people not playing quick enough

Originally posted by Decanter
I find it a bit entertaining to see both sides of this argument. I'm obviously a fast player (I'm even in the clan) and I've encountered many players who get annoyed by slow play.
By the same token, I've seen several conversation thr ...[text shortened]... med out for their pace. Ultimately, it's an unresolvable debate.

It is resolvable, because it's not a debate. It's two debates.

Debate 1:
Group A: people who who make their moves within the timeout.
Group B: people who complain that Group A moves too slowly.

Debate 2:
Group C: people who got timed out and are mad about it.
Group D: people who timed them out.

In Debate 1, Group B is being silly and should play shorter timeouts or go to a realtime site.
In Debate 2, Group C is being silly and should play longer timeouts or deal with losing on time.
Group B is not the same as Group D, though both may be called 'fast players.' Group A is not the same as Group C, though both may be called 'slow players.'
In fact, Group B and C have much in common: both are whining about people who have done nothing wrong. Similarly, Group A and D are comparable: both are playing chess here according to the rules of the site and, though they have done nothing wrong, are complained about by B and C, respectively.
This is not about slow players versus fast players. That's absurd. In fact, this thread wasn't even originally about Debate 2 at all. Debate 2 was dragged in from other threads and confused with Debate 1.
Personally, I am in Group A and Debate 1. I am not personally involved in Debate 2, but I side with Group D.

Originally posted by huntingbear
It is resolvable, because it's not a debate. It's two debates.

Debate 1:
Group A: people who who make their moves within the timeout.
Group B: people who complain that Group A moves too slowly.

Debate 2:
Group C: people who got timed out and are mad about it.
Group D: people who timed them out.

In Debate 1, Group B is being ...[text shortened]... I am in Group A and Debate 1. I am not personally involved in Debate 2, but I side with Group D.

Endorsed with a rec, because that post unequivocally reflects my position on the subject as well.

skeeter

Originally posted by Toe
Me too

I'm also all for tourneys going to "immediate auto timeout": the extra two days were put there before the timebank exisited. With the advent of timebanks, it no longer serves a purpose.

In fact it can be argued that when you allow an opponent an extra two days in a tourney, you are taking an authority you do not have: the time 'contract' per g ...[text shortened]... ulting them and are likely to cause a hold-up in the move to the next round for a lot of people.

Endorsed with a rec, because that post unequivocally reflects my position on the subject as well.

flexmore

Originally posted by flexmore
Endorsed with a rec, because that post unequivocally reflects my position on the subject as well.

flexmore

Was that a rattle...?😉

Like Toe, I'd like to see automatic timeouts. The timebanks work to perfection. Take the decision to timeout away from the players and the whining will stop, and people will either play the game in the requisite time or lose. Simple as that.

Everyone has the right to chose their games and tournys. The first RHP tourny I joined had a 1 day t/o with no timebank. I'm very vigilant over time but when the second round started I was out of town for the night, and by the time I got back the following day I had already been timed-out of 3 games. I was furious, but ultimately (a) I should not have entered the tournament or (b) I should have been available to move at least once every 24 hours.

The move frequency setting is a guide, not a rule. I often move more than once a day, but not in EVERY game I'm playing.

Generally, I'll play the openings and end games fast, but the middle game I take slow and I have no qualms about using the maximum available time if necessary.

Originally posted by Gatecrasher
Like Toe, I'd like to see automatic timeouts.

I'll add my voice to that one, too. I think all rated games should timeout automatically once the 'flag falls.' However, I would greatly prefer timeouts to remain discretionary for unrated games.

I think that you also need to bear in mind the location of your opponent and what he or she might be doing in addition to playing chess online.

For example, my move frequency says "multiple times per day", but I might only make those multiple moves between say, 7 and 9 pm BST. So if you're playing me and you're not active during those times then you'll only see me make one move per day.

So basically, don't believe everything you see 😀