Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

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


  • 3 years ago · Quote · #961

    xqsme

    Has intruiging elements then , and broadens the mind.Could be a rewarding gambit... bird in hand saves lot of b(l)eating about in bush !

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #962

    himath2009

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #963

    eddiewsox

    How about CCC, Computer Corespondence Chess?

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #964

    ChazR

    After fifty pages, I suggest Staff summarize the list to ten choices and call the question for a vote.  Maybe eleven choices, including, "Who cares."

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #965

    chess_kebabs

    or 12 choices.. "We will choose what 'we' like the best, regardless of what the majority likes".

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #966

    Stampnl

    I don't think there is a good solution to the cheating problem.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #967

    TheGrobe

    I don't think you're in the right thread.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #968

    himath2009

    Good thinking...

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #969

    onthehouse

    Online Correspondence Chess.

    Terrible?  Too long?

    Then how about; " OC Chess " ?

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #970

    Sooner

    chess_kebabs wrote:

    or 12 choices.. "We will choose what 'we' like the best, regardless of what the majority likes".

    I would amend your comment to the following: "or 12 choices.. 'We will choose what 'we' like the best, regardless of what Erik likes." After all, this site is in business for the profit of Erik but for the enjoyment of its members.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #971

    chessplayer11

    TheGrobe wrote:
    chessplayer11 wrote:

    I wonder if any one is able to state at least three things that Traditional Correspondence Chess actually have in common with Online Chess here.

    The only similarity I can find is the amount of time it takes.

     

    So far all I got is that no one can deal with change. I await your failure.

    Communication over a distance
    Non-concurrent gameplay
    It's chess

    You wouldn't use Correspondence Chess for someone nearby or in the same house even, but you certainly can do it here.

    Non-concurrent? If you stay on the same page, how different is it from regular chess?

    It's chess? So you couldn't think of a third one... :/

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #972

    chessplayer11

    TheGrobe wrote:

    I'm coming to the conclusion that he's just trolling.  Surely he can't be that obtuse without it being intentional.

    I'm trolling? Maybe you should read the first post. ...and subsequent ones by the guy who runs the site. I suppose he's trolling too?

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #973

    Sooner

    Yes, TheGrobe, chessplayer11 does seem to be just trolling, trying to show us how clever he can be. Too bad for him that cleverness is no substitute for sound, sensible reasoning. His approach to the naming issue is merely that of the sophist and yields results as specious as theirs were.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #974

    chessplayer11

    At least I've given reasons for my opinion. All you can do is cry like a child. Maybe if you hold your breath long enough you'll get your way.

    I mean, you thought the survey was an election, so why not?

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #975

    chess_kebabs

    Sooner wrote:
    chess_kebabs wrote:

    or 12 choices.. "We will choose what 'we' like the best, regardless of what the majority likes".

    I would amend your comment to the following: "or 12 choices.. 'We will choose what 'we' like the best, regardless of what Erik likes." After all, this site is in business for the profit of Erik but for the enjoyment of its members.

    Well my friend, let's see the final outcome first, to see whose wording was more accurate.  :)

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #976

    chess_kebabs

    Did anyone else not know that the site is actually owned and run by Erik and his partner Jay?

    When I say his partner, I don't mean that sort of partner Embarassed lol.  I mean his business partner. Money mouth

    I only just realised that from stumbling across this forum.

    http://www.chess.com/article/view/about-chesscom?

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #977

    Sooner

    Babs, the point of my comment was not accuracy in predicting which name will finally be chosen. You are quite right that the outcome remains to be seen. My guess is that the name chosen will be whatever Erik wants it to be. He obviously views the choice as being exclusively a matter of his own judicial prerogative, not a ministerial act done pursuant to the vote he held on the issue. But whatever name he chooses and the fact that he made the choice will not in any way confer any "accuracy" upon whatever term he does choose. My point was related to the question of whose preferences should be accommodated in the choice. In my opinion, they should be those of chess.com's customers as expressed in the results of the vote Erik took, which results clearly showed a strong preference among chess.com's members for "correspondence chess." After all, it is we who pay for the site. Without us and our money, it wouldn't even exist; and there would be nothing about it for anyone to name!

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #978

    chess_kebabs

    ketchuplover wrote:

    Has anyone nominated the name DEAD (as in not live) CHESS ?

    Yes a couple of others have ketchuplover. I don't think many laughed then either. :)

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #979

    chess_kebabs

    Sooner wrote:

    Babs, the point of my comment was not accuracy in predicting which name will finally be chosen. You are quite right that the outcome remains to be seen. My guess is that the name chosen will be whatever Erik wants it to be. He obviously views the choice as being exclusively a matter of his own judicial prerogative, not a ministerial act done pursuant to the vote he held on the issue. But whatever name he chooses and the fact that he made the choice will not in any way confer any "accuracy" upon whatever term he does choose. My point was related to the question of whose preferences should be accommodated in the choice. In my opinion, they should be those of chess.com's customers as expressed in the results of the vote Erik took, which results clearly showed a strong preference among chess.com's members for "correspondence chess." After all, it is we who pay for the site. Without us and our money, it wouldn't even exist; and there would be nothing about it for anyone to name!

    Oh, ok Gerry. Sorry, I misunderstood your message. It sounded like you twisted my comment to mean the opposite of what I was saying. 

    Yes, I agree with you, it should be what the majority of Erik's customers prefer, but whether that happens or not, as you said, is yet to be seen.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #980

    chess_kebabs

    If you go back and read your paragraph Gerry, I think you will see that your intended message isn't quite clear there. But it is now. :)


Back to Top

Post your reply: