutes reading, could easily push someone over ten minutes.

karaklis wrote:

daal wrote:Let me toss in a suggestion. Let's create an upper limit not for the game, but rather for a single move. If we set the maximum time for a move to 10 mins, after which the game is forfeited, it would become too much of a bother to abuse the system.

Excellent idea. Ten minutes is a good time. Even in my longest and most serious matches I have never pondered for longer than seven minutes for a single move.

A slightly less invasive idea would be to just change the game from rated to unrated.

It is a terrible idea. I sprang 15 minutes considering an invasion once, even after I decided invading was Necessary. I could imagine spending upwards of. 25 or 30 in a long game, that doesn't mean I should forfeit.

mw42 wrote:<unpopular_opinion>This is yet another reason why I like the KGS escaper policy. In my mind, the perfect solution to the problems dani highlights with allowing an arbitrary long game is the ability to just leave the game without suffering a loss.</unpopular_opinion>

Why not just play deferred games?

quantumf wrote:What I mean is, how do the chess servers do filtering? What options are available for creating games, and what options are available for filtering them?

Typically you host a game with whatever time settings you want, and to find a game you can either look at the game list or put yourself in an automatch queue (a "seek") with a filter (similar to KGS's "medium", "fast", "blitz" checkboxes, but you can specify any range of ratings and time controls you want instead of just a few predetermined ones.)

You can also look at the settings on other people's seeks and choose to match one of them if you want, if nobody is matching yours.

My position is that rated games are like tournament games.

In a real tournament, you wouldn't insist to the tournament director that you want to play your matches using your own playing rules ("New Zealand rules rock") or time rules ("Come on, Fischer is the way to go").

So, I would prefer for the server creator (tournament director) to decide what a rated game should look like, and we should all get used to that standard. Then we're participating on a level playing field. Anything else should be a free game.

Actually, if you want to be really bold, do away with custom time settings altogether. Provide a reasonable set of defaults, perhaps 10 or so, and leave it at that. Much less clutter, much less confusion on what all that "10 + 5/5" stuff means. Just have descriptive names (fast, medium, hyperblitz, etc).

HermanHiddema wrote:Actually, if you want to be really bold, do away with custom time settings altogether. Provide a reasonable set of defaults, perhaps 10 or so, and leave it at that. Much less clutter, much less confusion on what all that "10 + 5/5" stuff means. Just have descriptive names (fast, medium, hyperblitz, etc).

I like the principle, but custom time settings for free games are really useful. I'm sure many organisations use KGS to run their tournaments, and a key reason to use KGS is because of its flexible rule/time configuration.

quantumf wrote:My position is that rated games are like tournament games.

In a real tournament, you wouldn't insist to the tournament director that you want to play your matches using your own playing rules ("New Zealand rules rock") or time rules ("Come on, Fischer is the way to go").

So, I would prefer for the server creator (tournament director) to decide what a rated game should look like, and we should all get used to that standard. Then we're participating on a level playing field. Anything else should be a free game.

"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others."
- Groucho Marx (1890-1977)

In a word, why? What is the point for the users of ratings? What is the evidence that one or another timing system or rule set significantly alters the results/ratings? WMS did some analysis a few years ago that showed the KGS ratings performed well at predicting winners across the full range of times until you dropped down to around seven seconds per move (unfortunately the page describing this that used to be on his HP is gone). If that is the case, it is irrelevant what time limits are used - all the playing fields are level. So doesn't then reduce to personal preference?

As long as people always use the same times, the rating system works fine. As soon as you begin to force people to begin to use different times for different things, the rating system starts to stop working