04 Jul 05
I strongly subscribe to the fact that non subscribers are the biggest chess engine cheats on RHP. A non subsciber with only 6 games going, is more inclined to cheat than a subscriber with 250 games! And the annoying part is that they keep sending you reminders when they think they are winning. Isn't it amazing that we have non subscribers who have a rating of 2000 plus! One would think that a player of that strength would easily subscribe. Let's do away with non subscribers who exceed a rating of 1700.
04 Jul 05
Originally posted by jamjamjoeMight i suggest not playing non subscibers then. Also why buy the cow when I can get the milk for free?
[b]I strongly subscribe to the fact that non subscribers are the biggest chess engine cheats on RHP. A non subsciber with only 6 games going, is more inclined to cheat than a subscriber with 250 games! And the annoying part is that they keep sending you reminders when they think they are winning. Isn't it amazing that we have non subscribers who have a ratin ...[text shortened]... strength would easily subscribe. Let's do away with non subscribers who exceed a rating of 1700.[/b
04 Jul 05
Originally posted by CanadaguyIt is exactly that attitude that leads me to think that access for non-subs should be restricted in the following ways:
Also why buy the cow when I can get the milk for free?
1. No forum posting
2. Access for a set trial period, or set number of games only. Sure, people could always just re-register under a different name, but they would have to start from 1200 again.
3. Can only play non-rated games.
On a pragmatic level, subs get all the milk they can drink. non-subs just get a little bit.
04 Jul 05
Originally posted by dfm65sorry didn't mean to sound sarcastic. Guess it got lost in translation.
It is exactly that attitude that leads me to think that access for non-subs should be restricted in the following ways:
1. No forum posting
2. Access for a set trial period, or set number of games only. Sure, people could always just re-register under a different name, but they would have to start from 1200 again.
3. Can only play non-rated games.
On a pragmatic level, subs get all the milk they can drink. non-subs just get a little bit.
04 Jul 05
Originally posted by jamjamjoeYou see, therein lies the problem. Some us us have things that get in the way of playing 250 games at a time, maybe education, or other hobbies, or life etc...
I strongly subscribe to the fact that non subscribers are the biggest chess engine cheats on RHP. A non subsciber with only 6 games going, is more inclined to cheat than a subscriber with 250 games! And the annoying part is that they keep sending you reminders when they think they are winning. Isn't it amazing that we have non subscribers who have a ratin ...[text shortened]... trength would easily subscribe. Let's do away with non subscribers who exceed a rating of 1700.
I dont feel I could do my play justice if I played much more than 6 games at a time with the time controls I prefer. True, I could play 100 games at 21/21 time limit (i would need that long to make sure I got round to analysing all my games before I timed out on one).
So having said that, I only need about 6 games on the go at the same time. Would you subscribe if you would only play an extra 5 or so game?!
04 Jul 05
Originally posted by welsharniewhat he said
You see, therein lies the problem. Some us us have things that get in the way of playing 250 games at a time, maybe education, or other hobbies, or life etc...
I dont feel I could do my play justice if I played much more than 6 games at a time with the time controls I prefer. True, I could play 100 games at 21/21 time limit (i would need that long to m ...[text shortened]... s on the go at the same time. Would you subscribe if you would only play an extra 5 or so game?!
04 Jul 05
Originally posted by dfm65Somewhat contradictory rules there. The reason you give that people might wish not to re-register under different names is that they would have to start from 1200 again. But then you say they should only be able to play non-rated games anyway!
It is exactly that attitude that leads me to think that access for non-subs should be restricted in the following ways:
1. No forum posting
2. Access for a set trial period, or set number of games only. Sure, people could always just re-register under a different name, but they would have to start from 1200 again.
3. Can only play non-rated games.
On a pragmatic level, subs get all the milk they can drink. non-subs just get a little bit.
