15343 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!
kborg, no I never flunked any courses; but I've never heard of any manual for democracy. Why don't you tell me about it?
I believe your conversation was with our Russian friend, @Valyar. That's where the idea of a Democratic Manual first arose, it seems.
But if you need an outside consultant for U.S. history, @Ziryab, appears to be an Historian. I conjecture he can tell you all about the vargaries of constitutional practices across historical epochs. Not my field. Sorry.
I simply objected to your black and white assertion regarding "democracy," however construed. Checking your profile and finding "Attorney" left me even more surprised.
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.
You (probably) think daily chess sounds like a puzzle since this site and maybe others have been calling their puzzles daily-puzzles for so long.
With Conditional moves, you actually can make a move without being online at that moment. It's also a moot point since you of course need internet access to an internet site. They're just looking for a catchy name. Though I'm not defending 'anytime chess'. Not a fan of that one at all. I'd rather correspondence over that one.
Nothing works best, but daily seems to fit best, especially since erik claims to own the site and is establishing the criteria. (though not knowing who your own QA guy is? hmm...:)
My personal vote, (on that limited vote page), was for turn-based, but daily is fine for me. So unless daily chess will cause a grand drive away from it, which I doubt, I see no problems with it as no one has mastered a term that's both accurate and one that everyone can agree on and simple and catchy. (Good luck there)
For me turn-based works okay because it invokes the idea of taking turns. Live chess does this as well, but at a much more rapid pace due to shorter time controls. A board game, like monopoly, without time controls can be turn-based and you can pause the game overnight and continue whenever. So for me this is somewhat fitting.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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...
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.
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.
"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.
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.
What were we saying about Online Chess? Have a nice weekend.
The blind continue to lead the blind.
Anyway, the point was that I see nothing wrong with redoing the elections since the interest turned out high.
I'm thinking chess (Thinking Chess)
Don't rush me chess
Your turn chess
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
Can we make Chess.com a dating site?
by mnhsr a few minutes ago
Chess and IQ (intelligence)
by oxoxvc 4 minutes ago
8/28/2014 - White to Draw
by toufiqueawan 5 minutes ago
Ashley's Million-dollar chess tourney - but bring your own clocks
by aww-rats 6 minutes ago
Go VS Chess
by VULPES_VULPES 6 minutes ago
Sicilian Defense: Closed Variation
by ltristam 9 minutes ago
Windows Phone 8 Beta Testers Needed
by Jkapoor 10 minutes ago
5/2/2014 - Endgame Training
by eatherquake4 14 minutes ago
My account has been restricted
by rdecredico 15 minutes ago
Bobby Fischer vs Magnus Carlsen
by trotters64 16 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2014 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!