11137 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Tempting, but a) you are a long way away and last time I was there I got harrassed by a mad economist; and b) my wife objects to me digging holes for random internet ladies of the female persuasion.
Just to drag this whole thing back on topic, I still favour server chess. It's played on a server so that seems apt. Correspondence chess doesn't really work as correspondence suggests people scribing missives with quill pens rather than mucking about with electrons on the interthingy.
'Server Chess' makes me think of tennis...
Worldwide Recorded Chess .?
I thought this discussion was over. They're not going to rename it, at least not during my life time (I'm 27...)
Voting still open....but too few doing so, I think.
New generation chess
New world chess
Ok I'm done
Dont know if some are mentioned before:
Since this topic continues...and continues...why don't we just call "On-line Chess" : "Something for People with Too Much Time on Their Hands"?
OK. I've come to this discussion very late. But I'm going to try to take it in a new direction that may actually be helpful to Erik. I ought to mention that I tried to read all of the thread but I realised at about page 35 that there probably wasn't much point. So I skipped to the last couple of pages and now here I am. So if someone has already made the point I'm about to make, I apologise.
I think Erik was pretty clear that he wants to rename "Online Chess" for vaguely marketing reasons, so what would marketing theory tell us about a name change? (Sorry to those of you who are allergic to marketing; so am I, in a way, but it's the world we live in!)
1. The name of a product needs clearly to reflect the brand's values.
2. The name of the product needs to appeal to the users or intended users of the product.
There may be more, but let's leave it at that for now. Next question : How would professional marketeers go about renaming an exisiting product? I suggest they would study:-
1) Who is using the product?
2) How are they using it?
3) What features of the product do they appreciate?
4) Why? What is it about these features that makes them value the product?
Until you answer these questions you cannot possibly even begin to think about what is the right name for the product.
So in my next post I will talk about my experience of online correspondence chess on chess.com, as my contribution to the debate. But for now, my wife is calling me for dinner. Joe.
Me again. As I was saying, I would like to encourage everyone who uses "online" chess on chess.com (or possibly other sites) or who thinks they maybe might use it, to share who they are (age, gender, chess experience, etc.), why they use it, how they use it, what they are looking for, etc... I hope chess.com will be able to use the responses to decide on wha the core values should be for "online chess" and from there, what may or may not be the right name for it. (If you don't use it, and you think correspondence chess is for mummies and zombies, you needn't bother to respond. This discussion just isn't for you.) To kick things off, here's my contribution:
I'm male, 56 years old (I think), and I was taught chess by my Spanish grandfather when I was about 8 or 9. I then didn't play hardly at all for about the next 25 years. In my mid-thirties I occasionally played against a computer (Battlechess) and I discovered a) that chess could be fun and b) that the Ruy Lopez opening was not compulsory. Shortly after I moved away from London to the SW of England, leaving behind a lot of friends and family. One of my London friends played chess to a similar (but slightly bettter) standard than me and we hit on the idea of staying in touch by playing correspondence chess - which I think we did by email, using a spreadsheet attachment to display the board. This fizzled out after a few years (though recently I think I've enticed him to join chess.com). About 5 years ago work took me even further afield and I lived in the Caribbean for a couple of years. I remembered about using correspondence chess to keep in touch and eventually ended up on chess.com where I play online chess with 2 people who are far away and that I don't get to see enough of. If you saw our games you'd be amazed at how we over-use the chat facility. In a way that's what it's about for me. It truly is "correspondence" chess because we use it literally to correspond. We set the time limit to the maximum (14 days) because it's always a disappointment when someone is too busy to play and the game times out. Yes, I'd go as far as to say that the chess is almost incidental; it's the chat that counts. Bu the discipline of having to play a move in a given time frame forces us to stay in touch.
What I value about online chess on chess.com is that it works and works well. Initially I also valued that it was free but I have recently upgraded because I love Tactics Trainer. I don't play Live chess because I kind of feel that I'm too inexperienced to play quickly; I have to really think hard to avoid making horrible blunders. Also I never know whether I will be able to sit at the computer without interruptions for long enough to finish a game. With correspondence chess I don't need to worry about that - if I get called away then it doesn't matter, I'll make my move tomorrow. Which is the opposite of what someone said somewhere in this thread - that long format chess is for men who don't have a girlfriend; seems to me that live chess would be more of a problem in that respect. With correspondence chess you can stop any time to go and do what you have to do.
That's enough initimate confessions for now. One final point that I haven't seen mentioned. Chess.com is an international site. Many members are not native English speakers. Chess.com needs to be careful not to confuse those users. Any new name needs to be intuitive for people from different cultures, I suggest.
Picking up on another theme in this thread. It has been suggested that correspondence chess is rife with people cheating by using chess engines to help find the right move. Not an issue for me because I only play against people I know and trust.
I was thinking that in the very unlikely event that most people who use "online chess" use it like me then it ought to be called Friendly Chess or Chat Chess. The trouble with Friendly Chess is that it might imply that live chess isn't friendly (which it probably is) and that Online Chess is always friendly (which it probably isn't). Chat Chess is obviously too silly.
I have another suggestion...
How about Time Lapse Chess? As in time lapse photography. If you don't know what Time Lapse Photography is, take a look at this, which I found rather beautiful:
The three letter acronym (TLA) for Time Lapse Chess is TLC, and TLC is also the TLA for Tender Loving Care. Ohhh! How sweet!
Anyway, as I said above, we'll never know what the right name is unless we know who is using it, or likely to use it, and why. So let's have your experiences!
How about Corresponding Chess.
Turn Based seems appropiate.
Very true but not sexy enough. How about Slow Death Chess.
This is an old thread, and I know my term is not catchy, but I use it anyhow for my bookmark of "day per move", which is a catch all for 1,2,3,4,5 days per move. Of course one can move in 5 minutes, and other terms are more compact to type and say; maybe other abbreviations could be made. TB, (turn-based) CorreChess, Dayper Chess, etc.
How about Daze Chess. an intentional blur of "days" when one can get a day to make his move. etc.
Stuff Non-Chess Players Say
by 1RedKnight99 4 minutes ago
0-1: Tarrasch Defense, Schara Gambit
by 11qq11 4 minutes ago
Breaking the 1600 barrier (first Danish Gambit)
by 1RedKnight99 7 minutes ago
Numbers of games
by Martin_Stahl 8 minutes ago
by arunchess 8 minutes ago
Help with opening repertoire
by GeorgeBlackChess123 10 minutes ago
Fischer: mentally disturbed or just mean spirited jerk?
by davebrah 10 minutes ago
If you could combine two chess pieces powers what would the two pieces be???????
by MrKornKid 11 minutes ago
Time in Online Chess
by Martin_Stahl 12 minutes ago
What to do to get #1 on Most Active members list?
by flubdub 13 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!