Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Debate: What to call "Online Chess"...


  • 3 years ago · Quote · #601

    zborg

    Sooner wrote:

    kborg, you said that I must have flunked "Social Science" big time. I was simply denying your assertion, which seemed to have been made in response to my having no knowledge of a manual about democracy. You sounded so knowledgable about it, I thought you might be able to inform me of it. That's all.

    No problem.  It's easy for both to be misunderstood.  Best regards.

    Our Russian friend was making a subtle point, or at least I thought so.

    On balance, these threads are fairly cacophonous.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #602

    chessplayer11

    Sooner wrote:

    @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 subscribers don't see ads.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #603

    netzach

    chessplayer11 wrote:
    Sooner wrote:

    @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 subscribers don't see ads.

    At the moment... Smile

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #604

    valyar

    kborg wrote:

    Indeed, didn't one of your countrymen say (if effect)--that it's not who casts the votes, but rather, who counts the votes that really matters.

    Yep, and the comment was about election process in a Western country, I do not remember which one or the occasion. Kinda like Gore vs. Bush in the US few years ago. 

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #605

    chess_kebabs

    Sooner wrote:

    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.

    I agree with you Sooner, on the large majority of the voters here did show they preferred to stick with tradition. I wouldn't go as far as to say to stick with the existing name just because the paying customers in this forum are asking for it because I think Erik would see all members as 'potential' paying customers so their opinion should also count. Not sure, but that's my assumption.

    But the main point is that the majority did vote to stay with 'Correspondence Chess', regardless if they were paying or non-paying members. Maybe the majority who did vote for this are premium members, haven't checked.

    Also can we assume what the majority voted for here is a good sample of what the majority of members of the site would prefer?  Maybe. 

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #606

    epoqueepique

    "live chess" is great. It's accurate and catchy.

    "online chess" I find catchy but not accurate. I like online chess because I can study the moves longer, and analyze the game as we move on. So why not find a name along those lines like "studychess" or "analytical chess", rather than "slow chess" which makes those games look dull and low quality... Some games are actually quite fast, and much more frequently played than daily.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #607

    zborg

    valyar wrote:

    Yep, and the comment was about election process in a Western country, I do not remember which one or the occasion. Kinda like Gore vs. Bush in the US few years ago. 

    The Strauss-Kahn caper seems equally intriquing.  The French often do scandals better than Americans.

    What were we saying about Online Chess?

    Have a nice weekend. 

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #608

    Bex1p

    kborg wrote:
    valyar wrote:

    Yep, and the comment was about election process in a Western country, I do not remember which one or the occasion. Kinda like Gore vs. Bush in the US few years ago. 

    The Strauss-Kahn caper seems equally intriquing.  The French often do scandals better than Americans.

    What were we saying about Online Chess?  Have a nice weekend. 

    The blind continue to lead the blind.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #609

    valyar

    Anyway, the point was that I see nothing wrong with redoing the elections since the interest turned out high.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #610

    Bronco

    I'm thinking chess (Thinking Chess)

    Don't rush me chess

    Your turn chess

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #611

    Bex1p

    Elections are ALWAYS a scam, your votes mean nothing, they happen to give you the illusion that you can make a difference and then when SHTF it is your fault because YOU voted this way.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #612

    chess_kebabs

    hehe...

    Well politicians never keep their election promises, I gave up a while ago believing campaign SWORN promises.. promises that got them into power. Here the Labor party swore black and blue they would never bring in a carbon tax at the last election.. so they got the votes they needed to win office, scraped in... but what did they do once in power, brought in a carbon tax. Now the Labor Queensland Party just got smashed and booted out in the state election there and the prediction is that is what's going to happen in every state's election and in the Federal election next year, because so  many were against the carbon tax, more against it than for  it, which is why they voted Labor in and now that trust/promise has been broken. No surprises there, and very dumb on their part.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #613

