Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Recommended Posts

Recommended Posts

Last 7 days. Updated daily
  1. Subscriber kmax87
    border god
    27 Mar '17 03:05
    Originally posted by AverageJoe1
    How can everyone be equal when, simply put, some people work harder and/or longer than others. Just that one fact makes that dream of liberals impossible to achieve. Yet they somehow think it makes sense. Help me Rhonda.
    Liberals are not saying people should be equal. This is a straw man assertion. What Liberals are saying is that everyone should be given an equal opportunity, that they should not face unfair obstacles in the quest for education, knowledge, employment and social improvement.
  2. Subscriber huckleberryhound On Vacation
    Devout Agnostic.
    25 Mar '17 01:20
    Originally posted by divegeester
    Someone** must have complained about his dreadful thread.

    Yes, there are so many of his threads that are dreadful, so even if it were a numbers game, he is gonna lose.

    **It wasn't me. I wanted it left up so everyone could see what an assshole he is
    I know i did, and i said "this (insert expletive) needs perma banned.

    The London thread was a step too far for me.
  3. 22 Mar '17 16:40
    Already some disturbing pictures have turned up online. I'd post a link, but I wouldn't want Whodey to shoot his load prematurely.
  4. 22 Mar '17 19:12
    Originally posted by whodey
    ...they can't help but assassinate my character.
    You're doing that quite fine on your own, Whodey.
  5. 22 Mar '17 20:39 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra to Ash
    Whodey can barely contain his excitement at the prospect of jihadists possibly being involved.
    I guess he can't help himself getting so happy about these people being attacked.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houses_of_Parliament_1974_bombing

    "On the 17 June 1974 the Provisional IRA bombed the British Houses of Parliament
    causing extensive damage and injuring eleven people."

    The hateful racist troll Whodey would be much less excited if the PIRA did it.
    Would Britain have been safer if people of Irish Catholic heritage had been excluded?
  6. 25 Mar '17 00:11
    In economics this is called the free rider problem. There is also the corresponding forced rider problem.

    This topic comes up now and then on this forum, often mentioned in an argument against the welfare state. Usually the free rider is an indigent on public support. Funny how rarely is it the fat cat who influences legislation that allows his business to avoid the responsibility for, say, the costs of environmental damage.
  7. Subscriber moonbus
    Uber-Nerd
    25 Mar '17 13:23 / 1 edit
    One clan member has stated more than once that he considers it fair play to resign games regardless of board position, once a challenge has been decided. He calls this 'clan management.' I for one consider this argument to be subterfuge.

    Whatever the motive, the effect is the same: namely, whenever a player resigns a game which, if played out might have been drawn or won, his rating is artificially lowered and no longer reflects his true playing strength. This gives him an unfair advantage over some other player whose rating does accurately reflect his playing strength.

    This issue had far-reaching consequences for the course of the 2016 season; it was this which led some clans to engage in collusion in order to demonstrate how easy it is to manipulate the system. What the colluding clans did was not different in kind, but only in degree, to the practice of 'clan management.'

    In case that wasn't clear enough, I'll reduce it to one sentence: collusion is not the cause of what's wrong here, it's a reaction to the practice of 'clan management.'

    Clean up the first issue, and the symptom will disappear of itself.
  8. Subscriber huckleberryhound On Vacation
    Devout Agnostic.
    26 Mar '17 10:47
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    Disgusting
    Dreadful
    Abhorrent
    Childish
    Sick

    He was all of these.

    But why ban?

    Unless inciting hatred, or trolling an individual ... why ban?
    Idiots are allowed opinions!

    There will always be "the Most Shocking" on any forum.
    Removing one just leaves the position vacant.

    [b]FREEDOM OF SPEECH
    [/b]
    Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequence.
  9. Subscriber moonbus
    Uber-Nerd
    26 Mar '17 11:09 / 5 edits
    This is a good start on list of problem areas to be addressed.

    "1 - problem with the scoring system. Meaning the way net points are awarded.

    2 - perceived problems with player rating manipulation commonly called sandbagging.

    3 - putting clan goals ahead of personal goals. In other words, players resigning clan games where the outcome has been decided.

    4 - collusion amongst amongst several clans to generate points towards one clan."


    I would add to the above list: untimely timeouts.

    What would anyone think if a player repeatedly ended playable games by timing out? For example (chosen at random):

    Game 11523406

    Game 11531856 (time out with a bishop pair and a connected passer)

    Game 11523407

    Game 11531855

    Game 11524624

    Game 11780024 (timeout on move 7)

    Game 11723590 (timeout on move 13)

    Maybe there is a perfectly harmless explanation for each of those time outs. Maybe the player was ill, in which case I wish him a speedy recovery. Maybe all those games were lost anyway; he's a stronger player than I am and sees things I don't. But timing out on move seven?! It begins to look like deliberate rating manipulation. Or maybe it's 'clan management.'

    So, to no. 3 "resigning clan games where the outcome has been decided" should be added: "untimely timeouts" as another prima facie suspicious means of manipulating ratings (either individual or clan).


    "I find it amusing that some waste all their breath wanting to talk about "tossing" games that don't affect the outcome of a challenge… What's wrong with this picture?"

