13 Feb 06
I suggest that anyone who accepts an open invite and then deletes it should lose rating points. I just had 4 games in a row accepted by different players who then deleted them after 1 or zero moves.
Why bother accepting if they don't want to play. I know the usual excuse given is they accept quickly then look at your profile and change their minds - all my profile says is that I don't use databases, and to naff off if they use engines. What conclusion should I draw from them naffing off?
13 Feb 06
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveGood idea but it depends really... 😕
I suggest that anyone who accepts an open invite and then deletes it should lose rating points. I just had 4 games in a row accepted by different players who then deleted them after 1 or zero moves.
Why bother accepting if they don't want to play. I know the usual excuse given is they accept quickly then look at your profile and change their minds - ...[text shortened]... ses, and to naff off if they use engines. What conclusion should I draw from them naffing off?
Sometimes I take an invite that says "1 hour game" for fun because then I dont have to switch back and forward from PlayChess and Firefox. But if someone makes there move and then goes away for the day its annoying and I delete it... Whats the point in having a 1 hour game name but only make 1 move and go to [WORD CENSORED] 😲 ...erm... sleep. 😛
Give you a rec for idea of it though..
13 Feb 06
Originally posted by Wibble WobbleWhat do you do if a player makes the first 3 moves very quickly and then goes to playing one move per day? I used to do precisely this to avoid having my games deleted when I was provisionally rated.
Good idea but it depends really... 😕
Sometimes I take an invite that says "1 hour game" for fun because then I dont have to switch back and forward from PlayChess and Firefox. But if someone makes there move and then goes away for the day its annoying and I delete it... Whats the point in having a 1 hour game name but only make 1 move and go to [WORD CENSORED] 😲 ...erm... sleep. 😛
Give you a rec for idea of it though..
13 Feb 06
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemThey delete them after accepting open invites - I don't delete them at all.
What do you do if a player makes the first 3 moves very quickly and then goes to playing one move per day? I used to do precisely this to avoid having my games deleted when I was provisionally rated.
14 Feb 06
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveEither they use chess engines, Or they are pretty sure your gonna kick their butt in chess. Thats the only two answers I can come up with. It happens to me sometimes also. I just think they got scared. I recently accepted a open invite game that was titled (quick game)! It took three months to finish. And I move everyday all day. And then on top of that the game ended in a stupid draw. I think people should lose the rating points that do that. I still got 5 points for the draw because their rating was higher than mine. But it still is a disgrace. David
I suggest that anyone who accepts an open invite and then deletes it should lose rating points. I just had 4 games in a row accepted by different players who then deleted them after 1 or zero moves.
Why bother accepting if they don't want to play. I know the usual excuse given is they accept quickly then look at your profile and change their minds - ...[text shortened]... ses, and to naff off if they use engines. What conclusion should I draw from them naffing off?
15 Feb 06
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveMy experience was that if I moved very quickly after the invite was accepted, then most of my opponents would not delete the game. So I'd wait until the invite was accepted (usually very quickly if it was not too restrictive on ratings), then blitz off the first 3 opening moves. I didn't like having to do it, but there was no other way to get out of the provisional rating phase.
They delete them after accepting open invites - I don't delete them at all.
I don't follow the logic of allowing deletions. Is it really so much different if a player times out on move 3 instead of move 1?
15 Feb 06
1 edit
1) This is a correspondance site, if a player is playing within the timecontrols of the game then you have nothing to complain about. If you want faster games then go play blitz.
2) I accept and delete an average of 4 invites a day. I do this because people seem to enjoy setting up invites asking for >1800 opponents when they are rated below 1200. I also get rid of stupid set piece games (the position is a forced mate or something).
These invites clog up the list as no 1800+ player accepts them because they have nothing to gain and everything to lose (if say the inviter cheats or they time out [did I mention that most of these games are 1/0?]).
3) Stop whining.
EDIT: Allowing timeout wins for points at move 1 would be disastrous as I could send a 1/0 game to an inactive player or someone on vacation and then time them out a day later. Free rating points.
15 Feb 06
Originally posted by XanthosNZPlease get you rating up to 2400 ASAP so you can delete Wibble Wobble's "hilarious" set-piece open invite.
1) This is a correspondance site, if a player is playing within the timecontrols of the game then you have nothing to complain about. If you want faster games then go play blitz.
