Is slow play at events a common occurrence?

[Actionjick]

The chess clocks proposal for slow play at events has me wondering if this is such a common occurrence as to require clocks or some sort of timely play requirements.

My feeling is that excessively slow play at events is not that common of an occurrence having only encountered it a few ttimes but I would appreciate input from others.

I am more interested in times when slow play has disrupted the timing or flow of the event.

Thanks!

 

[Actionjick]

Feel free to comment or vote if you have heard second hand of such problems.

 

[Stewart]

The problem isn't necessarily to be solved with chess clocks..however, it's tied to it.

3 other matches of the same game end 2 hours earlier....someone is dragging ass..
Problem...how to resolve dragass?
Simply stating..well, the attacker didn't achieve his VC...well, no shit Sherlock... when the opponent takes 1 hour per player turn...it's bad.

And adjudication? Good luck with that if you aren't a local.

 

[von Marwitz]

Didn't cast a vote, because one could argue about the definition of "significant". Some might see "significance" while others don't under the same circumstances.

By my experience, I'd say it is very likely throughout a normal-sized tournament (say 20 to 40 participants), that a very fast player will be pitched against a very slow one. The greater the number of participants, the larger the chances.

So the basic conditions for the "issue" to arise do exist.
Next question is, if (mostly) the faster player is capable to bear it with grace. Most can.
It is IMHO questionable if those who cannot pose a "significant problem" for the course and scope of a tournament. I'd say rarely so if at all.

von Marwitz

 

[Actionjick]

Didn't cast a vote, because one could argue about the definition of "significant". Some might see "significance" while others don't under the same circumstances.

By my experience, I'd say it is very likely throughout a normal-sized tournament (say 20 to 40 participants), that a very fast player will be pitched against a very slow one. The greater the number of participants, the larger the chances.

So the basic conditions for the "issue" to arise do exist.
Next question is, if (mostly) the faster player is capable to bear it with grace. Most can.
It is IMHO questionable if those who cannot pose a "significant problem" for the course and scope of a tournament. I'd say rarely so if at all.

von Marwitz

Yes " significant problem " is a rather vague term.

 

[Michael R]

To me, a significant problem is when a too slow player causes an adjudication when a normal speed player would not have. To be sure, adjucation is not an insurmountable problem, however.

 

[gorkowskij]

I attended three tournaments over the last year and witnessed an instance of slow play impeding the tournament; the director had to make adhoc adjustments to the schedule and subsequent players had less time to prepare and play their scenario. I witnessed a second incident where the slow play did not impede the tournament, but seriously "drained" the victor, who was the faster player. It's important to note that these events are more common than most people realize because they are not publicized since we don't want to alienate anybody, all are welcome. It's a safe bet that there were other similar incidents at the tourneys, but I was not aware of them. Just like speed limits in traffic, if you go too slow (below the limit) you are actually creating an issue for others.

 

[hongkongwargamer]

I don't doubt "slow playing" has an effect on any game.

However you folks do realise that it's hard enough to get new players to come to tournaments and be part of the community, make a few friends etc.

On one hand, we kept saying "Everyone's welcomed!" "Please come join us!"
On the otherhand we kept disparaging people about their playing slow (how slow is slow by the way?) .. and all this machoistic talk about how fast of a player we are, directly and by implication.

How the heck do you hope to get new folks, who are already nervous about their grasp of game mechanics and urban legends of "cut throat competition" to join the community when they see all this? Any wonder why a lot of new players opt to play solo?

Should we be a bit more sensitive here?

 

[Michael R]

You know, I was thinking of experienced slow players. I wasn’t even considering the situation of a novice player learning the game. Certainly one gives allowance for that and one can help by saving the new guy some rule lookups.

 

[Doug Kirk]

It's all in how you pose the question. I said it happens at every event I have attended. However it is always only a player or two and a couple games. So relative to how many players and how many games played it is not statistically alot or common but it happens. The answer is not chess clocks, it is the tourney director having the fortitude to call the game when time is up. The slow players are generally well known and should be adjudicated against, unless the players can determine a winner on their own.

