I would like to suggest a new feature, based on additional player’s statistics.
There could be computed how much does it take on average for a player to make a move in correspondence games; some of the players make them quite frequently (and use to make at least a few moves in game during one visit at OGS) and some almost always use as much time as possible. Therefore games can drag for a terribly long time; setting short periods per move doesn’t always solve the case.
The additional feature would allow to set a matching games filter (or tournament participation filter) for players who tend not to make moves often & always make only one move during one visit at OGS. With that filters one could expect the games in tournaments to run more steadily
The feature is (or at least was) present at chess.com & I really appreciated it.
I like this suggestion and not surprisingly because I think I suggested the same long time ago.
Playing a person with very different playing pace can be annoying. Additionally relatively often it is my opponents who don’t read time settings and time out. I think maybe players overestimate range of time settings they can handle. Time settings also won’t save you from slow player if they use vacation to buy time. So there’s at least somewhat of a need to discriminate players. It would help people to choose better suited opponents and I don’t see how would it hurt anyone.
In practice though it’s not worth it. It would only help fast correspondence players which is a very small portion of OGS players and probably even most of them wouldn’t use it.
Practical advice for fast games: don’t play anything longer 2d+8h up to 2d.
We should also brand players by the opening they play so people can avoid sanrensei or Kobayashi or mirror go etc.
But seriously though it could be an interesting feature for people to know about themselves but I don’t know if I agree that it’s something everyone needs to know about everyone.
If you play the standard correspondence games eg ladder sitewide tournaments (fisher time?) etc, and say there’s a +1 day increment, isn’t it fair that people can take the time to make one move per day? I feel like gaining a day per move (even with say a 3 day cap) makes games drag out fairly long but sure that’s just correspondence?
I liked this suggestion not for the tournament filter part, but for having the statistic available: it would help me chose ladder opponents who would play at the speed I would enjoy because you can’t chose the time setting in ladders.
I haven’t read the whole thread, but I think it’s worth keeping in mind that almost all correspondence players have a “games I’m winning” speed and a “games I’m losing” speed which can be WILDLY different.
I’d think it’s more a “moves that come easily” speed and “moves I have difficulty finding” speed—this definitely is true for my games … as some sequences just are logical.
I’d like a time setting option where 2 sides have different settings - like one side has 10 mins + 1 X 10 sec byo while the other has 30 mins + 3 X 30 sec byo - as a way of setting up a handicap game of sorts. I dont know how relevant this is but at first look, I thought that’s what this thread was about so i’m bringing it up.
About the issue at hand, I myself tend to play slow in games I am not winning because I usually enjoy them not as much. I think the OP has a point but I am not sure his suggestion is the ideal way to solve this small problem, cuz it’s too much policing.
“Reading the time settings before you accept” is not a method to solve players playing fast when winning but stalling when losing, especially if you wanna play lots of games and are not picky. It is even possible to turn a live game into something reminding a corr, if you use all your time. You might wanna play with a slow setting (just in case) but if they abuse it and you have to always make different settings because of abusers, that’s a problem.
That being said, taking your time and more in corrs is encouraged by ogs, I believe? Hence the “more vacation time” for supporters? Therefore, I doubt this will be taken into consideration (and maybe it shouldn’t cuz no good way to solve it).
This is a cool idea for the novelty, but there are already plenty of things you can do to avoid a drawn out game (I think the commenters above have pointed them out). Also, have you seen the post about the Fast Tournaments?
