I recently lost a game by timeout when I played first and started another game without closing the current one because the guy was afk, thinking that it would timeout and be annulled anyway.
i dont see whats wrong with increasing it to just 2 to avoid afk situations or ppl abusing it by playing it at the last few seconds when they see you go off and forget to cancel.
How would that same time out situation not happen after the next turn?
Any rule on the number of moves to validate a game is open to abuse of one kind or another. I find the best solution is to set up games using Fischer clock and a relatively low initial time allocation.
With fischer timing the total game time is more proportional to the length of the game.
I would recommend its adoption for the 9x9live and other tournaments too.
Because at the very least there would be no way to trick your opponent into playing the first move then afking and maybe making the opponent timeout if he forgets or doe something else while waiting. Many times I see the opponent there but either he’s wanking off or he wants to make me wait.
Black is put at a disadvantage for committing into the game first while White can choose to play or cancel at his choosing. If I looked for another game to play just in case W never plays the first move, and then a 2nd game starts and just as I’m about to cancel the first, if W plays a move then unless both games have extra long settings, B will lose one.
But the AFK trick works on any turn of the game … at least for games that are “slow” enough where you have to really wait for your opponent…
This topic was automatically closed 91 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.