Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Site Ideas Forum

Site Ideas Forum

  1. Subscriber Very Rusty
    Treat Everyone Equal
    01 Feb '07 01:54
    I believe that a limit should be put on amount of games for Subcribers. I have seen people with over 500 and 600 games!! This is just completely ridiculous!!
  2. Standard member cadwah
    ¯\_(^.^)_/¯
    01 Feb '07 01:59
    Originally posted by Very Rusty
    I believe that a limit should be put on amount of games for Subcribers. I have seen people with over 500 and 600 games!! This is just completely ridiculous!!
    Jog on!
  3. 01 Feb '07 02:06
    Originally posted by Very Rusty
    I believe that a limit should be put on amount of games for Subcribers. I have seen people with over 500 and 600 games!! This is just completely ridiculous!!
    Why? If that's what they want to do what does it have to do with you?
  4. 01 Feb '07 03:02
    Originally posted by giantrobot
    Why? If that's what they want to do what does it have to do with you?
    Because;
    according to some subscribers, it slows the site down to a snail's pace. And that was just by increasing non-subs games by one or two - they reckon.



    disclaimer: this view is not necessarilly shared by this poster.
  5. 01 Feb '07 04:18
    Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
    Because;
    according to some subscribers, it slows the site down to a snail's pace. And that was just by increasing non-subs games by one or two - they reckon.



    disclaimer: this view is not necessarilly shared by this poster.
    I doubt that unless they are signed up with joebob's web hosting. These webpages are extremely lean. Each game in the db would be less than a kb. Right now I have 300GB storage and 3TB of monthly bandwidth. I'm paying a whopping $140 a year. If a php script processing a small chunk of game data is slowing the site to 'a snail's pace' then I would say move to a different hosting solution.

    In addition. since you can only be checking one game at a time. processor and/or bandwidth load would be more closely to number of users than to number of games per user. How many of these 'fast' players do you think reload their games page every 15 seconds.

    I would think that the forums use a considerable amount of resources also. Maybe they should limit the number of forum posts a day. Actually, for a few people that might be a good idea!!

    I say subscribe or MTFO. It seems to be a reasonable site. $30 a year. I got called back into work tonight to approve a set-up. I made $30 before I pulled in the parking lot. I came here for an informal MySpace tournament. I may subscribe later but I have an ICCF tourney starting in a couple of weeks. Six games here may be just enough!
  6. 01 Feb '07 10:23 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
    [b]Because;
    according to some subscribers, it slows the site down to a snail's pace. And that was just by increasing non-subs games by one or two - they reckon.
    BS.
  7. 01 Feb '07 17:44
    I for one would call for a limit as it is impossible to play so many games without compromising the TOS. When GMs lose to amateurs it is usually in a simul. So if Kasparov or Kramnik can't take on 600 humans and win them all how can an amateur do so against players rated close to his/her rating?
  8. Standard member MCA
    TokerSmurf
    01 Feb '07 20:49 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by z00t
    I for one would call for a limit as it is impossible to play so many games without compromising the TOS. When GMs lose to amateurs it is usually in a simul. So if Kasparov or Kramnik can't take on 600 humans and win them all how can an amateur do so against players rated close to his/her rating?
    They can easily win if they have enough time to play, i.e unemployed, no wife/kids or other commitments to worry about.

    At 3 days per move for all games, they only need to play in 200 of the games each day. Let say they still have 8hrs sleep per night (more than most people); give another 2 hrs for eating and going to the toilet etc they still have 14 hrs per day to make thier moves.

    14 hrs = 840 mins = more than 4 mins per move (without ever touching the timebank).

    Once you include a 28 day timebank for each game, they have plenty of time per move.

    add to this that many of the games will be played at 28 day timeout PLUS 28 timebank and they could have hours for each move if they needed it.

    Just because you or I couldn't do it doesn't mean that it cant be done.
  9. 02 Feb '07 17:03
    Originally posted by Very Rusty
    I believe that a limit should be put on amount of games for Subcribers. I have seen people with over 500 and 600 games!! This is just completely ridiculous!!
    Agreed!
    When something prevents them playing for a few days, their ratings crash and you find yourself playing to save your own rating from a bruising.
  10. Standard member Diet Coke
    Forum Vampire
    02 Feb '07 17:15
    I have too many games, make my opponents resign.
  11. 02 Feb '07 21:26
    This is crazy. What point in paying for the site then? Let people decide what they can handle.
  12. Standard member Diet Coke
    Forum Vampire
    02 Feb '07 21:50
    Subscribers are mugs who are already guarenteed for a year.

    It's the non subscibers RHP need.
  13. Donation Luckonline
    TEA PARTY MEMBER
    03 Feb '07 00:00
    Originally posted by Very Rusty
    I believe that a limit should be put on amount of games for Subcribers. I have seen people with over 500 and 600 games!! This is just completely ridiculous!!
    Why?
    I used to plsy between 300-350 when I was working and going to school at the same time. I still had plenty of time for the moves.
    Right now I am playing about 150 games simultaniously and it feels like I would be playing at all. I usually do about 80 moves per session in average now twice per day, which is about 10-15 minutes. I do moves more frequently some days while I am doing something else with the computer.
    A lot of time is wasted because it takes so long for the next game to reload. I hardly ever spend more than 5 seconds per move.

    I do not see any problems to play about 12-1500 games at the same time if you are a student or unemployed or even retired.

    Most of the cheaters have been playing very few games so they had time to cheat. I would like to argue that it would be difficult to find cheaters in the top 20 movers.

    Harri / Luck
  14. Standard member MCA
    TokerSmurf
    03 Feb '07 01:21 / 2 edits
    The post that was quoted here has been removed
  15. 04 Feb '07 19:02
    Originally posted by z00t
    I for one would call for a limit as it is impossible to play so many games without compromising the TOS. When GMs lose to amateurs it is usually in a simul. So if Kasparov or Kramnik can't take on 600 humans and win them all how can an amateur do so against players rated close to his/her rating?
    "...as it is impossible to play so many games without compromising the TOS."

    Why is it?