Suggestion for Chris and Russ

I know ways to stop multi-nicks/figs etc, and have suggested a few,
but is there an established way to detect program users? With so
many programs out there it seems it would be impossible.
A post out of curiosity, not critisism

Freak

I'd like to know that also: HOW can one detect/unveil a programme-
opponent? I seem to remember ICC has means to do so. Must have
read that last year or so. I'll be surfing the Net, trying to find
information on this. Jan

I love this little community. I respect a lot of people here for what
they are and what they do! I could start to mention all those people,
but Mark did that so well in his posting. I respect Chris and Russ for
what they do for this site and I will support them in every way I can.
Julia

I too feel strongly about the value of this site, and have a loyalty to it far greater than any
other website - it didn't teach me the basics of chess, but without this site I can honestly say
I would have only a passing interest in the game, playing it perhaps once a month against
friends. Now I am playing 20 games simultaneously! Therefore my comments are meant in
no way to detract from or depreciate what Chris and Russ have done and are still doing for
us. Instead I am trying to offer constructive criticism, as I would to any friend who I felt
could do something better.

The other reason I am suggesting things to Chris and Russ, rather than the mass of
unregistered users, is that Chris and Russ are infinitely more committed to the site, and are
therefore more likely to do something. On the payment issue, I agree wholeheartedly -
though I fear Chris and Russ might need a sharper stick to get more people to pay up. How
about, as well as limiting concurrent games, they limit total games for non-pawnstars?

I have great respect for this site and its creators, but I'm afraid I have never had enormous
respect for the ratings system: when I started, this site was very popular with people at my
school, so I played mostly against them. This resulted in giving me an inflated rating (at one
point I was 32nd in the table), even though I had played honestly because a) many of my
schoolmates were playing at sub-1200 level, by current RHP standards and b) some of them
were the threefigs trick, which meant that when I beat them, my rating was effectively taking
on a small amount of illegitimate hot air each time. The experience demonstrated to me that
the ratings system as it currently stands can only be used as a very rough guide. This doesn't
put me off playing here, but it might be putting off others. Clearly it is enough to rouse
Mustangace into contemptuous and out-of-order remarks about the creators' "personal
standard", but many more players could be leaving without any such fanfare and it is they
whom it would be a pity to lose.