 

[Robin Reeve]

If a tourney is well organized, scenarios selected should be playable within the time schedule.
Adjudication is not a very satisfying way to decide who wins, as we all know that ASL can generate so many surprising developments.
I would say that players should strive to keep within the time limit.
If one plays so slowly that about every contest is solved by an adjudication, it would be better not to try to play within a tourney's constraints: most meetings allow "free" playing.
I admit that, if I take half a hour to play a turn (I play at a reasonable rythm, I don't think that I am fast) but my opponent takes one hour and a half, while they have about the same volume of units to manage, I will perhaps lose patience in the long haul.
That said, in a relaxed setting, I don't care a lot, as my opponent on their side will have to suffer my small talk and tentative jokes.

 

[kdalton]

It’s common when playing against me.

 

[Robin Reeve]

It’s common when playing against me.

What is common?

 

[David Goldman]

As the TD of the ASL OPEN before I took the OPEN to VASL, I was fairly ruthless in forcing slow matches to be terminated at the end time of the round. I simply told the players, you decide now who is the winner. Usually that ended the problem because with I think only one or two exceptions over the years when I used that system, the players knew who was going to be the winner. If they couldn't decide, then I would tell them I will decide by roling a die in a few minutes if they couldn't agree between themselves. I gave up about 10 years ago trying to analyze the pros and cons of each player's position and making a call based on my estimation of the probable winner. Usually when I announced the die roll was going to decide, they would agree on a victor.

All in all, at the OPEN they only times (I think it was twice in about the last 10 years) I let a match go on was in the second to last round when the winner was going to remain undefeated. Then I extended their match for about 30 minutes because they were close to a clear win/loss determination. Meanwhile except for their possible opponents, I started all the other matches.

 

[Actionjick]

Great comments! Thanks to all who have responded.

Btw for new players I wouldn't care if they played slowly at an event.

ASL is just this game you know.

 

[kdalton]

What is common?

Slow play.

 

[gorkowskij]

I don't doubt "slow playing" has an effect on any game.

However you folks do realise that it's hard enough to get new players to come to tournaments and be part of the community, make a few friends etc.

On one hand, we kept saying "Everyone's welcomed!" "Please come join us!"
On the otherhand we kept disparaging people about their playing slow (how slow is slow by the way?) .. and all this machoistic talk about how fast of a player we are, directly and by implication.

How the heck do you hope to get new folks, who are already nervous about their grasp of game mechanics and urban legends of "cut throat competition" to join the community when they see all this? Any wonder why a lot of new players opt to play solo?

Should we be a bit more sensitive here?

In the cases I know of, the slow player was very experienced, not a novice. It's not about learning the rules. It's about veterans pondering every single action/reaction of every single possible consequence of every single move.

 

[von Marwitz]

You know, I was thinking of experienced slow players.

So the ASL community needs new players (which are slow), but not experienced players, which are slow?

von Marwitz

 

[Actionjick]

So the ASL community needs new players (which are slow), but not experienced players, which are slow?

von Marwitz

Seems to be a dicechotomy.

 

[DVexile]

So the ASL community needs new players (which are slow), but not experienced players, which are slow?

von Marwitz

Well slow new players are somewhat likely to turn into not slow experienced players, while slow experienced players are unlikely to change. So there seems to be a difference between the two sets, at least to those who have any objection to slow play to begin with. Be patient with a new slow player and you might just end up with a experienced fast player in a few years whom you can use to replace that experienced slow player you are sick of.

Also, if the community wants to sustain its size over time it needs to interact with new players who are almost universally slow by the fact that they are new. If the community (or some fraction of it) decided to forgo interacting with “experienced slow players” it would only cut an (apparently small) fraction of the current population of players. Choose to ignore new players because they are all slow and you end up with no future players.

But I’ve got no skin in this game as I’m new (and thus slow) and I don’t go to tournaments (and thus not annoying anyone with said slowness). But I do enjoy pedantic dissection of false dichotomies so that’s my big contribution!