US Chess Federation

Correspondence Chess Discussion Forum July 1997

Current Topic | Next Topic |Prior Topics |

Next Forum topic

Our next topic up for discussion is: Should a player be forfeited, regardless of the event, for overstepping the time control thereby eliminating the current procedure of being allowed to continue play but given a warning and a reflection time penalty?

You can respond by e-mail to [email protected].

Current topic: Downtime Claims

Here are comments received from Correspondence Chess players relating to the Forum Topic: "What should happen with a correspondence chess game being played electronically when the player claims his server was down?"

Allen Farley writes, "It's somewhat unusual for a server to be down for very long, due to most people are paying customers of an Internet Service Provider and will switch for better service. Problems do occur, and there may possibly need to be an alternative method in such an event. One possibility is contacting US Chess to allow notification to be sent to the opponents of the problem and the possible need to retransmit moves to a new e-mail address. The opponents, for verification, could attempt to ping the server if they knew the address. If just email is down, the opponents should receive bounced mail from a postmaster somewhere."

Kenneth Dobbins wrote, "I see no need to make any significant changes. If a server is down for only a day or two, the play should simply absorb the time. Perhaps it would be sporting to allow players to claim excused time after the fact in cases where servers are down for extended periods. The CCD should have some discretion in granting this."

Gary T. Unfried suggests, "If a player's hard drive crashes, or a video card goes out, etc., the player should be expect to repair his system, knowing that the reflection-time "clock" is still running. To allow any "time-outs", other than the "formal excused time" already permitted by USCF rules, could invite time-control abuse or procrastination in fixing the problem. Yes, there is greater cost to play correspondence chess via "high tech" equipment, but if a player wants to play an email game, he should accept the responsibility to pay the costs to maintain the equipment required. For an email chess player to expect otherwise, would be equivalent to a postal player wanting a "break" because he is out of stamps, or his pen ran out of ink!"

"As players are required to keep their USCF membership current during a game, they should also bear the responsibility to maintain their email accounts."

"If a player has problems with his "server" (ie.,Internet Service Provider), he should be expected to resolve the problem with the access company. These companies cannot afford to "go down" for days at a time, but players that do have continuing problems with access should consider changing companies before it impacts their reflection time."

Gary also wants to address the previous topic, Reflection Time. "Yes, there are aspects of Correspondence Chess that unavoidably put us all under the "Honor System". A player that incorrectly states the "Received" date is as unethical as one who consults with other players or computers for advice on the game. Perhaps, there should be emphasis on the fact that "Received" means "Delivered by Post Office", not "When there's time to read the mail"! "Also, I'm in favor of "10 moves in 30 days" for email chess."