actually, great suggestions! i'll say this - we need to connect to a server, but we do NOT require persistent connection. we're working on getting better.
also, as soon as we have a good, stable live chess we will be adding servers in different parts of the world :)
Maybe I'm getting this wrong, but Suggestion 2 also sounds a bit like BitTorrent? If so, what incentive would you provide for players to donate their computers in such a way, and what would you about the players who absolutely could not?
Looking at Erik's post, it seems as though he might just use more servers as an alternate solution, but if we're considering this idea, just a few questions...
@erik, thanks for reading my suggestions, I'll post more as soon as I can think of them.
@Youngdude, yeah the concept is similar to BitTorrent but not quite similar since the users wont download files. It is more akin to "The Onion Router" because the "volunteers" would more or less act only as "reflectors" for the transmission.
Think of it this way.
Suppose Live Chess has 500 users, and every 5 users always live in close proximity to each other. So in terms of members who live in close proximity to each other, we would have 100 groups. Now, suppose that in every group, there is a member that could act as a mini-server. This mini-server, is a stripped down server, linked to the "main" one, and can serve non-vital information (such as the players list? :] ). So requests to the "main" server can be routed/redirected to these "volunteer" servers. Thus, the four members need not go all the way to the "main" server in order to get the players list, they can just go to the "volunteer" server, which would not only be fast (since it is nearer to them) but will also be much less of a hassle for the live chess server (since it will only have to serve 100 "volunteer" servers directly instead of the entire 500 members). Theoretically, doing so would reduce server load by 80% (that is, 500 less 400 members who will not need to be served directly by the "main" server divided by the total number of users, I'm not sure) in terms of serving the players list. Ok the last one is a bit more exaggerated but I guess reducing server load by at least 10% which means 50 users who does not need to go all the way to the "main" server may be a big help.
And for your next question, I guess there really is not much of an incentive for the volunteers other than:
So I guess volunteers are more likely to be:
And for those players who absolutely cannot donate their computers in such a way, then perhaps they cannot become "volunteers." :)
I have only 1 suggestion for live chess.
You know in online chess where you can find how much your rating will up if you win and go down if u lose or if you draw (Rating Adjustment).
If you could install that to live chess it would be very informative and if you were to lose, you know what you would of gone up if you won, it will encourage rematches and maybe people will try to avoid certain people.
Thanks
Hi Erik, I would like to congratulate you for having such a wonderful and fulfilling chess site. Thank you for sharing it to the rest of the world.
I have a number of observations and a few suggestions that I hope, might make Live Chess a more pleasant experience to the user.
Observation 1: Live Chess games seem to be executed in the server. That's why whenever the server restarts, games are lost. Moreover, it also seems to be the reason why games can be automatically adjourned.
Suggestion 1: Perhaps Live Chess can be implemented as an engine - perhaps a javascript engine? That way, games are executed directly on the users' computers and not on the Live Chess server. The server thus becomes a tracker and acts as a messenger for the moves between the two Live Chess players. Moreover, updates to the system can be done directly to the javascript engine which is constantly being served by the server. That way, you don't have to restart the server just to implement an update, and the users just need to refresh their pages in order to download the most recent version of the javascript engine. Live Chess games can still be saved though. Because the moves between the players must pass through the server, the server can just log the moves without executing them. That way there will be less stress on the server.
Observation 2: It seems that the live chess server cannot satisfactorily serve Live Chess games halfway around the world. Chronic disconnections still seem to be happening (although a bit less frequently after the players tab has been removed) without apparent problems in internet connection – perhaps the server is just too far away.
Suggestion 2: Have you thought of having a decentralized set of servers located around the world as opposed to having a centralized one? Don’t get me wrong. I’m not talking along the lines of the big, bulky and expensive servers. Rather, I am talking along the lines of “The Onion Router” and peer-to-peer technology. Perhaps there might be a way for members to sort of “donate” their bandwidth so that Live Chess.com will have a more robust and redundant set of “servers.” Since these “servers” just acts as pathways for the game, then the games might not need to go all the way around the world in order to log a particular move, they just need to go to the nearest “server” donated by a volunteer member.
Anyways these are my suggestions for now. While they are a bit overboard and wacky,I hope these suggestions can help make Live Chess better. Till then…
windsinger