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

Help Forum

  1. Standard member Dalamar
    Lord of the Board...
    03 Apr '03 13:25
    Good Afternoon,

    My apologies if this has been posted on the site before.

    I have read a couple of posts on the change regarding the amount of concurrent games for non PS's, where I noticed that a split consensus exists where some indicate that it is the MAP's that cause a lot of problems, and some say that it is not.

    Just as a thought, should you want to remove the MAP's off the player tables, why not implement a Most Points per Win?
    Basically, each piece has an assigned points to it, and when the person wins a match, (IE, they will want to play to win), then the points of the pieces that they captured will be counted and added to their name.

    If you want to flame my idea, go ahead.

    Cheers
  2. Donation Rhymester
    and RedHotTed
    03 Apr '03 14:16
    But for a poor player to move up that table he/she would have to play LOTS of games...

    Rhymester
  3. Standard member Dalamar
    Lord of the Board...
    03 Apr '03 15:00
    Rhymester,

    A poor player would need to improve πŸ™„ - Losers will not get points.

    If you lose, you do not get points. Or maybe you should?
    Look, its an idea. Expand, use it, modify it.

  4. Donation Rhymester
    and RedHotTed
    03 Apr '03 15:12
    Originally posted by Dalamar


    A poor player would need to improve πŸ™„ - Losers will not get points.


    Which is also the case with the current rating system and the top players table πŸ™‚

    Rhymester
  5. Standard member Dalamar
    Lord of the Board...
    03 Apr '03 15:34
    I see your point.
    However, what if you decided that all captured pieces would be counted then? regardless of win or loss?
    Now I can just see you will counter with then they will play just to take pieces, ruining the game. That is a fair statement, but I think that it can be rectified.

    You get points for taking pieces, but add a bonus of 50 (just a suggestion) for winning. Losers get what they captured - 10, and winners get what they captured + 50 (just a suggestion)

    How about that Idea?
    πŸ™‚
  6. Standard member thire
    Xebite
    03 Apr '03 21:01
    thw "points this moth" would be a mixture table of move speed and move quality. very interesting.

    long ago I had an idea which is quite close:
    why not offer to each board (in "details" for example?) an evaluation of the baord by Rival? Then I can easily see whether my position has improved or not.
  7. Standard member royalchicken
    CHAOS GHOST!!!
    03 Apr '03 22:28
    Originally posted by Dalamar
    Good Afternoon,

    My apologies if this has been posted on the site before.

    I have read a couple of posts on the change regarding the amount of concurrent games for non PS's, where I noticed that a split consensus exists where some indicate that it is the MAP's that cause a lot of problems, and some say that it is not.

    Just as a thought, should you w ...[text shortened]... will be counted and added to their name.

    If you want to flame my idea, go ahead.

    Cheers
    I am going to flame your idea. There is an aesthetic element of chess that says one wants to win in the most elegant or neat way possible. Your idea would penalize fast, neat, bloodless victories, and thumb it's nose at strategic play in favor of the bloodier, tactical aspects. Just my 2 cents.

    ~Mark
  8. Standard member Dalamar
    Lord of the Board...
    04 Apr '03 07:27
    To a certain extent yes RoyalChicken. Maybe it would be unfair on people who play for bloodless victories...
    Maybe MAP's unfair on them too?
    Maybe MAP's unfair on people who do not have constant access to the internet?

    Look, its an idea, and you have all right to flame it. Thank you for your honest opinion. I just put it up as a suggestion for an alternative due to the whole arguement about MAP's.

  9. Standard member Omnislash
    Digital Blasphemy
    04 Apr '03 07:39
    Originally posted by Dalamar
    To a certain extent yes RoyalChicken. Maybe it would be unfair on people who play for bloodless victories...
    Maybe MAP's unfair on them too?
    Maybe MAP's unfair on people who do not have constant access to the internet?

    Look, its an idea, and you have all right to flame it. Thank you for your honest opinion. I just put it up as a suggestion for an alternative due to the whole arguement about MAP's.

    I think a "Most Improved Player of The Month" could be good. It would be hard to "try" to get on this, but would give some recognition to the players that have made a real effort to change their game and become better. Also, if at some point someone is having a really good run they may be able to get on the board for a while, even if they don't hold out to the end. The only problem I can see with this is people trying to drag out losing games untill after the month. Not really too bad I think. πŸ˜‰
  10. 04 Apr '03 07:41
    Originally posted by Dalamar
    To a certain extent yes RoyalChicken. Maybe it would be unfair on people who play for bloodless victories...
    Maybe MAP's unfair on them too?
    Maybe MAP's unfair on people who do not have constant access to the internet?

    Look, its an idea, and you have all right to flame it. Thank you for your honest opinion. I just put it up as a suggestion for an alternative due to the whole arguement about MAP's.

    I like your idea, just dont replace map if it gets put up, replace the posters table because it makes people spam.
  11. Donation Rhymester
    and RedHotTed
    04 Apr '03 07:50
    Every sort of table is going to be unfair to someone - following the same logic we definitely should'nt have a top 20 players table because it's 'unfair' to 99.9% of RHP's members who will never appear on it πŸ˜‰

    Rhymester
  12. 04 Apr '03 08:20
    Originally posted by Rhymester
    Every sort of table is going to be unfair to someone - following the same logic we definitely should'nt have a top 20 players table because it's 'unfair' to 99.9% of RHP's members who will never appear on it πŸ˜‰

    Rhymester
    Like me LOL, I'll never get thereπŸ˜€
  13. Standard member Omnislash
    Digital Blasphemy
    04 Apr '03 08:24
    I think the tables are a good thing that just gets abused. I think that it is only a VERY small percentile of the people here that abuse and we shouldn't ruin a good thing because of a few bad apples.
  14. Standard member Dalamar
    Lord of the Board...
    04 Apr '03 09:21
    I agree with you Omnislash.
    I like the tables, I like to see the stats on how many moves and who has the top player rating. Although I will never make it onto these lists, its still a nice thing to look at. I have even found suitable challenges from these tables, which makes the whole site even more enjoyable.

    I also agree that its only certain people that abuse it, but that unfortuanetly happens to be a aspect of life throughout, not just related to chess.

    How about this as an expansion to the idea?
    Two tables:
    Players with points per game ( with the deduction for a loss and bonus for a win)
    and a table with top players with "Clean" Wins?
    I would love to know who wins many games through more strategy then random slaughter, maybe even challenge a few of them πŸ™‚

    I will be honest, I do not even know if it is possible for these tables to be implemented, but I do consider it a fair idea.

    Cheers

  15. Donation Rhymester
    and RedHotTed
    04 Apr '03 09:52
    Good ideas.... and maybe we should change the name of the site to RedHotTables πŸ˜‰πŸ˜΅

    Rhymester

    PS. I had to fight a war to get where I am today LOL