I have another suggestion for the site that should be easy to implement.

I see that our usernames have a star icon next to them, and rating, however, it would be really nice to see the "activity level" of a player up there too. Colors & meanings could vary, but here are some examples to get the idea across.

Green for "Very Active"  (on once a day)

Blue for "Active" (on more than once a week)

Black for "Normal" (whatever normal is. or default in case this is an optional feature, or not enough data)

Orange for "sluggish" 

Red for "Dude pops on once every 16 weeks, makes a move, then runs off for another 16 weeks."

It would also save bandwidth, as i am sure a lot of users (like myself) load up the page of a player to see when they have been on last.

This could be as easy as changing the color of their username. 

The only conflict I can see is with users themes.  If that's the case, make it turn off if the theme conflicts with the color.  Set up the feature. don't get complicated and let the users define the colors or else it'll never get done. Save that for your next pass when people say they like the feature but hate Orange on their page.

Another way you could do it (to conflict less with themes) is put a halo or filled in circle behind the star icon that shows they are a paying member.  for anyone is not a paying member, you'd just see the circle of the corresponding color.

 

This scheme would certainly inform my decision when selecting users on an "Open Seek". An add-on feature later would be an option on "start new game" to be able to only allow  >= Blue users to start a game with me.. 

very interesting suggestion! i'll think on this. very interesting indeed....

Can something be done to ensure that players playing on number of boards simulteneously do justice to all their games by not delaying on some boards while playing within reasonable time on other boards.

vijaykulkarni wrote: Can something be done to ensure that players playing on number of boards simulteneously do justice to all their games by not delaying on some boards while playing within reasonable time on other boards.

---

This is a constant theme on the forums.  The general concensus is that as long as the player sticks within the agreed timelimit for the game, then it should not be an issue.  Therefore a one move per three days allows them three days for a move, regardless of what they do elsewhere.

thats the nature of this kind of chess.... you need to be patient enough. I usually play 7 days per move but i try to finish each game in one sitting depending of time availability. If you have more time to play, consider others if they do.... not all players making a long move necessarily mean it's intentional.... some player have games more than 50  and befor he could make a move on the next game would depend on the game rotation.... i guess we all have to play our best and wait for the opponents to make their move and try to do other things to pass the time when no available moves to make.... nobody know what really happens let's give each other the benefit of the doubt.....

Michael_Sarmiento wrote: thats the nature of this kind of chess.... you need to be patient enough. I usually play 7 days per move but i try to finish each game in one sitting depending of time availability. If you have more time to play, consider others if they do.... not all players making a long move necessarily mean it's intentional.... some player have games more than 50  and befor he could make a move on the next game would depend on the game rotation.... i guess we all have to play our best and wait for the opponents to make their move and try to do other things to pass the time when no available moves to make.... nobody know what really happens let's give each other the benefit of the doubt.....

---

 

 it sounds like there is some room for configuration here.  This is not a "fairness" or "patience" thing, it is just another filter, descriptive of a user's "personality". We don't have the benefit of being in the same room, seeing each other in person.

That opens up a lot more possiblities.  For example, I don't usually play games all in one sitting, but other users might want to play other people who usually do so.  That is a "personality" that might be preferred by another seeking a chess game.  I can imagine quite a number of "personality" configurations.

 

great idea!

If you're waiting for someone to move,  do a couple of crosswords to while away the time.

We seem to have drifted off track a bit.  Kevin's colour coding scheme is certainly a good idea. 

I don't think it'd save me checking out an opponent, though.  Whenever I play somebody new I read their profile.  (If you don't to that you're probably missing a great chess.com feature.)  I learn a lot of true and entertaining things about my opponents, although the things that are true are not necessarily entertaining, and the things that are entertaining...

Enough!

The other time I used to check out a potential opponent was when I received a challenge.  The only thing I wanted to know at that stage was their time-out percentage.  If a player times out habitually I don't want to start a game with him.  Thanks to the improvement in the challenge-received notices that's no longer necessary.  They're excellent.  Thanks, Erik et al.

It may be a bit cold-blooded but I also edit my friends list from time to time.  If somebody hasn't been on line for more than three months I assume he's not coming back and remove him from the list.  (It keeps the list short and manageable, and makes it quicker to find somebody if I want to send them a message.)

I support that colour/activity system.  It would allow tournaments to be organized more efficiently (one person couldn't hold up several others), and faster players won't get stuck with slow ones.

I am an active player, from Kevin`s suggested examples I would be a green!! However Isn`t there a danger that if we assign colours to individuals (whilst the active may stay active) the not-so-active might be a bit put off. Which would create a potential negative feed back for casual players (who may then become disheartened and play even less)...

I'm not sure I like the implication in the OP that I am somehow abnormal for coming to chess.com every day. ;-)

I like the idea of using colour for the handles. Not sure about activity and colour though, do we really want to encourage members to visit or post comments just so they get a colour reward. How about using colour to signifify how strong their chess.com rating is (Like martial arts belts).

Suggestions 

>2200 yellow

>2000 orange

>1800 red

>1600 purple

>1400 blue

>1201 grey

1200 (Not Played) Brown 

<1201 green

This would act as an incentive for people to improve and sometimes you want to have an idea of how stong some forumers are when discussing chess ideas. Only down side I see is possible clashes with user themes and there might be one or two people being put off.

I still think it`s a good idea in general though Kev.

Whether a colour scheme reflects activity level or rating, I foresee endless discussion about the colour sequence. Red or Orange should correspond to active - not sluggish!

it would be nice to see the feature *period*.  personalization can come later.

As said originally:

>The only conflict I can see is with users themes.  If that's the case, make it turn off if the theme conflicts with the color.

> Set up the feature. don't get complicated and let the users define the colors or else it'll never get done.

>Save that for your next pass when people say they like the feature but hate Orange on their page.

Was KevinGabbert's suggestion junked as being off-colour?

WA-Ha!

So there IS something like "Active Players" here on chess.com. I had created a group for those of us that live in Salem, Oregon,

(shameless plug:  http://www.chess.com/groups/home/team-salem )

and I saw that apparently if you go to the "maps" section, you can get a list of active players plotted out on a map

http://www.chess.com/map/players

so I see that the bones of this feature already exist in the programming code..

It would be cool to see it integrated into a players display name

(This is also a lame attempt at trying to keep the issue alive, as I'd certainly like to see it happen)

Come to think of it.. that gives me an idea for ANOTHER feature.. How about some sort of flag that shows that the person you are playing lives near you. I am sure that would spark some conversation during the game.  ..and *of course* make a checkbox on your account settings page for those that wish no one to know where they live.

but then.. that would affect the map as well... hmm..

Kevin

---

How would you handle stalky implications? 

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/where-to-post-about-searching-of-partners and http://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/member-search---how-to-improve-it?quote_id=1500724&page=2

In keeping with the active theme and colors.  Here is a consideration that I use before I challenge a player or accept a challenge.  I always look at their page and determine there time outs or vacation time.  I do not play players that have any vacation time.  The only exception would be when I play tournaments because I do not have control over those who join tournaments unless I am the one setting up the tournament.