Tournament players who exceed their time limit

[cogitoergosum87]

Hi,

Maybe this topic has come up before, but with a quick search I could not find anything relating to it.

However, I've recently come across players in multiple tournaments who do not play their game at all (or stop after just a few moves) and due to the current time limit settings let everyone else wait for the next round to begin - possibly for days.

I'll give you an example. A game's maximum duration is 7 days (3 days allotted time per player + 1 extra day). One player has not played a single move. Their individual allotted time (3 days) has been exceeded by 2 days (to in total the player has not played a move in 5 days). All the other games have finished and everyone else is just waiting. It is also unfair for the opponent of the inactive player who has their 3 days unused and due to the maximum time limit of 7 days would not be able to use all that time anymore.

Could this be improved somehow? For instance, if the player's allotted individual time is 3 days and the game maximum duration is 7 days, then could the game winner be declared after the inactive player has exceeded their individual time limit (in this case 3 days) plus half a day or 1 day depending on whether to halve the extra day between the players or not.

[gameypoehler]

If the opponent of the inactive player has a problem with it, they should be able to skip their opponent.

Otherwise, I disagree that there is an issue. The tournament waits the max duration of the game as it was advertised. I would suggest picking or creating tournaments with shorter max durations if you disagree with waiting. I personally do not like skipping people in tournaments because I don’t like to win that way, but there are already systems in place for people who do want to hurry the tournament up.

[cogitoergosum87]

I don't disagree with waiting as such - as long as the games are actively played within the allotted maximum duration (hey, if you keep playing slowly and finish within the time frame, that is absolutely fine by me) and the end result is that the game finishes because it is played through. However, it bugs me if all the active games are finished and everyone else is just waiting the one or a few inactive players, who don't care that they're holding everyone else from playing the next round and are not going to finish the game anyway.

My point: if a player exceeds half of the total allotted time (if the game max duration is 7 days and their individual allotted time is 3 days, then 3½ days) or alternatively their allotted time (3days) + the 1 extra non-individually allotted day) they are already on their opponent's allotted time and should be eliminated anyway. If the game has not progressed at all or no action has been taken for 4 days by this inactive person then they're not likely to continue playing later on either.

And I do understand what you're saying about not wanting to skip players, but in my experience players who don't play a single move for days and exceed their time rarely return to finish the game. I don't like skipping either, and therefore I would prefer a timewise more equal and quicker resolution of inactive games.
Also, I don't necessarily want to play tournaments with shorter max durations - but if all the games are played before the max duration the next round begins before the max duration in any case. If both players want to use all their allotted time and play slowly, that is their right and I respect that without question. I simply want to avoid waiting when no results will usually be yielded any different.

[veme]

If both players want to use all their allotted time and play slowly, that is their right and I respect that without question.

Sounds like the problem is resolved then. If you want to sign up for a tournament, check the time limits, and if you would mind waiting the full amount of time, don't sign up. If you wouldn't mind waiting the full amount of time, then why would it matter what other people are doing during that time? It is X days of waiting, whether two players are actively playing (which apparently would not annoy you) or just sitting there (which apparently would).

It is easy to say that games 'usually' don't finish after they get past a certain point in the timing, but this is in no way a guarantee, so ending them early could stop people from finishing games they'd like to see played out. For instance, I've joined tournaments when I forgot I had to go out of town in the middle. I might miss 5 days and go over time as a result, but if I have a patient opponent I can finish on their clock after I get back. Unless you are some kind of soothsayer, there is no way to tell how the specifics of another person's situation will work out just by looking at the time remaining in their game.

And no one should care that they are 'holding everyone else from playing the next round'; indeed, no one can hold up the next round because it automatically happens after the time limit we all agreed to expires. No one has to hurry simply because you are eager to move on to the next stage, all players saw the time limits when they signed up and should know how long it can take.

[cogitoergosum87]

I see your point, but don't necessarily agree on the current practice of sharing the opponent's individual time.

This matter looks different depending on what side one is looking at it. I want to finish my games too, but don't want to be rushed just because you have let your time slide past and then some of mine too.

Yes, of course there are exceptions where people forget (but for 5 days in a row, really?) and finish later, but in almost all the games I've witnessed/played that have gone on to the opponent''s allotted time have not been played through. I suppose the matter arose when I was playing in tournaments and was curious how the others were doing. Often if my own match ended earlier, I would go and take a curious look at the other games that were going on, and was disappointed to see that the some people weren't even playing, which was when the phenomenon's existence became clear to me. It is somewhat disappointing to see people signing up to a tournament and then not respecting that commitment.

So if changing the time limit is not the best way forward according to the view of the majority, maybe there could be a different kind of solution? Perhaps not finishing a tournament game could be sanctioned by a temporary ban from tournaments? Nothing too extreme, but 1 or 2 weeks (for first or maybe second offence, and the counter would reset after a few months or so) of not being able to sign up would in most cases be a good incentive to complete tournament games with proper results. Maybe 2 or 3 times of going onto the opponent's allotted time within a few months could also result in a short temporary ban?

[dudi2]

Time alloted to both players is always half the total time, but displayed only in full days. For a 7 day game each player gets 3.5 days of time.

If a player is timeout, it is the decision of the other player, to give the time or to skip. Usually if the opponent ist taking a move a day I count the game as active and give time to finish the game. Only if a player doesn't play at all on all games of this tournament, I would skip. But its the decision of the single players of a tournament.

If all waiting players skip their games to such an opponent, the next round would start. But if only one player wants to finish by playing all moves during total available time, one has to respect that.

Sometimes an opponent sends a note, that he is out of office for 4 days and has time to finish during the weekend. If both players accept, they even could make an appointment 1 hour before end of time of actual round to finish their games.