Personally, I really like the way it is now for non-subs. In fact, the fact that you can get so much for nothing was the main reason I decided to subscribe. I really appreciated the fact that the site offered such a good service for free that I wanted to repay that kindness and so I subscribed. Had there been a trial period, at the end of which I was required to subscribe, I probably wouldn't have bothered.
Having said that, I am probably in a minority with that attitude.
04 Jul 05
Originally posted by dfm65nonsense....
It is exactly that attitude that leads me to think that access for non-subs should be restricted in the following ways:
1. No forum posting
2. Access for a set trial period, or set number of games only. Sure, people could always just re-register under a different name, but they would have to start from 1200 again.
3. Can only play non-rated games.
On a pragmatic level, subs get all the milk they can drink. non-subs just get a little bit.
There are subscribers who really want to play and feel the responsibility for their games... Let's say I can't subscribe, 'cuz I don't have a credit card or money , but I enjoy playing here and posting in the forums and do not bother anyone!
04 Jul 05
Originally posted by Azeri guyIn addition, I am sure there are subscribers who have posted questions on the forums and have benefitted from answers or advice given by non-subscribers.
nonsense....
There are subscribers who really want to play and feel the responsibility for their games... Let's say I can't subscribe, 'cuz I don't have a credit card or money , but I enjoy playing here and posting in the forums and do not bother anyone!
04 Jul 05
Originally posted by jamjamjoeDid you lose again to a non-subscriber?
I strongly subscribe to the fact that non subscribers are the biggest chess engine cheats on RHP. A non subsciber with only 6 games going, is more inclined to cheat than a subscriber with 250 games! And the annoying part is that they keep sending you reminders when they think they are winning. Isn't it amazing that we have non subscribers who have a ratin ...[text shortened]... trength would easily subscribe. Let's do away with non subscribers who exceed a rating of 1700.
That must hurt, paying to lose against someone who is not paying...
04 Jul 05
Originally posted by jimmyb270Well, if you're in a minority, so am I. It was the feeling that this site was offering me a *proper* experience for free, not just some dumb sampling that didn't really convey what the site was like, that led me to stick around and eventually subscribe.
Somewhat contradictory rules there. The reason you give that people might wish not to re-register under different names is that they would have to start from 1200 again. But then you say they should only be able to play non-rated games anyway!
Personally, I really like the way it is now for non-subs. In fact, the fact that you can get so much for nothin ...[text shortened]... ly wouldn't have bothered.
Having said that, I am probably in a minority with that attitude.
The limits on subscribers are sufficient already in my view. Sure, some people will never subscribe and never play more than 6 games. So be it.
04 Jul 05
Originally posted by orfeoI just don't understand what all the fuss is about. We're paying this with advertising money and also expand the community.
Well, if you're in a minority, so am I. It was the feeling that this site was offering me a *proper* experience for free, not just some dumb sampling that didn't really convey what the site was like, that led me to stick around and eventually subscribe.
The limits on subscribers are sufficient already in my view. Sure, some people will never subscribe and never play more than 6 games. So be it.
If anyone feels we are getting a better deal, why did they subscribe?
Live and let live, I say.
04 Jul 05
I think it's absolutely beautiful that people can play for free.
I don't mind paying if that helps other people, who may only want to play for a few months, or only want to play 4 or 5 games a time, have a good time.
I also think it's good to have fresh blood posting. Yes, some people are irritating (so are some subscribers), but there are also a lot of very fantastic people with lots of amusing things to say. I think having non-subscibers posting generally makes things more interesting.
As for non-subscribers cheating....well....I think my views on cheating are already pretty clear!
04 Jul 05
Originally posted by shavixmirNon-sub rec for you, sir! 😉
I think it's absolutely beautiful that people can play for free.
I don't mind paying if that helps other people, who may only want to play for a few months, or only want to play 4 or 5 games a time, have a good time.
I also think it's good to have fresh blood posting. Yes, some people are irritating (so are some subscribers), but there are also a ...[text shortened]... s for non-subscribers cheating....well....I think my views on cheating are already pretty clear!
