Slow play in tournaments

[stockwellpete]

Just some ideas as it seems to be a bit of an issue at the moment (in Eric's "Swiss" tournament and Steve's UK league) . . .

i) perhaps tournament organisers need to use a term like "speed tournament" or "fastplay tournament" in the title so that players understand right from the outset that they will be required to play their games promptly.

ii) tournament organisers should allow one day per turn, as a minimum, for completion of games. So if the competition rules state 10 turns maximum then players will have ten days to complete the game, otherwise they will go to adjudication. There should also be a one-day "administration" interval between the rounds of matches.

iii) perhaps it would be better if these "speed tournaments" were by invitation only. In that way players who have been "slow" in the past can be excluded from these types of events.

iv) whatever format a tournament organiser chooses it needs to be clearly posted BEFORE play in the tournament starts. Changing rules half-way through a tournament is a recipe for confusion and ill-feeling.

Any thoughts?

[Turk1964]

Hi Pete
I consider myself to be a reasonably fast player and 10 turns in a week is quite achievable. Some players have a turn ot 2 every day some a turn every 2 days. Then again people may have a reason as to why they arnt able to play fast and thats ok .I think the problem is players arn't reading the thread to see who they are playing and require reminding via PM.I lost my old computer for over a week once and had no way of communicating so thankfully i wasnt in a contest at the time.Stating conditions at the start would hopefully remidy the situationbut doesnt work withj everyone

[stockwellpete]

Hi Pete
I consider myself to be a reasonably fast player and 10 turns in a week is quite achievable. Some players have a turn ot 2 every day some a turn every 2 days. Then again people may have a reason as to why they arnt able to play fast and thats ok .I think the problem is players arn't reading the thread to see who they are playing and require reminding via PM.I lost my old computer for over a week once and had no way of communicating so thankfully i wasnt in a contest at the time.Stating conditions at the start would hopefully remidy the situationbut doesnt work withj everyone

Oh yes, I have some mates on here who I can play a whole game with in one sitting, more or less. But one of the considerations for organisers is how to pitch your tournament so that you get the required number of entrants to make it interesting. If we take Eric's Swiss tournament as an example - it needs an even number of players for sure (so everyone is always playing) and it would actually work with just 8 players, but it is obviously much better if there are around twenty or so. If you are stipulating "a turn a day", backed up by an adjudication process, then I don't think that would be regarded as too onerous by very many players.

And yes, some people seem completely oblivious to what tournament organisers have asked players to do. So perhaps an adjudication or two against them will help to concentrate their minds a bit!

[ericdoman1]

Hi

Well Turk and Cytus played 10 turns in 3 hours yesterday and in less than a day I played and finished a 12 turn game so it is possible to have a "Incredibly quick tourney". Instead of speed chess, speed fog-digital.

I checked with my swiss system comp and I asked for 1 turn a day or more if possible. SO maybe I should have made that more clear. However a slow player in my view is someone who does not finish a game in a week or lest's say 3 turns per 2 days. Slow is prob the wrong word. They may have other things to do and so plays more leisurely than some other players.

It would be interesting to know, a) what is the average (mean) number of turns a game finishes in, mine is <10, 9.75. Also how long does a game actually take to finish. Stop clocks out gents. Take into account deployemnt etc. I would think the first 2 or maybe 3 turns are pretty quick but then it slows down in the middle and speeds up closer to the end?

[TheGrayMouser]

I think if you get to crazy here your going to find you have few players that want to be bothered by tourney that they can get "adjudicated out of" for tardiness . Its not so much players are slow or too casual but time zones are an issue as well. Quite a few players are literally on the opposite side of the pole... Ands no, that doesnt mean they can still guarantee one turn per day since many people work and have maybe a 4 hours window to play. If a turn aint there at that 4 hour window , it means they wont even be in the game for another 18 hours or so... Already there are comps that only invite people in the same time zone, which is of course their pergogative, yet at the same time seems kinda unfair, but whatever.
Anyways, its pretty easy imho to tell the difference between the very few who dont give a crap and the ones that are playing as fast as they can....

[deeter]

I agree with TGM, being in North Amercia, and would like to draw attention to Slitherine's abortive attempt to run an official tourney. I stopped playing after the first one because the turnaround was too tight. I play for relaxation and feel tight deadlines are stressful.

