Open invites and "subscribers only"

The arrogant attitude of subs was what caused me (a non-sub) to abandon plans to subscribe and leave the site instead. Hopefully you will not drive more non-subs away.

I play at ChessColony and it rocks!
http://chesscolony.com/?rfr=hildanknight

Originally posted by hildanknight
The arrogant attitude of subs was what caused me (a non-sub) to abandon plans to subscribe and leave the site instead. Hopefully you will not drive more non-subs away.

I play at ChessColony and it rocks!
http://chesscolony.com/?rfr=hildanknight

Chess Colony is for 13 year old losers.

Some of the cheats that were kicked off RHP enjoy it also.

Originally posted by hildanknight
The arrogant attitude of subs was what caused me (a non-sub) to abandon plans to subscribe and leave the site instead. Hopefully you will not drive more non-subs away.

I play at ChessColony and it rocks!
http://chesscolony.com/?rfr=hildanknight

"I really enjoyed my experience as a free member at GameKnot, another chess site, so despite being only 13, I begged my parents to pay for the subscription. (I later quit due to compatibility problems with the computer and an unfriendly community.)"

Changed your mind?

EDIT: To make things clear, "ChessColony is part of GameKnot -- same players, same features, just slightly different layout."

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
I would like a filter on sent games for non-subs. I get maybe 2 or 3 games sent a day. Never with a message just appearing in my inbox. Almost always by non-subs I've never heard of or who have been on the site for a few weeks at most.

That's the price of fame. 😉


Everytime something goes wrong and if a non-sub has been involved, these threads start coming up saying they do this, they do that.
It is true that it put's people off subscribing.

As for reliability, I consider myself to be as reliable as it is possible to be, and though some non-subs obviously are unreliable wankers, it doesn't mean we all are. If you have subs only as the name of your game in the open invites most players would take notice of it. These players you are referring to are no more pleasant for other non-subs to play against too.
I was playing one who was messaging me to speed up and then when he lost a bishop he went on vacation [only for my game with him, hestill played his other games] and was eventually timed out. So it's not just subs who suffer.
Maybe non-subs shouldn't be allowed to challenge subs at all and should have to use the open invites until someone decided to play them.
Wouldn't worry me, that's what I do anyway.

The problem is new players, not non-subs. Nobody wants to play provisionally rated players, because they are notorious for deleting and abandoning games, but all of us were provisional at one point. Provisionals need a chance to play established players in order to get a somewhat accurate rating. The plaines proposal would only serve to make non-subs feel (more) unwelcome.

Well, you guys must agree that if these threads and whinings about non-subs pop up so frequently there should be some truth in them......

Originally posted by plaines
Perhaps this has been discussed before, I would like to have an option when I put out an open invite that subscribers only can accept.

This is prompted by an unpleasant recent experience: I put out an open invite which was accepted by a player for whom the game was his very first on the site. He obviously had no idea how the site works because he soon sta ...[text shortened]... he try uChess). Hence my question above which would be a way to avoid such people in the future.

Or maybe its because you were an idiot and got beat easy? Thats the funniest game I have seen in ages

oH and you tried schollars mate

Originally posted by XanthosNZ

To make things clear, "ChessColony is part of GameKnot -- same players, same features, just slightly different layout."

I had a look at gameknot. At that time they had a rather interesting IP policy. I read it as saying they owned all games and comments posted at the site. See after.

I laughed alot and went elsewhere.


The snippet afterwards from the end use license agreement in May 2005:
http://gameknot.com/pg/pol_eula.htm

7. As part of your Account, you can provide or upload content to our
servers in various forms, such as the Chess games you play (i.e. moves
you submit),
[snip]
For any of your Content that is not a Derivative Content, you hereby
exclusively grant and irrevocably assign to our licensors and us all
rights of any kind or nature throughout the universe to such Content
(including all ancillary and subsidiary rights thereto which include,
without limitation, merchandising and interactive media rights) in any
languages and media now known or not currently known.

Originally posted by Ravello
Well, you guys must agree that if these threads and whinings about non-subs pop up so frequently there should be some truth in them......

This thread is merely another example of the "I was offended by one non-sub, so let's sanction the lot of 'em" mentality. Never mind the fact that there are plenty of threads consisting of subs whining about other subs. The message is, if you pay your 30 bucks, you're entitled to behave as badly as you want.

Originally posted by stocken
Oh, and another thing, what's all this "> 1500", "< 1000" and all that about? If someone with a lower or higher ranking whishes to play you, why not? If (s)he's better than you you'll learn something, and if (s)he's not on your own level you will teach him/her something.

Playing people 300 points lower than you isn't always very challenging. Playing people who are 300 points higher than you is often Too challenging, that's why.

Originally posted by marinakatomb
Playing people 300 points lower than you isn't always very challenging. Playing people who are 300 points higher than you is often Too challenging, that's why.

What I would like to see is a restriction that any limits you use on an open invite must include your rating.

eg. A 1200 player can't ask for > 1800 but could ask for 1000 - 1400. If you want teaching games use Meet Opponents.

Seems a bit over the top to cut down on a few stupid open invites. I'd consider as an example for a player ranked around 1,350 asking for a 1,400 to 1,500 player perfectly reasonable. Also for some of the more extreme examples, a player doesn't actually have to take up an open invite.

Originally posted by Peakite
Seems a bit over the top to cut down on a few stupid open invites. I'd consider as an example for a player ranked around 1,350 asking for a 1,400 to 1,500 player perfectly reasonable. Also for some of the more extreme examples, a player doesn't actually have to take up an open invite.

Plus if they really annoy you, you can just accept and delete them.

And so the hunter becomes the hunted. Or something.

Originally posted by dottewell
Plus if they really annoy you, you can just accept and delete them.

And so the hunter becomes the hunted. Or something.

I do. However I can't do that to 1200 rated players with invites with > 2100 on them. Hell only 50 people on the entire site could accept those and they aren't normally the ones trawling through the invites looking to accept games which gain them nothing.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
I do. However I can't do that to 1200 rated players with invites with > 2100 on them. Hell only 50 people on the entire site could accept those and they aren't normally the ones trawling through the invites looking to accept games which gain them nothing.

Fair point. Perhaps the scope of your challenges should be limited to only those players who could gain something by beating you.

I just know I'm going to hit "Post" and find someone has already said that.

Incidentally, what happened to those unacceptable >2500 games with silly titles? Were they deleted by Russ?