2) I accept and delete an average of 4 invites a day. I do this because people seem to enjoy setting up invites asking for >1800 opponents when they are rated below 1200. I als ...[text shortened]... n inactive player or someone on vacation and then time them out a day later. Free rating points.
You would think he would keep a lower profile, but unfortunately his desparate need for attention keeps getting the better of him.
15 Feb 06
3 edits
Originally posted by XanthosNZre; inactive player.
Allowing timeout wins for points at move 1 would be disastrous as I could send a 1/0 game to an inactive player or someone on vacation and then time them out a day later. Free rating points.
That doesn't make any sense. Surely they would have to accept any challenge first before you could time them out??
Anyway I said "when THEY ACCEPT an 'open invite' and then delete it", often before I even get a move in. Nobody is forcing the game on them, THEY accept and THEY delete.
[It shows our ratings in the open invite]
Edit re:3)
I feel justified in whining about a genuine problem rather than about another player pointing it out [eg, unlike YOU]
Edit: It's irrelevant in this situation what times the game is set for - I'm not complaining at how long they take.
Edit. Did you actually read and understand the first post?
15 Feb 06
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveI'd suggest subscribing as a small price to pay so that this is no longer a problem, but then you'd probably go off on your martyr act, saying how the continuous pressure to subscribe means you are now not going to, just to show me.
re; inactive player.
That doesn't make any sense. Surely they would have to accept any challenge first before you could time them out??
Anyway I said "when THEY ACCEPT an 'open invite' and then delete it", often before I even get a move in. Nobody is forcing the game on them, THEY accept and THEY delete.
[It shows our ratings in the open invit ...[text shortened]... ing at how long they take.
Edit. Did you actually read and understand the first post?
D
15 Feb 06
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveThe challenge system works in such a way that when I challenge you a game will appear in your list. You can either play moves in this game thereby accepting it or delete it. Currently a game cannot be timed out until 2 moves have been made instead it can be deleted. However if I can send you a 1/0 game and then 24 hours later when you haven't logged on claim a timeout then the whole system collapses. I mentioned this in response to BigDoggProblem's comment about how timeouts should be allowed from move 1.
re; inactive player.
That doesn't make any sense. Surely they would have to accept any challenge first before you could time them out??
I did indeed read the thread, it all about you whining because some people don't like you or something.
16 Feb 06
Originally posted by XanthosNZThe challenge system was not mentioned by me in the original suggestion - I'm talking about people who accept open invites - then delete them. Nothing to do with timing them out.[how do you time someone out who has already deleted the game....]
The challenge system works in such a way that when I challenge you a game will appear in your list. You can either play moves in this game thereby accepting it or delete it. Currently a game cannot be timed out until 2 moves have been made instead it can be deleted. However if I can send you a 1/0 game and then 24 hours later when you haven't logged on cla ...[text shortened]... ed read the thread, it all about you whining because some people don't like you or something.
Your example is completely different. You've made the challenge, if the recipient didn't accept the challenge it would be ridiculous to propose enabling a timeout feature then.
I also didn't say anything about online entities liking or disliking me - which is completely irrelevant [to me, at least]
16 Feb 06
Originally posted by RagnorakAre you telling me that if I was a subscriber people wouldn't be able to delete an open invite they had accepted?
I'd suggest subscribing as a small price to pay so that this is no longer a problem, but then you'd probably go off on your martyr act, saying how the continuous pressure to subscribe means you are now not going to, just to show me.
D
If you are - I find it hard to believe.
The continuous pressure to subscribe had eased off just lately from what I could tell - but don't worry you haven't put me off, I hadn't decided whether to subscribe or not yet. Still testing. And still skint.
16 Feb 06
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveNo, but subscribers get most of their games from joining tournaments, clan challenges, sieges, etc, so people messing around with the open invites isn't really a problem any more.
Are you telling me that if I was a subscriber people wouldn't be able to delete an open invite they had accepted?
If you are - I find it hard to believe.
D
16 Feb 06
Originally posted by RagnorakWell I'm happy you agree with me that there is an existing problem with open invites, even if it doesn't concern most people. [subscribers?]. 😏
.....so people messing around with the open invites isn't really a problem any more.
D
If I was a subscriiber I would be even more annoyed when it happened I think.