Deeter

[stockwellpete]

I take the point entirely about different time zones, TGM. Maybe "one turn a day" can be too tight for two players in completely different parts of the world. The shortest possible game is probably 10 turns so perhaps 14/15 days is a more realistic time frame? I don't think anyone is suggesting that all the tournaments should be "speed" events, just that some of them should be. Obviously if you are playing for relaxation then the "speed" events should be avoided - something like LOEG might be more appropriate.

[Aristides]

I agree that tourns should be clearly marked as to expected speed.

I also agree with the mouser; there is a danger of the regulars/vets easing out the more casual players over time. The former tend to organise the tourns and like to play a lot and quickly; but the latter, who prefer easygoing fun, are the majority so I think we need to be careful about getting too exclusive/ivory-tower-like.

[steve-h8]

When someone joins a tournament or League in my mind they must realize they have to be on the ball. Taking regular turns of at least 1 a day and if they can’t they should at least inform who they are playing, eg off on holiday, work commitments, not well, a quick PM, it’s not hard.

[Aristides]

When someone joins a tournament or League in my mind they must realize they have to be on the ball... turns of at least 1 a day

How on earth should they know this?
It may be obvious to you, having played in tournaments here before, but for casual players and newbies there's no reason they should assume this. I've played online games (turn by turn) on over 20 sites over the last years and they have greatly varying expectations regarding regularity of play, from at least several times a day per game (ideally to finish the game in one sitting) to 'whenever'.

Even here we have everything from tourns that say, "PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NO TIMELIMIT TO THESE GAMES" (Killer) to one's where players who are slow are publicly castigated for not keeping up (and then leave).

I think any amount of objectivity will show that the original point by SwPis the right one: be clear what your expectations are when you create a tournament and notify potential participants accordingly from the start. Let's keep the Forum friendly to both serious players and casual/newbie players.

[steve-h8]

I don’t think you have run any tournaments or Leagues yourself on this site or you might be a bit more sympathetic to people that are. If I bother to do another League I will have to spell out exactly what is expected of players, or do as Pete suggests only have invited players.

[Aristides]

Not on this site (although I probably will in future), but I've certainly run plenty of tournaments and campaigns in my time, FtF and online.

So I'm sympathetic for example about when people don't bother to read carefully written campaign rules or don't keep up with stated deadlines without notification. That can certainly be annoying, and arguably shows disrespect (for the organizer and the other players) or at least takes someone else' work and time for granted.
As you know, I'm a pretty quick player myself and sometimes get impatient with slower opponents. But I also know that turning a relaxing pastime into a stressful 'job to do' defeats the purpose for many.

I'm not sure if you read my post in its entirety but what I'm chiefly saying is don't make the assumption that everyone has the same expectations of a tournament or is familiar with the culture/unwritten agreements on a forum/site. From Post 1: "perhaps tournament organisers need to use a term like "speed tournament" or "fastplay tournament" in the title so that players understand right from the outset that they will be required to play their games promptly."

So I'm echoing that sentiment, and like you pointing out where I think others are not showing sympathy (which of us is in fact correct in this is another question).
I've been a member of many 'clubs' over the decades, most of which are no longer in existence, so I'm also just saying that newbies and large numbers of more casual players are often the lifeblood of games and sites like this; when full participation starts becoming geared to the 'experts,' (i.e., will most tournaments now have "speed tourn" in their title? Will this intimidate newbies and casuals?) new blood tends to slow down and in time the experiment fails.

[TheGrayMouser]

I don’t think you have run any tournaments or Leagues yourself on this site or you might be a bit more sympathetic to people that are. If I bother to do another League I will have to spell out exactly what is expected of players, or do as Pete suggests only have invited players.

I think your expectations for your league are already the clearest out of any, " If you dont live in the UK time zone , dont bother applying"

[stockwellpete]

I just want to flag this old thread up again because "slow play in tournaments" is something that I have been experiencing in the last few weeks. It is very frustrating when it happens and recently it has been an issue in some of our major tournaments, including LOEG and the Companions Cup. I think this is a shame because tournament organisers do put a lot of effort into setting up their events and it only takes a few slow players to spoil things for everyone else.

