lol himath... a few not so ladylike words would come to mind. hehe..
Hasn't technology changed a little since then.
lol himath... a few not so ladylike words would come to mind. hehe..
Hasn't technology changed a little since then.
chess_kebabs wrote:
lol himath... a few not so ladylike words would come to mind. hehe..
Hasn't technology changed a little since then.
Yes, babs, it has!... Now we know everything about nothing and we have the technology to be smug about it as well...
i still look at this thread. though i'm no closer than before, still preferring Daily Chess and Anytime Chess
i still look at this thread. though i'm no closer than before, still preferring Daily Chess and Anytime Chess
Daily Chess, Anytime Chess, and Calendar Chess all seem to convey the same clear idea of using a least a day, or more, to move.
I like something like "Deep Chess" better than daily chess (to me daily sounds like a puzzle, but deep describes what it is better - a version where you can get deep into analysis) and anytime chess is not really great because you can't really do it anytime (you need internet access). For that same reason offline does not work since you can't be offline, although your opponent can. Seems most of us like Correspondence Chess since that is what we are used to calling it, although I understand your difficulty with it.
Erik, you held a vote on the issue by the members of the site. Its outcome shows a clear preference for "correspondence chess" by a large majority. Why don't you just defer to the wishes of your customers? After all, they do pay for the site.
Erik, you held a vote on the issue by the members of the site. Its outcome shows a clear preference for "correspondence chess" by a large majority. Why don't you just defer to the wishes of your customers? After all, they do pay for the site.
Vote placed before consequences of large-forum (#592) & counting !
More choices should be added to vote-panel ?
@netzach. You mean the vote is to continue indefinitely with candidate names added after people have already voted? Does that really make sense?
More choices should be added to vote-panel ?
+1
Or:
Erik, you held a vote on the issue by the members of the site. Its outcome shows a clear preference for "correspondence chess" by a large majority. Why don't you just defer to the wishes of your customers?
+1
@valyar. When you quoted my post, you omitted the last sentence. I think it's important. After all, the money paid by subscribers is really what makes the site go. As for money paid by advertisers, they wouldn't advertise without the subscribers.
But remember the vote is still open...as the term 'Standard Chess' is already in use, when taken in site context the term 'Basic Chess' has a lot going for it, imho.,as has 'Online Chess' which is equally self explanatory.
Sooner- I omitted that sentence on purpose. This seems like a good argument, but the decision is ultimately Erik's. I try to think in simpler terms- good business, bad business, good government, bad government, etc. However, I do sign up under the quoted part of your comment.
xqsme, in democratic elections, all of the candidates are determined before the election starts, not afterward. Otherwise, those who voted early don't get to participate fully in the election.
valyar, I know very well that the decision is Erik's. That is implicit in the fact that I addressed my comment to him. Be that as it may, though, the subscribers and advertisers pay Erik, from which pay Erik presumably derives his living. No subscribers and advertisers, no living from chess.com. Serious deference is their due, especially since he held an election eliciting their opinion.
Yes, babs, can you imagine the frustration... Waiting a month for the post to arrive, then reading that!