The biggest improvement that could be made to Vote Chess would be to allow people to change their votes, up until the time when the vote locks. Seems perfectly reasonable that if something is discovered in the analysis late in the time period, that people can still act on it -- that's how real consultation chess goes.
This is probably my favorite idea on this thread so far.
Consider the following:
Nowadays I usually only log in once per day, and often less often then that. Suppose I am in a 24hr/move vote game, and I happen to be logged in when we have 16 hrs before votes are locked. There probably won't be much discussion yet. Since I might not be logged in again in the next 16 hrs, I probably have to make the choice now: either vote now or abstain from voting for this move.
1) If this particular group is very strong and the best move is not obvious, then I will probably choose not to vote. If I was to vote now, it would be based on meager discussion and my vote would not be well informed. However, the group can fend for itself without me, and I trust it to eventually come to a consensus on a good move.
2) If the group is not that good or does not discuss much anyway, I will vote based on my own analysis. In any group that does not reach a consensus before voting, usually the votes will be spread out among a bunch or reasonable-looking moves, and mine could make all the difference.
Now think how the option to change our votes would affect these situations. I could vote based on my best judgment with 16 hrs to go. Then, if I happen to be logged on again before time is up, then I can reconsider my vote based on any discussion since then.
Not a fan of empowering group admins or group super admins.
To me, this is the same core issue as "I should be able to delete a thread after creating it, because it's mine". The group doesn't belong to the admin, it is collectively owned.
In my opinion.
That being said, I am in favor of the group admin/superadmin being able to kick people out of the group.
I can't stand vote chess for this very reason. The top 2 or 3 rated players in the group will go into the thread (even though they are the last players that need help finding a good move) and discuss everything. Move by move they present very strong lines. Often enough these players are willing to share home-cooked opening novelties that could/would score some very quick wins. But the lowly rated 12-1600 players (sorry to generalize) look at the position for two seconds, throw some vote out (sometimes hanging a piece they're so weak) and walk away. This isn't a huge problem, as the majority of drive by voters will vote different things, and the small group that is invlved in the discussion will still have the most votes, but in the opening, it's rediculous. The top few people agree that a particular group (after hours of studying the games of their top members/the games of the group) would have trouble facing a particular opening, (ie. the Sveshnikov). Then, a flood of patzers join, who either 'drive by' vote, or read the thread, respond "Stuff it, d6 voted" and ruin our shot at a sveshnikov.
If there are any vote chess groups out there that aren't useless, let me know :).
-matt
I am a member of Black or White, who for a time had the highest perfect record on chess.com (27-0-0 if I remember correctly). There are often 50 comments for each move, some posts as long as a page. And yet I have never seen anybody go to the trouble analyze an opponent team's vote games or their members' games, simply for the purpose of choosing one out of a number of oft-played opening lines would be best against a particular opponent. If you really do this in your group, I'd like to know its name
In my group (Chess Empire) I have about 90% agreement, which seems a good result compared to other teams. TDT also has 100% often.
American group has around 75. It could be higher if I didn't throw out what move everyone to vote for at 10:00 PM with 16 hours left :D.
i'm just curious...when did this "privacy" issue arise?
people discuss the moves. people post the moves they suggest are good. then we all have to vote in private? i just don't get it.
i don't agree that admins/super admins should be allowed to change votes in any way, but seeing them (or even everyone seeing them) doesn't seem like a big deal to me. why do we need all this anonymity?
The Burning Pawns have a great vote chess team. We discuss more than 2 pages for our moves and their usually is more than a 90% agreement
@trigs
We're not suggesting that admins should be allowed to change votes, rather that someone should be able to change their own vote.
Also the privacy thing is the same reason why any voting system ought to be confidential. If the public agrees with one choice, but you genuinely think that another move is better, then you should be able to cast your vote without the getting into an argument (or having the Politburo go after you).
@wilt18
What I meant by my statement was that some of our individual posts have been known to be a page long. A case in point: http://www.chess.com/votechess/game.html?id=10194&mv=122&san=Ka7
ok
This is position from one of my teams vote chess. There is fev post that Qxb5 is a win. But few peoples votes nxb5 give up queen! I don't want change their votes but I want know who it is.
Yes, that was annoying and it happened on other moves too.
yea I have to ask my team to vote for the right move
I have had to do that too.
Same here!
Do You Think Admins Should Be Allowed To See Who Votes What In Vote Chess?
Not Admis or Supers ( only if they are playing ) but above all the Captain & or the rest of the players should have the right o see who votes a what, it could save a lot of problems that occour frequently in VC, yo!
Spiffe wrote:
That's a great idea that would save a lot of stress, yo!
yea changing your vote would be GREAT
Join Chess.com for free to add your comment! Already a member? Then login now to comment.