My own view is that a lot of the problems can be either avoided, or mitigated, by having a fair but rigorous adjudication system in place. Adjudications can take place at the end of the tournament or, more rigorously, they can be decided while the tournament is actually in progress. If players know that matches will be awarded against them for extreme slow play, or that they might be excluded altogether if they are just not playing their matches, then I think that will be enough for most players. It really doesn't have to mean that draconian rules have to be introduced (which no-one wants to see anyway), but if someone enters a competition and then hasn't completed a single game a month later then they can't seriously complain about being penalised, in my view.

What I find interesting is that in my own competition ("FOG:It's a Knock-Out") it has quite vigorous adjudication rules for slow play - basically you will get knocked out if you are mainly responsible for the non-completion of your game - and yet I have not had to exclude anyone yet for it. So this suggests to me that the organisers need to set out clearly the requirements of the tournament and then enforce them from the outset. The alternative to this is to have tournaments dragging on rather chaotically or collapsing completely.

[fogman]

for 'lords' i state upfront players have to play regularly, averaging one turn a day. since we don't keep track of points, a wayward player doesn't impact anything. so far it's been smooth.

[Turk1964]

I have to agree with Pete hereas i am running a comp myself and have set a 2 week deadline to play games and most have been really good.If players know there is a time limit they generally adhere to it.If i had anyone that was deliberatly going slow i would after the time limit award the game to the other player.Some players are very slow so if warned in advance they are expected to complete games in a said time limit they wont enter.Some players go slow on purpose and can take 2 months to play a game and thats just not on Yes from the start time limits should be imposed and those who cant adhere should be removed from the comp....I think some players dont realise the amount of time organisers give up to run Competitions and then cry foul if the organiser asks them to hurry up.

[stockwellpete]

Yes, so you two have made things clear from the outset and consequently the number of problems you are facing are much less than, say, the Companions Cup or LOEG. Every competition has its different characteristics so I think organisers need to be flexible about any rules they might introduce. It strikes me that the Companions Cup doesn't have any adjudication rules at all, however, and it has a prolonged (and quite obscure) process before each round to sort out who is playing who and which armies are being deployed. Maybe if that initial procedure was streamlined (or maybe organised by a neutral player) then games could start more promptly more or less at the same time. And if a set time period was given for each round of games then any unfinished games could be adjudicated promptly on the basis of their current score (each player having played the same number of turns) and then the competition would run more smoothly. It is a great competition and I hope that it will continue in future.

With LOEG the problems are a bit different inasmuch as it is a big sprawling competition that lasts 3 or 4 months. When Steve (pantherboy) was running the competition, he adopted a very low-key approach and basically let players get on with it - but this was backed up with a quite rigorous adjudication process at the end where players who had not completed significant numbers of games were penalised by having matches awarded to their opponents. Also, they were sometimes told that they could not enter so many divisions next time. I think this system worked quite well, although players could still face the problem of slow play without immediate re-dress (I had one excruciating match last 6 weeks!) and there was still the problem of opponents just not responding when you were trying to set up a game.

Currently in LOEG, there seems to be no adjudication system in place at all though - at least, un-played games in Season 9 were not adjudicated and players who did not complete large numbers of their matches have still been able to enter all of the divisions this time. Season 10 has also been extended for another month. I don't think that this situation is really tenable in the longer term. Already a month has passed and if you look at the results sheets some players have not posted any results at all even though they have signed up for all four divisions (roughly that is forty games they will need to play!). On the other hand, conscientious players have got on with it and have completed a good proportion of their matches already - but now they will hit problems as they try and get matches started with those few players who have not registered many results. If certain players only end up playing a half or two-thirds of their games by the time the competition closes then those un-played games can often distort the result of a division which really is a major disappointment.

So for LOEG, I would consider the following . . .
I) re-introduce the "pantherboy" adjudication system immediately for un-played matches in Season 10
ii) re-introduce the "pantherboy" system whereby players who did not complete all their matches last time can enter fewer divisions this time (without exceptions)
iii) go back to a three month competition for Season 11 (extending for an extra month just sends the wrong signal to slow players, in my opinion)
iv) introduce a new system whereby players only need to post two public challenges on the forum for a match before it is allocated to a "pending adjudication" list. If the "AWOL" player does not then take steps to get this game taken off the list and played then they will automatically lose the game on adjudication (a more rigorous version of this idea would see adjudications take place while the competition is in progress)
v) introduce a facility for players to exceptionally cite opponents for serious slow play e.g. no move made for a week without the courtesy of an explanation, or a game taking longer than a month to complete (a month is actually a ridiculous amount of time for a game to take but the point is to deal with the worst cases here, not harass people because they haven't moved for two days, or something like that)

This might sound like a lot but it isn't because most players don't cause any problems at all. And if these ideas were enforced quite rigorously the problems would reduce quite quickly across all tournaments so that they would become more enjoyable, for players and organisers alike.

