Originally posted by Sicilian SmaugCheck out this site idea...Thread 52938
Hear hear!! Since breaking 1700 (after much hard work) I now have next to no chance of winning a tournamount. It's always 1700+ banded tournamounts which are won by GuaravV or other similar players. That is the biggest traversty going on in the RHP tournamounts by far.
D
1 edit
Originally posted by RagnorakI wouldn't call 1200 players "Special Olympics" material,
[b]So what you're saying is that the Special Olympics should be done away with, and women should have to compete with men in all sports?
People in Special Olympics are actually competing at their highest level or at least putting their best effort into it.
Unlike 1200 players.
So you believe that 1200 players are somehow inferior or damaged making it impossible for them to compete with superior chessplayers. I was once a 1200 player anf now have an OTB rating of over 2050. Must be magic.
I have also won 7 city chess championships competing against men,
Angela
Originally posted by caissad4Not everybody is born with the faculties to become Master or near Master material.
I wouldn't call 1200 players "Special Olympics" material,
People in Special Olympics are actually competing at their highest level or at least putting their best effort into it.
Unlike 1200 players.
So you believe that 1200 players are somehow inferior or damaged making it impossible for them to compete with superior chessplayers. I was once a 1200 playe ...[text shortened]... 50. Must be magic.
I have also won 7 city chess championships competing against men,
Angela
Not everybody has the interest to become Master or near Master material.
Not everybody has the time to become Master or near Master material.
You seem to forget that this is a website which people come to for fun, and to escape the pressures of life, especially when you call people lazy for not studying the game.
You do realise that when 1200's win a banded tournament, the band is part of the tournament title? Now, if they want to be able to compete in that type of tournament, who are you to call them lazy and to bash them for wanting a level playing field, considering the element to the game (and online play especially) which you seem to have forgotten about...fun.
You've been beating this horse for months now. You've been hyper critical of admin, and you've provided links to CC chess websites which are absolute jokes. Why haven't you tried to do something constructive? Thread 52938
Do I agree with your basic point, that not all tournaments should be banded? Yes, of course. Do I agree with your constant negativity on the matter and your calling of people lazy? No!
D
Dear Rag,
You must be angry indeed. The truth hurts.
You choose to ignore much of the content of my posts.
I merely suggested one site, not sites as you falsely state in your post, which offers specific features which people here had been complaining were lacking at Red Hot Pawn. The site you called a "joke" is clearly not a better IT site than Red Hot Pawn but is a very good chessplayers site.
It might amusing for you to grace is with what you consider constructive since admin continues to ignore complaints and suggestions from its' customers regarding tournament structuring.
BTW Are you a Republican?
Angela
Originally posted by caissad4I'm not in the least bit angry. Why should I be? Am I the one who is angry enough to have written 30+ posts on one subject and who has cancelled their subscription due to this? (On a side note, why do you, a 2000+ player, want to play 1200 rated players so much that you'll embark on a crusade to change the system and undermine the site admin?)
Dear Rag,
You must be angry indeed. The truth hurts.
You choose to ignore much of the content of my posts.
I merely suggested one site, not sites as you falsely state in your post, which offers specific features which people here had been complaining were lacking at Red Hot Pawn. The site you called a "joke" is clearly not a better IT site than Red Hot ...[text shortened]... ns from its' customers regarding tournament structuring.
BTW Are you a Republican?
Angela
I've a question for you... Have you ever sent feedback to site admin to complain, or do you expect admin to read all your posts?
You posted a link to a website in response to a Site Idea requesting the ability to create Private Tournaments. Do you truly believe that is how the Site Ideas forum is supposed to work?
Tell me Angela... you accuse 1200 people of being lazy, apologies... LAZY and you say they don't care about chess enough to study hard, apologies... STUDY HARD. Regarding your low levels of literacy, are you LAZY or do you just not care enough to STUDY HARD?
Assuming that "It might amusing for you to grace is with what you consider constructive" means what I think it means, this is what I consider constructive: http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=46202&page=2#post_828738, or Thread 46202, page 2, if you are unable to copy and paste the link like last time I gave it to you. I would also consider this constructive: Thread 52938.
Would you consider site ideas trying to fix problems constructive? Or is bashing admin and lower rated players constructive in your mind?
D
1 edit
Originally posted by Ragnorak (On a side note, why do you, a 2000+ player, want to play 1200 rated players so much that you'll embark on a crusade to change the system and undermine the site admin?). Have you ever sent feedback to site admin to complain, or do you expect admin to read all your posts?If you have read all my posts then you are deliberately attemptimg to mislead people on the true comtent. I believe that is one of the definitions of a lie.
