Originally posted by XanthosNZ Do you not understand that this site is for correspondence chess? If you want live chess (with a much better interface for it) then try www.uchess.com, playchess, FICS, ICC or any number of other sites and servers.
EDIT: I saw your post pre-edit too RB, you can't fool me.
I don't see why everyone is so anti the idea - after all it wouldn't be compulsory. I wouldn't use timeouts that short myself but it wouldn't bother me if other people did.
Simply saying "you can't do this or that because this is a correspondence chess site" is getting very monotonous.
Makes no difference to anyone except those who would choose to use it, and if both players wanted to, fair enough, why not?
Originally posted by Dr Strangelove I don't see why everyone is so anti the idea - after all it wouldn't be compulsory. I wouldn't use timeouts that short myself but it wouldn't bother me if other people did.
Simply saying "you can't do this or that because this is a correspondence chess site" is getting very monotonous.
Makes no difference to anyone except those who would choose to use it, and if both players wanted to, fair enough, why not?
Originally posted by Dr Strangelove I don't see why everyone is so anti the idea - after all it wouldn't be compulsory. I wouldn't use timeouts that short myself but it wouldn't bother me if other people did.
Simply saying "you can't do this or that because this is a correspondence chess site" is getting very monotonous.
Makes no difference to anyone except those who would choose to use it, and if both players wanted to, fair enough, why not?
So you would be happy to play 30 min/all games on an interface not suited for it in the slightest? What happens when you have 15 seconds left and have to keep refreshing, let alone load times? The entire site is designed with correspondence chess in mind, to change it to allow live chess would require an almost complete redesign.
The people that run this site also run www.uchess.com which is designed and suited for live chess. If both players want it then they can feel free to mosey on over there and play to their hearts content. How is that any different from offering it on this site?
The only possible reason would be to count moves played in rapid as well as moves played in correspondence. What would this accomplish? Nothing except help RBHill in his bid to become the first mentally impaired person to earn a rotating star.
Originally posted by XanthosNZ So you would be happy to play 30 min/all games on an interface not suited for it in the slightest? What happens when you have 15 seconds left and have to keep refreshing, let alone load times? The entire site is designed with correspondence chess in mind, to change it to allow live chess would require an almost complete redesign.
No. I wouldn't play at those time settings at all, and as most people on here seem to play with long timeouts [ie 7 or 14 days or more] how is refreshing going to be a problem? There would probably only be a small number of people playing like that and if there was a problem with fast refreshing if they were rushed that would be their problem - not ours.
When they got down to 15 seconds left, the game wouldn't last more than a couple of moves anyway.
Personally, I don't care as it wouldn't affect me but I don't see a good reason to be so strongly opposed to it. 🙄
Originally posted by XanthosNZ So you would be happy to play 30 min/all games on an interface not suited for it in the slightest? What happens when you have 15 seconds left and have to keep refreshing, let alone load times? The entire site is designed with correspondence chess in mind, to change it to allow live chess would require an almost complete redesign.
The people that run thi ...[text shortened]... ept help RBHill in his bid to become the first mentally impaired person to earn a rotating star.
XanthosNz, You have some valid points about time zones. But if someone excepts a game with a 30 minute time out. I would think they would understand they pretty much need to hang around or be willing to forfeit. I don't think anyone is suggesting Blitz games. With a thirty minute over all game. I believe it could still have a time bank from (?) three to fourteen days so a person could still suspend their game over night if they choose. But it might encourage some players to speed their play to some degree. It wouldn't be for everyone, just an option. There are many games being played now live. I see no major hurtle there. If you are worried about seconds, well you could say the same about any other game. Even if a game lasted a year it could still come down to seconds if the players stalls long enough. I think the real concern is how it might effect the ratings/rankings of players especially those in clans. And the manipulation of ratings/rankings. It could definitely become a skull collectors haven. Which wouldn't really tell much about the true qualities of a player. I can't really see that it would effect the site design as much as the site quality in terms of how they reached their rating/rank, which is very important to many players. So even though it wouldn't bother me personally to see it. If I had a vote I would vote to keep the site as is for the sake of the majority if indeed it is the view of the majority. If the option was limited to subscribers only...$$$.
Originally posted by XanthosNZ So you would be happy to play 30 min/all games on an interface not suited for it in the slightest? What happens when you have 15 seconds left and have to keep refreshing, let alone load times? The entire site is designed with correspondence chess in mind, to change it to allow live chess would require an almost complete redesign.
The people that run thi ...[text shortened]... ept help RBHill in his bid to become the first mentally impaired person to earn a rotating star.
Originally posted by Dr Strangelove No. I wouldn't play at those time settings at all, and as most people on here seem to play with long timeouts [ie 7 or 14 days or more] how is refreshing going to be a problem? There would probably only be a small number of people playing like that and if there was a problem with fast refreshing if they were rushed that would be their problem - not ...[text shortened]... it wouldn't affect me but I don't see a good reason to be so strongly opposed to it. 🙄
I see you are smarter then XanthosNZ because lol he doesn't realise that if someones computer is to slow and runs out of time it is their fault.
Originally posted by Dr Strangelove No. I wouldn't play at those time settings at all, and as most people on here seem to play with long timeouts [ie 7 or 14 days or more] how is refreshing going to be a problem? There would probably only be a small number of people playing like that and if there was a problem with fast refreshing if they were rushed that would be their problem - not ...[text shortened]... it wouldn't affect me but I don't see a good reason to be so strongly opposed to it. 🙄
He just wants to be a dick to me because I am a Born Again Christian that is wy he is opposed to it.
Originally posted by Dr Strangelove I don't see why everyone is so anti the idea - after all it wouldn't be compulsory. I wouldn't use timeouts that short myself but it wouldn't bother me if other people did.
Simply saying "you can't do this or that because this is a correspondence chess site" is getting very monotonous.
Makes no difference to anyone except those who would choose to use it, and if both players wanted to, fair enough, why not?
I agree somewhat. I mean, at some point, Russ should consider expanding the site to include blitz chess options for subscribers. I'm sure it wouldn't hurt business for him...
EDIT - After reading Xanthos' rebuttal to you, he's probably right...
Originally posted by darvlay I agree somewhat. I mean, at some point, Russ should consider expanding the site to include blitz chess options for subscribers. I'm sure it wouldn't hurt business for him...
EDIT - After reading Xanthos' rebuttal to you, he's probably right...
How about
28 Feb '06 02:401 edit
Back to Top