1 edit
Originally posted by SwissGambitThe big difference is: a longer timebank CAN be an advantage to the person who has it, in the individual games.
Why are those arguments invalid, and yet your vacation argument is? They all seem rather trivial to me. Technically, they all describe 'unfair' conditions, and all directly linked to the privileges that only subs get - I just don't see much evidence that the unfairness is beyond a trivial level.
If that were not a fact then what is the whole point of timebanks?
Put it this way, I say good luck to you with all your extra subscriber features and the more the better. BUT, if it's possible for them to give an advantage to one side, however trivial it may seem to you, it is still an UNFAIR situation.
Thanks for agreeing that there IS "unfairness" at least. 😵
Originally posted by SwissGambitMore practice is available to everyone.
Yes, and more practice games with a particular opening line also CAN be an advantage in the individual games. Where is the difference?
Preparation can give a fair advantage but that occurs before the game.
That's the whole point.
There's no way you can justify it like that. 😲🙄😞
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveYou're right, its not fair. Tough. Life's like that. I don't think its fair that I and all the other subs have to support the non-subs "right" to play 6 games for free until the end of their days. But Russ is the boss.
Firstly, I have said on numerous occasions that it DOESN'T really bother me personally.
I already do only play people I know, or trust to play by the same rules as myself.
What is amazing to me is how some subscribers seem to believe differing timebanks makes for a fair game. If you can't see how a longer timebank for one player could be an adv ...[text shortened]... turn on/turn off choice at the start of the game, like the option for rated or non rated.
Here's another solution I think would work. Let non-subs use the vacation system the same as a sub. Limit a non-subs total games to 100. Period. That's plenty of games to decide if you want to subscribe. And it would end the feeling of unfairness that a lot of subs have about supporting the non-subs.
Originally posted by dweezilLet's be clear - you do not support me or any other non-sub. Advertising does.
You're right, its not fair. Tough. Life's like that. I don't think its fair that I and all the other subs have to support the non-subs "right" to play 6 games for free until the end of their days. But Russ is the boss.
Here's another solution I think would work. Let non-subs use the vacation system the same as a sub. Limit a non-subs total games to 100. P ...[text shortened]... ould end the feeling of unfairness that a lot of subs have about supporting the non-subs.
Because life isn't fair [a rather pathetic comparison btw] doesn't mean games of chess have to be unfair too.
As for your brilliant idea of trying to force people to pay after 100 games, I can assure you many would leave [maybe some would return under new names] At least then you wouldn't have to support them. [in your mind lol] However with less members your subscription would probably have to go up.
I'm not even complaining.
I've simply pointed out that the games are not technically even-handed or fair - call it what you like. There is no disputing it however much you dislike non-subs, it is a FACT.
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveBut they can't get more than 6 concurrent games worth of practice unless they play outside of RHP. So much for RHP ensuring 'fairness'.
More practice is available to [b]everyone.
Preparation can give a fair advantage but that occurs before the game.
That's the whole point.
There's no way you can justify it like that. 😲🙄😞[/b]
Preparation can give a fair advantage but that occurs before the game.
That's the whole point.
What does it matter when it occurs? And by what rationale do you deem it a 'fair' advantage?
1 edit
Originally posted by SwissGambitPractice IS available to ALL. Why would it have to be confined to RHP?
But they can't get more than 6 concurrent games worth of practice unless they play outside of RHP. So much for RHP ensuring 'fairness'.
What does it matter when it occurs? And by what rationale do you deem it a 'fair' advantage?
Anything done whilst the game is being played should be on equal terms.
What happens before the game is irrelevant to fairness in a game.
Surely you can see the difference?
1 edit
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveThat's ridiculous.
Anything done whilst the game is being played should be on equal terms.
What happens before the game is irrelevant to fairness in a game.
Surely you can see the difference?
If a player feels like they are at a disadvantage, they they have the option to restore equality... subscribe.
If you want to enfore gestapoesque "fairness", you'd need to police people and prevent them from playing while drunk, etc.
Players at RHP always have a fair game option available to them. Some chose not to accept equality by not subbing, some chose to put themseslves at a disadvantage by playing drunk.
D
1 edit
Originally posted by RagnorakSo at last we are getting somewhere; you admit that to get a fair-handed game one has to pay for a subscription. That's exactly what I'm saying too.
If a player feels like they are at a disadvantage, they they have the option to restore equality... subscribe.
Players at RHP always have a fair game option available to them. Some chose not to accept equality by not subbing, some chose to put themseslves at a disadvantage by playing drunk.
D
If someone plays whilst drunk, that's their own choice per game. It's an outside influence that isn't forced on them during the games.
And before you say everyone has the choice to subscribe, that's irrelevant, some haven't subscribed so their games are not played on even terms.
Case proven!
edit: wtf is gestapoesque?
- Joined
- 10 Jan 08
- Moves
- 23319
Originally posted by Dr Strangelovei think you are missing entirely the point of the site.
So at last we are getting somewhere; you admit that to get a fair-handed game one has to pay for a subscription. That's exactly what I'm saying too.
If someone plays whilst drunk, that's their own choice per game. It's an outside influence that isn't forced on them during the games.
And before you say everyone has the choice to subscribe, th ...[text shortened]... games are not played on even terms.
Case proven!
edit: wtf is gestapoesque?
we are all here to play chess for FUN on the internet...this is not OTB chess, there's no clock and there's no money or important tournament at stake.
some people pay to play unlimited games and enjoy the extra features of the site....some don't but still help the site because of the advertisements (which i'm pretty sure you block btw)
one of the features is a 36 days vacation period for one year.....maybe a little too long but even if you're playing a 1/0 this is more than enough time to make a move in the game, the vacation time is solely to protect the ratings of people with a lot of games and go away for whatever reason...it doesn't effect whats happening on the board.
you shouldn't be worried about not winning games on timeout you should just play the game and enjoy it for what it is...a game.
i mean 'you' as the metaphorical 'you' btw because even though YOU keep posting in here saying how unfair the vacation is YOU don't really care about it.
Originally posted by trev33All I'm saying is it's technically not a fair-handed game here. And everyone seems to agree.
i think you are missing entirely the point of the site.
we are all here to play chess for FUN on the internet...this is not OTB chess, there's no clock and there's no money or important tournament at stake.
some people pay to play unlimited games and enjoy the extra features of the site....some don't but still help the site because of the advertisemen ...[text shortened]... ep posting in here saying how unfair the vacation is YOU don't really care about it.
As we are all mostly playing "for fun" why bother with a vacation system at all?
Just a thought.
There are many things I would disagree with even though they don't directly affect me.