    It is not about the result of that one challenge. It is about the effect that tossed game has on the individual's rating, especially if done repeatedly: it artificially lowers his rating and therefore puts him at an unfair advantage against some future player whose rating has not been artificially lowered. Calling it 'clan management' is subterfuge; it's still sandbagging, whatever the rationalization for it may be.



    Regarding a possible solution:

    "Change the net points scoring to be the sum of all rating changes for every clan game. For example if you win a clan game against your opponent and your rating goes up 6 points, your clan is awarded 6 points. Every game will contribute to the clan score. So resigning a game will cost the clan."

    I've been suggesting something similar to this for a long time. The way standings have been calculated until now (not collusion) is the fundamental flaw in the clan system. It was flawed from inception, but it became clear only recently, when some clans started blatantly leveraging that flaw.

    Getting away from net points is essential to creating a level playing field. The clans who were disrupting the system last year had a grievance which was never until now addressed. Whether that grievance was justified is another matter; but it must at least be heard and addressed. Otherwise there will continue to be guerrilla warfare here instead of chess.

    Whether a revised clan rating system is to be ELO-based or some other is open to discussion, but in any case, a system in which every thrown game decreases clan standing is essential to undo the damage caused by a) collusion and b) sandbagging in all its forms including 'clan management' and untimely timeouts. There was a lot of resistance to the suggestion of an ELO-based clan rating system, partly because some people did not understand it and therefore did not understand how it would render sandbagging irrelevant. I emphasize "irrelevant," because some posters here are stuck on the idea that sandbagging must be prevented and punished. It cannot be prevented; but it can be rendered ineffective as a means of manipulating clan standings, and that is sufficient for our purposes of getting on with playing chess here.

    The proposal Russ has offered (clan ratings but not based on individual ratings) is not clear on what exactly is being measured. If it is just another way to calculate net points, then it will not solve any of the problems noted above.

    A win-ratio-based system would achieve the desired result and is much easier to implement, understand, and explain, than an ELO-based system.

    Regarding collusion:

    I see no means of preventing it. I do, however, believe that setting the rankings on a fairer system will remove the motivation which originally led to it.

    We can nonetheless envision a multi-stage response to it, if it continues after a fairer clan rating system has been implemented and given a fair chance to work.

    Stage 1.: set a low limit to the number of same-clan-same-player challenges which will count towards the clan standings. A limit of, say, two challenges in any 12-month period. Any number of same-clan-same-player challenges may be played (some clans just like each other), but only 2 would count towards the standings.

    That does not address the issue of multiple feeder clans gifting points to some one clan. So, stage 2.: there should an ad hoc roll-back of ill-gotten points, to be implemented either by Russ (who probably does not want to police the clans) or some sort of adjudication committee (with authority to rule on suspicious cases). This has been suggested before and I have never objected to it; what I objected to was the idea that some people here seem to have that this alone would be sufficient to solve the problems here without addressing the other issues.

    If that still does not resolve the issue of gift points, then stage 3.: disqualification of offending clans and removal of all their results (including legitimate ones) from the clan table. This too has been suggested before and I have never objected to it; what I objected to was the idea that some people here seem to have that this alone would be sufficient to solve the problems here without addressing the other issues.

    Cheers,
    moonbus
  10. Standard member wolfgang59
    Infidel
    26 Mar '17 11:27
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    You do know he has been banned before, right? So he has not learned discipline of mind. Doesn't look to me like he ever will. He will continue on his path.
    OK
    So what?

    Whatever vile filth he spouts ... how does it affect you?
  11. 27 Mar '17 16:47
    Originally posted by whodey
    Nope, only Christian white males are to blame.

    Everyone else is blameless.

    This kinda prompted my thread on rejoicing in the Lord even in the midst of doom. Paul was able to do it even though in jail and sentenced to die. This is what Christians need to do when confronted with everything being taken from them, whether it be the at the hands of governm ...[text shortened]... ns made from human hands?

    Can we find freedom in God even though a captive of our fellow man?
    Correction. Its not the media's fault. You are just stark raving bonkers.
  12. 21 Mar '17 09:13
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    Five thumbs down? I wonder why, let me see, because its WUSSY! you don't just play to play, you PLAY TO WIN THE GAME!
    I do not think you are content with just winning
    You make sure you cannot lose
  13. Standard member no1marauder
    Caustic/Disagreeable
    21 Mar '17 09:40
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    My goodness one wonders if Comey is not smoking skunk weed, he certainly sounds and looks stoned.
    You and the folks at zerohedge seem to be the last people on Planet Earth who don't accept that the Russians preferred Trump to Hillary and made concrete efforts to get him elected.
  14. 21 Mar '17 15:22
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    The Easy Riders spread our points around, we are not like the misers of Metallica, hoarding up their points like some mean ol Scrooges that never gave a turkey away in their lives.
    118 of your 170 points in 2017 comes from 3 clans.

    You're spreading something around all right.
  15. Subscriber divegeester
    I can feel your hate
    21 Mar '17 17:18
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    I get it. Devil's advocate.
    Do you find your friends and family having to explain jokes to you?