    Sooner

    babs, in response to your comment #642, I say wasn't everyone eligible to vote on the question, whether premium or non-premium member? I think so. Each vote cast was an expressed opinion just as the verbal opinions, ranging from the serious to the frivolous, were. The important difference is that the votes are quantifiable opinions, whereas the verbal opinions are anecdotal and probably supernumerary to the votes anyway. Therefore, the preference expressed by the votes should be given greater weight; and those preferences should be given great deference by Erik. After all, presumably, the customers of the site provide him and his staff their bread and butter. Successful businesses satisfy the majority of their customers. So should he. Erik asked for the preference of his customers by a vote. He got it, and it is for "correspondence chess." So he should replace the term "online chess" with "correspondence chess" on the basis of the preference expressed in the vote. Also, we don't have to assume that the members who voted for "correspondence chess" are a good sample of the general membership. Everyone was free to vote. Some did; some did not. We don't have to assume anything. We just need to count the votes.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #614

    Bex1p

    It is the same everywhere in every election every time, tuition fees, taxes, wars,  yet people still refuse to see that their votes are irrelevant. Its political X factor nothing more.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #615

    chessplayer11

    Sooner wrote:

    chessplayer11, I was referring only to the votes that had been cast. I mistakenly thought that would be understood without my saying so. Just pointing that out.

    Oh, I got the idea that you were thinking that only paying customers should have a vote and that that poll should decide it.

    Is was this: "Why don't you just defer to the wishes of your customers? After all, they do pay for the site."

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #616

    _valentin_

    It's interesting that the German term for correspondence chess does not imply that there's a particualr method of correspondence.  "Fernschach", which consists of the root "Fern" (in addition to "schach", which is the German word for "chess"), meaning "distant", the same word as used in the word for TV (distant viewer, literally).

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #617

    chess_kebabs

    Sooner wrote:

    babs, in response to your comment #642, I say wasn't everyone eligible to vote on the question, whether premium or non-premium member? I think so. Each vote cast was an expressed opinion just as the verbal opinions, ranging from the serious to the frivolous, were. The important difference is that the votes are quantifiable opinions, whereas the verbal opinions are anecdotal and probably supernumerary to the votes anyway. Therefore, the preference expressed by the votes should be given greater weight; and those preferences should be given great deference by Erik. After all, presumably, the customers of the site provide him and his staff their bread and butter. Successful businesses satisfy the majority of their customers. So should he. Erik asked for the preference of his customers by a vote. He got it, and it is for "correspondence chess." So he should replace the term "online chess" with "correspondence chess" on the basis of the preference expressed in the vote. Also, we don't have to assume that the members who voted for "online chess" are a good sample of the general membership. Everyone was free to vote. Some did; some did not. We don't have to assume anything. We just need to count the votes.

    Well I agree with you Sooner, that 'Correspondence Chess 'is the winning choice here, but Erik might say he was only after ideas here, not votes because he wouldn't rely on the votes of a minority of members when there are 5 million members here (of course not all active). Some  might argue that the minority who voted here for 'Correspondence Chess' isn't a true sample/reflection on what the rest of the site would want / vote for. I personally think we can rely on that sample  being valid and enough to go on because I think the  majority of the others 'out there' either don't care or would vote for 'Correspondence Chess' if they knew there was a place to vote for the  name to stay or change. So putting aside those that don't care and reading the intelligent and logical reasons  given by many to have the name 'Correspondence Chess', I think it's not wise to go with any other name.  

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #618

    chess_kebabs

    And also  because it's a 'recognised' name in the world of chess players already.. another reason not to have another name...

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #619

    chess_kebabs

    'Daily Chess' says nothing..   we can play any kind of chess daily.. Live chess, OTB Chess, Correspondence chess.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #620

    chessplayer11

    sarsaila wrote:
    chessplayer11 wrote:

    A large majority? 825 people (only of which frequent this thread) out of 5 million users. 0.0165048% of the user based have voted for it. The opinions of the vast majority aren't here.

    Unlike most surveys, I don't think the margin of error here was the typical ±4%.

    Just pointing this out.

    5 milion users is a blatant exagerration.

    I know. But erik keeps mentioning the number of users on the site as such; how hard it is to deal with 5 million demanding customers pointing out bugs, etc. as opposed to just registered users. :)

    I find it amusing. I think the server would crash, and then throw up all of its data all over the internet if that many came here at once, causing new myspace-like sites to spawn everywhere.


Back to Top

Post your reply: