hongkongwargamer
Forum Guru
Let's just see who can fashion a more accurate kick under the table. How's that for a quick settlement, chess clock or not?
<shrug>Hands down, next to the IFT-IIFT threads, this is the dumbest most waste of time and effort thread I've seen in some time.
Both of these are great compared to numerous threads of that Rock Sgt. Dan troll a couple of years ago...Sounds like a great idea for a poll! Which debate is the greatest waste of time: IFT vs IIFT or chess clocks in ASL?
Great threads become great due to the great input of those who respond to it.Both of these are great compared to numerous threads of that Rock Sgt. Dan troll a couple of years ago...
von Marwitz
After you open your opponent's PBEM log for X mins, time hits, VASL shuts down and your opponent gets emailed a message saying "He sucked"The VASL Cabal hasn’t discussed chess clocks in VASL, at least not to my knowledge. A chess clock has been added to VASSAL apparently but I haven’t used it yet. The current VASL version is incompatible with the VASSAL version that introduced chess clocks so for now, the point is moot.
I would think chess clocks would be available for use in VASL through VASSAL without any additional VASL coding. If so it would be up to the players to use this feature or not. I’ll submit it to the Cabal for discussion before the planned release of the next VASL version planned for the spring. Right now all efforts are focused on ensuring VASL will work with VASSAL 3.5+ as well as some other tasty bits.
The biggest advantage to chess clocks IMO is that they’ll greatly speed up PBEM, leaving more time to get chores done around the house.
IIFT is an optional rule. It's resolved the same way that you implement any optional rule: it's in play if both players agree that it's in play. That's all there is to it. No need for arguments pro or con, whining, shouting, pouting, or any other "tactics" ... one player says "no thanks", that's the end of it, shut up and play.Not to open a can of flamewar but at tournaments if one player wants to use the IIFT and his opponent the IFT how is the dilemma resolved?
Yup. It has gotten to the the point where the local Colorado Front Range ASLers....a tenacious nub of hardcore IIFT zealots will start playing with the IFT leading up to a local event because any opponent can force IFT usage by default.IIFT is an optional rule. It's resolved the same way that you implement any optional rule: it's in play if both players agree that it's in play. That's all there is to it. No need for arguments pro or con, whining, shouting, pouting, or any other "tactics" ... one player says "no thanks", that's the end of it, shut up and play.
Thanks!IIFT is an optional rule. It's resolved the same way that you implement any optional rule: it's in play if both players agree that it's in play. That's all there is to it. No need for arguments pro or con, whining, shouting, pouting, or any other "tactics" ... one player says "no thanks", that's the end of it, shut up and play.
Thanks!Yup. It has gotten to the the point where the local Colorado Front Range ASLers....a tenacious nub of hardcore IIFT zealots will start playing with the IFT leading up to a local event because any opponent can force IFT usage by default.
New tactics would have to be developed by the tournament sharks for whom it is about winning rather than playing...Well my take is if you want to speed up an opponent/your-game use a stop watch to time each others moves and log the duration. If a player uses more than 50% of the time it took to complete the game he loses, regardless of the outcome. That would be incentive!
Actually in your scenario it gets even better. We can do away with all the board and counters.New tactics would have to be developed by the tournament sharks for whom it is about winning rather than playing...
Here's one:
After everything is set up and done, the game begins. Sharkey, being the attacker, instantly taps the chess-clock. His opponents hesitates, wondering, what this is all about.
That was a mistake - he's doomed. All that Sharkey needs to do now is to keep tapping the clock instantly after his hapless opponent has done so. The initial hesitation of the opponent has spelled his doom as he will have used more than 50% of the time - more than Sharkey. Sharkey can even speed up play even further by stubbornly refusing to even touch one of his units. His opponent might throw the towel out of disgust or frustration. Sharkey wins. The opponent could move, fire, eliminate every last unit of Sharkey, fullfil all VC and then some. Sharkey was quicker and wins.
This would give Sharkey his all important win. The fame and the glory would spread like a wildfire among confused and unbelieving onlookers. The girls would flock to him, screaming and fainting. The story would spread to the forums and beyond. For his cunning, Sharky would be immortalized...
von Marwitz
Again, using a chess clock to make someone play faster does not work and is a fool's errand.Well my take is if you want to speed up an opponent/your-game use a stop watch to time each others moves and log the duration. If a player uses more than 50% of the time it took to complete the game he loses, regardless of the outcome. That would be incentive!
As it is difficult to determine how much time each side should receive for it to be balanced (after all, the OoBs and the playing area are not identical like in chess), how about the following:Using a chess clock to add a dimension of time/decision pressure makes it a whole new and better game. Tactics should be a visceral endeavor and if it isn't it's not really tactics as much as slow mental excercises.
I'll have to think about this idea.As it is difficult to determine how much time each side should receive for it to be balanced (after all, the OoBs and the playing area are not identical like in chess), how about the following:
You could introduce chess-clocks to a tournament - but without fixing a particular time limit. However, in the end you could compare the reported times for a given scenario and the given sides. You can then rank the 'fastest' attacker/defender of scenario #1 and maybe not only make the normal win/loss tournament ranking but a separate 'time' tournament ranking which is not linked to the win/loss ranking.
There would still be difficulties to be dealt with, for example if a 7 turn scenario ends after 5 turns in one playing (with 'normal speed' players) and another one goes the full 7 turns (with fast players). How to handle such things?
von Marwitz
No, actually it is not difficult at all to determine how much time each side gets. I went through the process in an earlier post. Of course, just losing the scenario will seem like a harsh judgment if one runs out of time, especially to those who tend toward slower play.As it is difficult to determine how much time each side should receive for it to be balanced (after all, the OoBs and the playing area are not identical like in chess), how about the following:
You could introduce chess-clocks to a tournament - but without fixing a particular time limit. However, in the end you could compare the reported times for a given scenario and the given sides. You can then rank the 'fastest' attacker/defender of scenario #1 and maybe not only make the normal win/loss tournament ranking but a separate 'time' tournament ranking which is not linked to the win/loss ranking.
There would still be difficulties to be dealt with, for example if a 7 turn scenario ends after 5 turns in one playing (with 'normal speed' players) and another one goes the full 7 turns (with fast players). How to handle such things?
von Marwitz
I agree with your conclusions. While the Aussies seem to accept the use of clocks and it seems to work for them I don't think clocks would be readily accepted in the US at tournaments. Between consenting ASLdults is another matter. Frankly as has been mentioned by myself and others clocks at tournaments are not a very good solution for a problem that is not that prevalent.No, actually it is not difficult at all to determine how much time each side gets. I went through the process in an earlier post. Of course, just losing the scenario will seem like a harsh judgment if one runs out of time, especially to those who tend toward slower play.
Interesting idea about using total reported time. I personally think there are a lot of gamey things that people could pull trying to win such a criteria.....like not looking up rulz even though both players are not sure what the rule actually says....but with proper constraints and rules as to when the clock runs on who's time and when it gets stopped, it is an idea that has potential.
I am afraid that it will still require everybody to WANT the clock to work for it to happen in a meaningful way. Much easier to find one opponent that wants to play with the clock and do it for your own gratification.