Originally posted by epic0002I see lots of threads with posts like "I'd rec this, but I've already used all my allotted recs for the month". That's what has become of competition. The day of the post means more than the quality.
Now THAT is a load of crap.... Users can still try even harder to get the few coveted recs that we have now.
I see people in this thread having very strong opinions, but not playing chess. A few moves a month and they think they know it all?
Why not having a number of recs in propotion of how much you play? Say one rec for every 100 moves or something? To do whatever they want to do with them.
People interested in chess should be rewarded in the forums.
Originally posted by FabianFnas🙄 Why?
I see people in this thread having very strong opinions, but not playing chess. A few moves a month and they think they know it all?
Why not having a number of recs in propotion of how much you play? Say one rec for every 100 moves or something? To do whatever they want to do with them.
People interested in chess should be rewarded in the forums.
Originally posted by FabianFnasIt's interesting to see that, apart from the cheating problem, most of the issues being discussed has to do with the forum.
Why?
Because of trolling by people not being here for the chess but to stir things up in the Forums.
Of course, chatting and exchanging experiences and thoughts is part of the site, but some people take it to a whole new level.
Originally posted by SwissGambitIt would be interesting to see what they spent their 10 recs on already.
I see lots of threads with posts like "I'd rec this, but I've already used all my allotted recs for the month". That's what has become of competition. The day of the post means more than the quality.
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasThat's very witty.
I see people in this thread having very strong opinions, but not playing chess. A few moves a month and they think they know it all?
Why not having a number of recs in propotion of how much you play? Say one rec for every 100 moves or something? To do whatever they want to do with them.
People interested in chess should be rewarded in the forums.
PMSL
Oh, and whether someone moves more is completely irrelevant to anything.
Originally posted by FabianFnasQuantity of moves has nothing to do with expertise [or lack thereof] on such areas as Spirituality, Culture, etc.
I see people in this thread having very strong opinions, but not playing chess. A few moves a month and they think they know it all?
Why not having a number of recs in propotion of how much you play? Say one rec for every 100 moves or something? To do whatever they want to do with them.
People interested in chess should be rewarded in the forums.
Quantity of moves doesn't indicate a higher level of interest in chess. In fact, some strong players prefer to keep their gameload down so that they have more time to analyze in each game. Contrast this with someone who plays 200 games at a time, taking a few seconds on each move, blundering often, hardly caring if they win or lose. Which player is more interested in the game? Which one knows more about the game?
Originally posted by Tatarana CrocodiloI'd love to see examples of this behaviour. The rec system was changed on 21 Sep '06, so it should be absolutely no problem for you to find numerous examples from the Help forum of this behaviour.
At the time the system was on, the forum was much worse than it's today. Nowhere else could one notice that better than in the Help Forum. There, a bunch of hyenas waited till some novice on the site would make a question about something to start throwing insults and offensive comments in a competition for the recommendations.
Thanks in advance.
D
1 edit
Originally posted by SwissGambitO see what you mean. And frankly, this is not an important thing to me. A statement is not truer if it has 100 recs as if it has none.
Quantity of moves has nothing to do with expertise [or lack thereof] on such areas as Spirituality, Culture, etc.
Quantity of moves doesn't indicate a higher level of interest in chess. In fact, some strong players prefer to keep their gameload down so that they have more time to analyze in each game. Contrast this with someone who plays 200 games at ...[text shortened]... win or lose. Which player is more interested in the game? Which one knows more about the game?
But...
If someone has an opinion of, say, Kings gambit, I have more confidence if he has 10000 moves behind or none moves at all. I do this evaluations to know if he know what he is talking about.
The same thing with rating. Weierstrass has a highe value of authority if he talks about Kings gambit, a member of 800 has not as high authority.
Also qualities as modesty, kindness and other things make a person more reliable than others lacking these qualities.
But, still, it's a minor question for me.
Originally posted by FabianFnasOf the qualities you listed, only rating is a good indicator of chess knowledge. Number of moves, and courtesy are not. There are plenty of weak players with a high number of moves, and strong players, like the late Bobby Fischer, who lacked in the social graces.
O see what you mean. And frankly, this is not an important thing to me. A statement is not truer if it has 100 recs as if it has none.
But...
If someone has an opinion of, say, Kings gambit, I have more confidence if he has 10000 moves behind or none moves at all. I do this evaluations to know if he know what he is talking about.
The same thing wi ...[text shortened]... more reliable than others lacking these qualities.
But, still, it's a minor question for me.