EDIT: one thing, I forgot - in LOEG I would keep recruitment open for up to a month after the competition had started and by doing this you would create a "reserve list". Linked to this idea would be the need to always have ten players in Division A and Division B with the remainder in Division C. To give an example, if you have 26 players enter, say, Classical - that would give divisions (A-B-C) of 10, 10 and 6. Anyone new to FOG could join Division C immediately during that first month of competition to boost the numbers. More experienced players wishing to play would be held on a waiting list. At the end of the first month of competition let's say that there was one player in Division A and one player in Division B that had not registered any results; and there was one relatively experienced player on the waiting list; and that one new player had joined Division C in the second week of the competition to give that division 7 players.

The adjudication could work as follows - the slow player in Division A would be contacted by the organisers and asked to speed up (there is no replacement for this player); in addition games could now be awarded against him as the competition progressed by using the "two public challenges" rule. The slow player in Division B would be replaced by the reserve player on the waiting list. Division C players would be offered the opportunity of playing each other twice as there are still only 7 players - to do this would then give them twelve games. This offer would only be made if the players, as a group, were "getting on with it" (the possibility of playing each other twice in this division would have been mentioned at the start of the competition so it would not come as a complete surprise to the group).

[hidde]

In Companions Cup we have three games in their 7th week right now...oy! Must be some kind of record.
Eric did state a timeframe for the rounds but only a week or so after round 1 had started. It seems that tournaments must have clear rules about this and, above all, make it clear beforehand what is expected of the players.
Have taken me a long time to realise this. One would think it obvious to anyone to think it through before joining...but apparently it's not

[stockwellpete]

In Companions Cup we have three games in their 7th week right now...oy! Must be some kind of record.
Eric did state a timeframe for the rounds but only a week or so after round 1 had started. It seems that tournaments must have clear rules about this and, above all, make it clear beforehand what is expected of the players.
Have taken me a long time to realise this. One would think it obvious to anyone to think it through before joining...but apparently it's not

Hello Anders. Do you think there is another way you could organise the procedure for allocating armies and opponents in the Companions Cup? Or maybe the format of the competition itself might need adjusting? What if you went to just 4 players a team? Round 1 could be, say, Romans v Carthaginians, so 2 of the team play as Romans, 2 as Carthaginians; Round 2 could be Persians v Indians and so on? So all that would need to be decided is which players would play each other. Terrain would be decided by initiative in the normal way. The key thing though would be to decide on your process of adjudication and how long are you going to allow for matches - this would enable you to move on promptly between the various rounds of the competition. Given that you have a "core-group" of players who enter your tournament each time, I don't think you should have too many problems once you have an adjudication process in place.

There is another issue that may have some bearing on this. I think that there can be just too many tournaments running at once and players enter them in good faith but then find that they cannot complete all their matches on time. In the past I have raised the idea of whether we need a tournament calendar but that has not received too much support. I think it could still work if we said that LOEG is the primary competition and that it runs on a three months on, one month off basis - and then secondary competitions like the Companions Cup, FOG KO and one or two others (Turk1964 and fogman are running interesting stuff at the moment) could fill in the gaps around LOEG. For example, my FOG KO cup is intended to run twice a year and I have tried to start it when LOEG moves into month 3 - my thinking being that the quicker players will have played most of their LOEG games and will be looking around for something else to enter (also players may only get one or two games in my competition before they are knocked out so the demands made on them are quite limited). The Companions Cup could dovetail with the KO competition and fill in the gaps around LOEG too - running it twice a year would be OK, wouldn't it?

[hidde]

Looking over the format for CC is certainly an option for whomever will run it in the future.
The choices before each round isn't what caused the problems though, sloow play during the games is.
And CC started well before LOEG...also, it's only three games so shouldn't really be a problem whatever else is going on.
I think it's a good idea to have in mind what's going on when you wish to start a tourny but that's probably not the biggest problem.
Not sure what is...