Go back
Who is there more of on RHP?

Who is there more of on RHP?

Only Chess

Vote Up
Vote Down
-1

Hi everyone.
Just a quick thought. Do you think there are more subscribers or non subscribers on this site?

Vote Up
Vote Down

From randomly clicking on "Players" a few times I would guess about twice as many non subs as subs.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Would the site still carry on even if everyone was a Non Sub?

Vote Up
Vote Down

There are 430,000 accounts. 9600 of them have moved in the last 100 days. Of the 9600 active accounts I guess that about 25-40% of them are subscribed.

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by KnightStalker47
There are 430,000 accounts. 9600 of them have moved in the last 100 days. Of the 9600 active accounts I guess that about 25-40% of them are subscribed.
THANK YOU !
So of the almost half million accounts about 3000 are subscribers LOL.
(Not counting inactive accounts that are subs, but how many of those could there be?)

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by FishHead111
THANK YOU !
So of the almost half million accounts about 3000 are subscribers LOL.
(Not counting inactive accounts that are subs, but how many of those could there be?)
Ive been a sub for four years, but I'm even thinking now that whats the point, considering Non Subs get 12 games. Unless you want to play Clan and Tourney games, you may as well be a Non Sub.

Vote Up
3
Vote Down
-1

Originally posted by Steve45
Ive been a sub for four years, but I'm even thinking now that whats the point, considering Non Subs get 12 games. Unless you want to play Clan and Tourney games, you may as well be a Non Sub.
No vacation time and pop up ad's all the time?
Could you cope with that?
The subs are hardly extortionate after all.
If I was short of the pittance it cost's me every year I'd probably kill myself.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by venda
No vacation time and pop up ad's all the time?
Could you cope with that?
The subs are hardly extortionate after all.
If I was short of the pittance it cost's me every year I'd probably kill myself.
Agree with you Dave. It would be good if everyone subscribed though.

Vote Up
Vote Down
-3

And how is this subject chess related?

Vote Up
Vote Down

I am sure it is a ratings question. Do I have an advantage by restricting myself to so few games to concentrate on or do more games assist?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Habeascorp
I am sure it is a ratings question. Do I have an advantage by restricting myself to so few games to concentrate on or do more games assist?
Non-subscribers only play open invite games. I find that this tends to mean I only get opponents of a similar rating to mine, plus or minus about 150. I do get the odd opponent who is much stronger or much weaker, but not as much as when I was a subscriber. I am good against players who are more than 200 weaker than me. According to the ratings system I should expect to lose one game in 10 to a 1,400 - but it is more like one game in 50. Similarly I'm bad against players more than 200 stronger than me - I lose too many games relative to what the ratings system says I should. So if I subscribed my rating would be artificially inflated from playing lots of lower rated players in tournaments. The games against stronger players do not offset that because there are fewer of them. My peak rating as a subscriber was 1966. As a non-sub I haven't managed more than 1848. So if I am in any way typical then it makes a 100 point difference to one's rating.

Vote Up
Vote Down

I've never seen the point of subscribing. I hardly notice the ads. Good to know I have 12 games. I thought it was still only six. I don't see why anyone needs vacation time these days unless they holiday in the jungle.

Vote Up
Vote Down

I was sub in 2014, the first day of membership I went into every tournament, ladder, siege....so at the end of the day I had 60 games... totally impossible for me....

I only can handle 20 games....

so 12 games today for nonsub are very welcome