Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Help Forum

Help Forum

  1. 03 Jun '03 21:28
    Hello to all,

    I am currently playing a large number of games and feel that it is my right to do so. My goals are not to reach the top of active players. I think it would be in the best interest of the site if this type of statistic was removed. It encourages a contest type environment. I was playing today and a player started about 50 or more games with me merely to delete them. His reason was to climb to the top of the chart MAP.
    My suggestions are:
    1. remove the ranking
    a. this would hurt those of us looking for people that play alot
    2. only count finished games
    a. this may be the current method- i don't know.
    3. kill connections to those that start and delete large numbers of games

    I feel that this is a gross abuse of service, and not in the spirit of fun.
    It infringes needlessly on the bandwidth of the servers.
    John
  2. Donation mwmiller
    RHP Member No.16
    03 Jun '03 22:05
    Originally posted by Jeoin
    Hello to all,

    I am currently playing a large number of games and feel that it is my right to do so. My goals are not to reach the top of active players. I think it would be in the best interest of the site if this type of statistic was removed. It encourages a contest type environment. I was playing today and a player started about 50 or more games ...[text shortened]... and not in the spirit of fun.
    It infringes needlessly on the bandwidth of the servers.
    John
    I think your second suggestion would be the most effective. Only add moves to a players total once a game is satisfactorily completed.

    Marc
  3. 05 Jun '03 15:11
    Originally posted by Jeoin
    Hello to all,

    I am currently playing a large number of games and feel that it is my right to do so. My goals are not to reach the top of active players. I think it would be in the best interest of the site if this type of statistic was removed. It encourages a contest type environment. I was playing today and a player started about 50 or more games ...[text shortened]... and not in the spirit of fun.
    It infringes needlessly on the bandwidth of the servers.
    John
    I don't think it's a good idea to remove the MAP, it's a part of the site! But to count only finished games seems oke! The only problem with that would be that people just resign from games to get new points fast!

    Olav
  4. 05 Jun '03 16:54
    Originally posted by LivingLegend
    I don't think it's a good idea to remove the MAP, it's a part of the site! But to count only finished games seems oke! The only problem with that would be that people just resign from games to get new points fast!

    Olav
    well if they did that its fine with me....easyer points
  5. 05 Jun '03 18:33
    i agree anyone dumb enough to resign just to top out a statistic, is easy meat...
  6. Standard member SmittyG
    Chess Player
    06 Jun '03 10:42 / 1 edit
    I say only allow pawn stars to show in the stats. I think those that cough up the funds are more likely to take the site seriously. And, yes, I will readily concede that a lot, maybe most, of the non-pawn stars are here to play real chess. In any event, if someone pays their way and wants to spend time and money chasing a standing on a list, more power to them.

    I find it more iritating when someone finds the site, starts a handful of games, plays a move or two in each, then never comes back. I thought of not playing anyone who hasn't completed a game or two then remembered that someone had to give me my chance when I first got here.

    I guess I might just be in the minority on this, but I come here to play chess. I've looked at the stats pages once while touring the site to see what it had; I've never been back. If someone is willing to play me, I don't care their rating or how the outcome of the game might affect mine. I just like to play.

    Sorry folks, early morning, not much sleep. I decided to come visit here.

    --SmittyG
  7. Donation Rhymester
    and RedHotTed
    06 Jun '03 10:58
    Originally posted by SmittyG
    I say only allow pawn stars to show in the stats. I think those that cough up the funds are more likely to take the site seriously. And, yes, I will readily concede that a lot, maybe most, of the non-pawn stars are here to play real chess. In any event, if someone pays their way and wants to spend time and money chasing a standing on a list, more power to th ...[text shortened]... lay.

    Sorry folks, early morning, not much sleep. I decided to come visit here.

    --SmittyG
    If you look at the two main tables.. Top 20 rankings and MAP you will see that they are almost entirely composed of pawnstars anyway... it's a shame that those exceptions haven't coughed up yet....

    Rhymester
  8. Standard member SmittyG
    Chess Player
    06 Jun '03 11:22
    Well, so much for my theory. Of course, I now hope that most of those on the lists got their stats just as a side result of playing lots of chess. I would find it very pathetic to think someone would pay money and spend time just trying to artificially inflate their standing.

    --SmittyG

  9. Donation Rhymester
    and RedHotTed
    06 Jun '03 11:35
    Originally posted by SmittyG
    Well, so much for my theory. Of course, I now hope that most of those on the lists got their stats just as a side result of playing lots of chess. I would find it very pathetic to think someone would pay money and spend time just trying to artificially inflate their standing.

    --SmittyG

    Hopefully not being able to enter tourneys, join clans or play more than 6 games at a time should provide enough incentive for some more people to shell out such a small sum for a whole year's excellent entertainment.

    Rhymester
  10. Standard member SmittyG
    Chess Player
    06 Jun '03 12:00
    Try limiting the free time to 90 days. After two games I knew it was worth signing up. After three months, if you don't think its worth $15 to stick around, you never will. Just a thought.

    --SmittyG

  11. Donation Rhymester
    and RedHotTed
    06 Jun '03 12:29
    Originally posted by SmittyG
    Try limiting the free time to 90 days. After two games I knew it was worth signing up. After three months, if you don't think its worth $15 to stick around, you never will. Just a thought.

    --SmittyG

    The way things are people would just sign up under another user name - sad, but true...
  12. Standard member SmittyG
    Chess Player
    06 Jun '03 15:28
    LOL; I never thought of that. You're right of course. Well, we can just hope that folks see the value of this service and do the right thing. The price can't be argued with: if you can buy a computer and get Internet access, you can handle this.

    --SmittyG
  13. Standard member Toe
    06 Jun '03 16:10
    Originally posted by Rhymester
    The way things are people would just sign up under another user name - sad, but true...
    One could limit non-pawn stars to a maximum number of new games per month, which may stop some abuse... Prob not though.

    The never paying issue is a tricky one and given Russ' change to site running, very much his call. Personally I'd make their games unrated once they had exceeded a set number of games or once they had reached / fallen to given thresholds (say below 1000 or over 1350).

    I would think those that just wanted to play regardless of bells or whistles, well they're good folk to have on board even if they don't subscribe. There's a value to all the pawn stars in having new faces and interesed people active on the site after all.
  14. Standard member orkyboy
    Looooney Ork
    06 Jun '03 19:22
    Originally posted by UncleAdam
    well if they did that its fine with me....easyer points
    Unless they make the gamme unrated.
  15. 07 Jun '03 02:10
    Originally posted by orkyboy
    Unless they make the gamme unrated.
    if its unrated why would they do that....they wont lose points either way