Tell me Angela... you accuse 1200 people of being lazy, apologies... LAZY and you say the ems constructive? Or is bashing admin and lower rated players constructive in your mind?
D[/b]
I never said that I wanted to play 1200 players. Apologise, lol.
I suggested that we should have half tourneys as not banded. (Read my posts)
Yes I have sent feedback as many others have and admin has never replied.
Since you claim to have read posts concerning tournament structuring you already know this and are again trying to mislead prople as to their content.
The link you give is just one of many which admin did not reply to and it was a thread which YOU started.
I have started only one thread on this subject, same as you.
What do mean "low levels of literacy" ??
At least I can spell "apologise" and know the definition of "lie".
Are you sure that you are not just a wee bit angry, lol.
Originally posted by caissad4Hey genius, pluralise apology for me, would you? 😕
If you have read all my posts then you are deliberately attemptimg to mislead people on the true comtent. I believe that is one of the definitions of a lie.
I never said that I wanted to play 1200 players. Apologise, lol.
I suggested that we should have half tourneys as not banded. (Read my posts)
Yes I have sent feedback as many others have and admin ha ...[text shortened]... nd know the definition of "lie".
Are you sure that you are not just a wee bit angry, lol.
What difference does it make to a top rated player whether tournaments are banded or not, unless you wanted to beat up on 1200s, instead of having to play players who are rated the same as you?
Its unusual that they haven't replied to your Site Feedback, as anytime I send feedback, I normally get a reply within the day. Are you sure what you wrote made any sense?
I'll ask again, why should I be angry? I just find it funny that you prefer to spend your time attacking the site rather than trying to contribute. I just checked the threads which I gave you the link to, and, nope, still nothing constructive from you.
D
2 edits
In response to: A player rated 1200 is either lazy or doesn't want to improve their game.
I coached recreational sports year round for 9+ years. I had strong and weak players.The stronger players were mostly kids who had 'natural' talent. I had a son who played and was mostly mediocre. I kept driving him to excel.One day he looked me in the eye and said, 'I play for fun dad, I'm not going to the pros'. I understand the comments re: unequally matched players in tournaments. If you want a chess site where everyone is a 'chess book' player, go establish one. Please don't insult me as being under 1200 if I choose to 'play for fun'--I will probably improve over time.IN the meanwhile this site provides a method for anyone to engage players of most any strength they desire. I am a subscriber and if I choose to play for fun, relaxation, concentration, etc., just play the game you LOVE (I also 'love' chess) and stay away from the losers like me. I would be glad to match resumes with you anytime, then perhaps you might understand why I don't study books to play chess. it has nothing to do with me not loving chess.
Originally posted by caissad4Now I know why I am no good at chess, I have above normal intelligence 🙂
I hereby apoligise that most 1200 players either don't care about or are too lazy to work hard to improve their chess ability,
World Chess Champion Emmanuel Lasker was quoted as saying that anyone of normal intelligence could become a master at chess.
Originally posted by pawnofthedeadI will assume that you have read my posts which point out that many 1200 players choose to complain about playing anyone who outrates them by more than 200 points and seem to have convinced admin to run continual banded tourneys,
[b]In response to: A player rated 1200 is either lazy or doesn't want to improve their game.
I coached recreational sports year round for 9+ years. I had a son who played and was mostly mediocre. I kept driving him to excel I understand the comments re: unequally matched players in tournaments. Please don't insult me as being under 1200 if I choose to ' ...[text shortened]... a subscriber and if I choose to play for fun,I would be glad to match resumes with you anytime,
Under the new banded system 1700 players must play 2200 pkayers while 1200 players play under 1400 players. This is clearly not fair.
My complaints were directed towards those 1200 players who complain that they cannot win tourneys and have gotten admin to arrange tourneys to their advantage.
An actual "casual player" does not complain that they "don't win" because they play for fun. Clearly those 1200 players who complain are not casual players.
You seem to be a casual player who plays chess for fun.
Originally posted by caissad4Have you ever played a game casually? Does it remain fun if you lose every single game?
I will assume that you have read my posts which point out that many 1200 players choose to complain about playing anyone who outrates them by more than 200 points and seem to have convinced admin to run continual banded tourneys,
Under the new banded system 1700 players must play 2200 pkayers while 1200 players play under 1400 players. This is clearly not ...[text shortened]... o complain are not casual players.
You seem to be a casual player who plays chess for fun.