PDA

View Full Version : "Chess Clock"


kensai
12-07-2004, 05:12 AM
Oddly, it seems that people whose names end in small numerals, line ANT 2, armor08 etc. are invariably cheaters of some kind.

This time, someone called bluenight_armor08 or something like that just tried to stall me into giving up after he had lost four units while killing none of mine. Apparently he does this a lot, as his playing performance was hardly convincing enough to explain why he had acquired a four-digits rating in only a few days. Making it clear that I would not yield to a cheater, I politely reminded him of the importance of ethics in a gaming community, and of the consequences of stalling - that he ends up playing fewer games that way. Perhaps shamed, he fled without a word.

Cheating is detrimental to the community, and where cheating goes, stalling is especially vile. Consequently, a sugggestion: a sort of chess clock that prevents stalling.

For example, the time-available-per-move counter could advance faster if you have used a lot of time on your earlier moves. For example, if you have used an average of 30 seconds per move whereas your opponent has used 20 seconds, you could have 10 seconds less to do each move than you had at the beginning of the game - to a minimum of, say, 25% of the original time allotment per move. This could depend on the time used in the entire game so far, or on a sliding average over the past 10 moves or something like that.

Or - simply - if a player has used 10 minutes more than his opponent during the entire game, he forfeits. The 10-minute safety margin would prevent games from being won by speed play, and would effectively put an end to stalling.

Office_Shredder
12-07-2004, 05:19 AM
The problem with a chess clock is that often both players will start thinking on the first turn of the game, and both have their move planned out around the same time. This means that the player who goes first eats up valuable clock time when the second player doesn't, and then has to think up a next move quickly or else his opponent will have his second move chosen again already.

But this is a good idea either way... much better than those everyone has ten minute clocks :)

kensai
12-07-2004, 05:28 AM
Thanks. :) I tried to take into account that some games take a long time whereas others are resolved in only a few moves.

As for the advantage of the player who does not start.. perhaps. Then again, the advantage of the player who goes second is only as great as the time that the first player uses for the first move of the bout - which is often less than 10 seconds. Further, going first does have its advantages, such as a bomber actually getting to use that frontline witch before she perishes from a LW or dragon blast.

Midnight Walker
12-07-2004, 07:05 AM
I like the idea, particualarly about only allowing a ten minute difference.

Jeffery
12-07-2004, 01:18 PM
Only thing I see wrong with this is that you're punishing people who think about their moves as opposed to those who just go.
Some people actually take a little bit to think of their move, before actually making it.
Ever notice games between really good players? They usually take longer because these players actually think about what they will be doing. Why punish them because they don't make quick reactionary moves, and actually use tactical thinking?

Making it change lengths throughout the game is also bad. there are occasions where I take a while, mainly due to be asked a question, or answering a phonen in RL. If I take a while, I usually apologize.

kensai
12-08-2004, 02:48 PM
A valid observation. Alas, it's tricky to explain to a computer what the difference is between thinking about the moves and stalling. The best I could think of was adding a safety margin that is big enough to allow thoughtful play, relative to the time the opponent uses so that it does not excessively punish those who play long games, yet tight enough to prevent stalling.

Jeffery
12-08-2004, 11:31 PM
They have that. 2 minutes per move.

Snork
03-23-2005, 01:04 PM
Remember that guy that suggested the pause feature, in case you have to go to the bathroom? He thought having the ability to pause the game for up to 30 minutes would be a good idea.

dirka dirka
03-23-2005, 01:05 PM
Remember that guy that suggested the pause feature, in case you have to go to the bathroom? He thought having the ability to pause the game for up to 30 minutes would be a good idea.
lol,necro

Megabyte
03-23-2005, 06:33 PM
I think patience all around is more needed than any change to the clock system.

They only have a minute. Whether they stall, or are thinking, the time is the same either way. Patience is a virtue.

That being said, I use my time thinking each turn, and I laugh at those who tell me to hurry, because they invariably lose to me.

Its only a minute a turn. If we're so rushed that we just must finish the games so quickly, maybe its time to rethink when and how we play the game.

dirka dirka
03-23-2005, 07:01 PM
I hate when people say that, patience i not a virtue. A virtue would be self control.

Jeffery
03-23-2005, 07:12 PM
Patience IS a virtue. If at those time when you have no control over how quickly something happens, then patience can make the wait much more pleasurable. Or at least no where near as horrible.

dirka dirka
03-23-2005, 07:48 PM
Patience IS a virtue. If at those time when you have no control over how quickly something happens, then patience can make the wait much more pleasurable. Or at least no where near as horrible.

Self Control not to go insane is a virtue, patience is a byproduct of self control. Patience would be sensuous, to make the time while you are controlling yourself, from what you want to do, more enjoyable. I think patience is a byproduct of self control which is a virtue. Just my opinion though.

Jeffery
03-23-2005, 07:56 PM
Only if you want to split hairs, since self control is often the same thing as patience.

dirka dirka
03-23-2005, 08:04 PM
Only if you want to split hairs, since self control is often the same thing as patience.

True that they often do go hand in hand.