Even at the time you could block it. So you'd be in a chat room and if someone disagreed you'd say
"shutup or I'mma winnuke you!"
and they'd be like "I have the protection so you can't!"
and you'd be all "I have the NEW winnuke and I can!"
So you'd try it and it'd fail or work depending on who had the latest version. I think they fixed whatever bug that was over a decade ago :p
Out of curiosity, I looked this up :
Chess.com is actually not mentioned in Patrick Wolff's "Idiot's Guide to Chess," but is casually mentioned in James Eades' "Chess for Dummies." Alexey Root also casually mentions this site in "The Living Chess Game" and in "People, Places, Checkmates: Teaching Social Studies With Chess." It's also mentioned in "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Backyard Adventures" by Nancy Worrell (in the appendix for resources about games, as the source where people can find good information about chess). "How to Make Your Long-Distance Relationship Work and Flourish" by Tamsen Butler actually suggests chess.com and a good meeting place to separated couple to connenct and play some chess. "Real Kids, Real Stories, Real Change: Courageous Actions Around the World" by Garth Sundem, suggests chess.com as does "Computers For Seniors For Dummies" by Nancy Muir and "Ensembles in Machine Learning Applications" by Oleg Okun, Giorgio Valentini, Matteo Re.
Surprisingly, I found two books that cited two blog articles I posted on chess.com. Go figure.
sounds pretty ___ing stupid to me. I for one would have never gone online at all. how is that even possible that that could happen?
Generally because of this;
The following topics are not allowed in the main public forums or chat rooms:
offensive/vulgar language personal attacks religious or political debate spammy/pointless/distracting posts discussion of illegal activities (drugs, etc) advertising competitive sites cheatingHow do you become a staff member on Chess.com?
Windows 95 wasn't exactly the pinnacle of reliability or security.
You must slay the seven dragons of Uisghuzuurl and recover the Gem of Ylstrynvzy. Which is kind of impossible since Kohai already did it.
@ the OP...
...it isn't open for discussion...
lol, when you put it that way...
And thank you, Batgirl, for doing some real research into sources. It's cool you've actually been cited in print. Kudos.
So when she's brought this up before, and written wiki articles before, it means nothing. But she mentions it in this thread and she gets your thanks? I don't understand.
If Batgirl has posted those books and sources anywhere before she mentioned them in her post today please kindly show me where batgirl has cited or posted those sources. If you will do that for me I be the first to concede to your point.
. . .
About 5 years ago, on request, I wrote a totally objective and dispassionate entry for Chess.com. I say "on request" because admin here had tried earlier only to have the entry deleted. Mine was also deleted. I have noticed over the years several more attempts that were also summarily deleted. In the archived example someone posted a link for in this thread, it was noted that the entry was to commercialized.
. . .
I assumed she had it in the wiki articles she wrote. I also noticed some of these sources mentioned on the wiki talk page (how else would I come up with chess for dummies book that I don't own?)... and you criticize me but thank her... I was trying to give you information not win a childish argument. But to each their own.
If you mean on chess.com then no, I don't know of anywhere on this site she's given that list.
Yes, and also I was just assuming... I never even read those chess.com articles she's talking about.
And like I said, I don't know how those talk pages work (or really even what they are...) but I assumed (again) that you would know how to find that page and read it for yourself. Maybe they are hard to find? Maybe they get deleted after so long? I really don't know.
Oh, so the info Batgirl gave in this topic is actually useful! Thats neat. Ok so maybe it was good to thank her and not me 
If she took the time (again) to go on wiki about it would wiki people care? That's also something I don't know about. I know anyone can edit stuff, but some articles not everyone can. I've made some small changes to chess articles before and they've stayed. One time all I did was tidy up a paragraph that repeated itself later on, it was changed back the next day though and I never knew why or how (or maybe I never hit "submit" or however it works). That was the last time I did anything on wiki (a few years ago).
The one thing about wikipedia pages is that if you know a lot about a subject they seem to say nothing useful, while if you are unexperienced in a subject they are extremely complicated and impossible to understand.
After reviewing the WP Verify section, I note that it says citations must be added for "material challenged or likely to be challenged."
Why exactly is the fact that "chess.com is an internet chess server" likely to be challenged?
Also, I note that in the talk page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:OGBranniff
OGBranniff has been reprimanded for using the "sourcing" issue too forcefully.
Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. [...]
Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. When tagging or removing material for not having an inline citation, please state your concern that there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable.
You mean it's not even on the list of chess servers?! I think this is one of the best places to play. Both in terms of quality opponents and number of people online at any given time. I've played online chess for many years and really this is a great place, and you can do it for free! It's a shame it's not even mentioned!
I mean really, you can't fill a whole book about how there are lots of online players and an active forum (not to mention learning materials). I don't think you can legitimately fill an entire book about ICC either even though they're another top notch place to play chess.
But anyway. As I've said I'm really uanware of how wiki works. If that's how it goes, then that's how it goes. Some people seem to indicate foul play (multiple accounts, vendettas from previous banned members, etc) but I have no first hand knowledge of any of that. But whatever the reason, the real loss seems to be wikipedia's. It's a shame if chess.com isn't mentioned on wiki at all because as I said this is a great place for chess. Not just me, but most online chess players seem to agree (look up number of live games on any other site and see how it compares!).
Just to be fair, I will quote the first line of the WP Verify section which says:
"In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it."
The whole thing can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:V
The above poster is being misleading.
Please see post #54.
This all is a big tempest in a teapot by some web sociopath who has nothing better to do than pester Chess.com and Wikipedia about nonsense while claiming great injustices and a string of horrible and incomprehensible abuse aimed at his poor little self.
This troll has made several reincarnations here with the exclusive purpose being to raise nonsense issues about inflated misbehavior toward the spiders that exist solely in his skull.
I say the troll should be ignored.
It would be better if Chess.com had an actual book or handful of reputable articles written about it, rather than just passing mention in books about other things. That being said, it depends on how "in depth" the coverage of Chess.com is in those books.
If Chess.com is mentioned in one line in an appendix of a book, then no, probably that wouldn't be a good source for a whole Wikipedia article. But, that would probably be enough to get Chess.com included on the "List of Chess Servers" article.
I'm not sure about that argument. ICC has, not only a mention under "chess servers," but its own wiki article. In the wiki article, the only print citation is "How to Use Computers to Improve Your Chess," which I can't access but would bet it just mentions ICC an the prime example of online chess - which in 2003, a decade ago, when the book was written was probably true. The other "references" are online: one to Tim Mann who is trying to push his Winboard and Xboard applications as ICC and FICS interfaces (both of which I love but are pretty much a thing of the past), one to Chess.net which has nothing to do with anything and one to About.com which says only that ICC is a chess server.
Don't give them ideas.
Although I imagine that a way has been invented to prevent that?