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

Only Chess Forum

  1. 03 Mar '06 13:17
    In the open invites I sometimes see, "Subscribers only" Why is that? Are they more serious than the non-subscribers? Reliable?
  2. 03 Mar '06 13:21
    Originally posted by jkdrummer
    In the open invites I sometimes see, "Subscribers only" Why is that? Are they more serious than the non-subscribers? Reliable?
    Better looking.
  3. Standard member wormwood
    If Theres Hell Below
    03 Mar '06 13:34
    Originally posted by jkdrummer
    In the open invites I sometimes see, "Subscribers only" Why is that? Are they more serious than the non-subscribers? Reliable?
    prejudice. some people have this belief that paying money somehow magically transforms people for the better. it doesn't.
  4. 03 Mar '06 13:42
    Originally posted by wormwood
    prejudice..
    Or perhaps it could be because:

    1. subscribers are more likely to have a game history that you can review.
    2. subscribers are less likely to disappear and actually finish the game.

    Not everything can be contributed to ill will.
  5. Standard member wormwood
    If Theres Hell Below
    03 Mar '06 13:58
    Originally posted by tmetzler
    Or perhaps it could be because:

    1. subscribers are more likely to have a game history that you can review.
    2. subscribers are less likely to disappear and actually finish the game.

    Not everything can be contributed to ill will.
    you're talking about provisional against non-provisional, not sub vs. nonsub...
  6. 03 Mar '06 14:03
    Originally posted by wormwood
    you're talking about provisional against non-provisional, not sub vs. nonsub...
    No I'm not.

    1. Non-Subscribers are more likely to be provisional than subscribers.
    2. Non-subscribers are limited to the number of games they can play and thus are less likely to have a game history that is worth reviewing.
    3. Non-subscribers have not paid any money and are thus more likely to disappear from the site (leave games hanging)
  7. Standard member wormwood
    If Theres Hell Below
    03 Mar '06 14:31
    Originally posted by tmetzler
    No I'm not.

    1. Non-Subscribers are more likely to be provisional than subscribers.
    2. Non-subscribers are limited to the number of games they can play and thus are less likely to have a game history that is worth reviewing.
    3. Non-subscribers have not paid any money and are thus more likely to disappear from the site (leave games hanging)
    well,

    1. how on earth? everyone's provisional for the first 20 games.

    2. ok, they might only have tens or a couple of hundred games, isn't that enough? I wouldn't look at more than 2-3 myself, usually not at all...

    3. I have never had a non-sub quit on me, but I know some subs who have quit. I'm pretty sure it's dead even. it's even a lot easier to play through your remaining non-sub 6 games than a sub's maybe 100-200, which could even suggest quitting subs abandon more games than non-subs. a lot more.


    I hear you, I just don't see it.
  8. Standard member Aiko
    Nearing 200000...!
    03 Mar '06 14:53
    Originally posted by wormwood

    3. I have never had a non-sub quit on me, but I know some subs who have quit. I'm pretty sure it's dead even.
    I can tell you it is by far not even. I am collecting skulls since a year. I have 53 skulls. Out of these 53 I have 6 games against subscriber, of which four games are pairs (clan challenge), leaving four subscibing members and 47 non subscribers.
  9. Standard member Aiko
    Nearing 200000...!
    03 Mar '06 14:56
    Originally posted by wormwood

    1. how on earth? everyone's provisional for the first 20 games.
    Because subscribers usually have more than six games, and because they pay for a time based subscription (and usually don't have big gaps between games), there activity is larger than non-subscribers. Hence, the subscribers have a shorter period of being provisional.
  10. 03 Mar '06 15:54
    Originally posted by tmetzler
    Or perhaps it could be because:

    1. subscribers are more likely to have a game history that you can review.
    2. subscribers are less likely to disappear and actually finish the game.

    Not everything can be contributed to ill will.
    no he was right it's because we are better people
  11. 03 Mar '06 18:10
    Originally posted by stevetodd
    no he was right it's because we are better people
    But not necessarily better or more reliable players.
  12. 03 Mar '06 18:39
    If more people subscribe, the greater the chance that this--very well done--chess site will be around. Bandwidth is expensive, and it needs to be paid for somehow. If people choose to only play against subscribers as a means to get more people to subscribe (thereby giving this site's success more of a guarantee), then more power to 'em.

    In fact, I'm going to go add that to my profile now.
  13. 03 Mar '06 18:44
    Originally posted by Sicilian Smaug
    ...OK we smell better and our hair and skin is more soft.
    ...and most of us have got the bodies of a taut, pre-teen Swedish boy.
  14. Standard member wormwood
    If Theres Hell Below
    03 Mar '06 23:46
    Originally posted by Aiko
    I can tell you it is by far not even. I am collecting skulls since a year. I have 53 skulls. Out of these 53 I have 6 games against subscriber, of which four games are pairs (clan challenge), leaving four subscibing members and 47 non subscribers.
    interesting. I'll start to keep a record too...
  15. Standard member wormwood
    If Theres Hell Below
    03 Mar '06 23:48
    Originally posted by Aiko
    Because subscribers usually have more than six games, and because they pay for a time based subscription (and usually don't have big gaps between games), there activity is larger than non-subscribers. Hence, the subscribers have a shorter period of being provisional.
    20 games is 20 games, no matter how many ongoing games you have...