Vote chess improvements

Wormrose , chess.com hasn't shown any willingness to change something in Vote Chess.Although I am new in the site , older members told me that Vote Chess is the same for the last 5 years and that is too much since we are talking for an on-line site with so many members.

 Common notice from many members I discussed with, is that chess.com doesn't really care in changing something.The last changes which I witnessed prove that.They changed the look and a number of unimportant features while important ones like Vote chess remained untouched.

    Just a small improvement would be enough.For example , the Team Captain  to know what the members vote.Drive by voting would be instantly fixed.

 Don't have high expectations, we will keep "walking" with what we have.

I believe the effect of drive by voters is usually that people get irritated on that there are some votes on bad moves, not actually that a bad move wins (unless there are very few participants and there are fewer then 2 votes for the winning move).

Personally I think at least some of these improvements will be implemented, and I want it to be added on their "to do" -list as I believe it is worth the project of implementing these improvements. If no staff comment here I will send them a message myself when I believe the list is ready. Chess.com is always improving and after they have added chess 960 to live chess I believe improving vote chess should be a project worth working on. Therefor I want the list to be as good as possible and let chess.com do whatever they like with it.

@Michael-G, Indeed vote chess hasn't been changed, and my expectations isn't too high. I believe chess.com doesn't like to make small changes that don't change much and therefor I decided to make this forum with a lot of improvements making it a whole project to fix. I believe there is a chance that they will improve vote chess and I want to enlarge it.

@joeydvivre, I think many vote chess players like wormrose and I believe in what I wrote earlier.

"Vote chess is not about everyone voting without discussing anything. Vote chess is about cooperating and come up with a move together like a team and then vote for it."

If you don't believe in this I believe you haven't played in a good vote chess team. Some of these rules are made to make cooperation easier, but is in no way preventing people to vote anything. One of the few questionable suggestions (I think) is that admins can see what everyone vote for. Apart from this I don't see why you don't like these suggestions. Can you be more specific what improvements you don't like?

I agree with Martin.Vote chess game is a team effort and drive by voters can ruin it.The damage they can make is especially obvious when you try to play a "training game" that will help you understand an opening or a line.They can ruin a game like this making everyone not to want to continue.Nobody can deny that anyone can vote what he wants but no one can deny the will of some people to play a good game.We have to respect both sides.

   It's like in soccer.When you have the ball you have the right to do anything you want but if you don't play for the team , the team has the right not to want you.

   A team can play vote chess games where anyone can vote what he likes but must be able to play games which are a team effort and they all respect exactly that , the team effort.

chess.com has rarely showed any interest whatsoever in the issues of vote chess. A few years ago there was a forum in which Eric actively participated and several of these ideas we have been discussing were presented and supported by the membership. He didn't agree with any of them.

The only change which has occurred can be seen if you hover [Home] and select [Vote Chess]. In order to be provided with that list (to prevent time-outs) it took several forums like this one, in which lots and lots and lots of people participated.

I don't expect c.c to do anything!

On the other subject, here is a recent example. Look at 18.f5. The archive showed that the move discussed was 18.Bg3 but someone jumped in and voted early for 18.f5 losing the queen. There was only one vote for each move and the blunder was voted first. Yes, it was a small team but those teams deserve a chance. It was also disappointing for my team because it had been a good game up to that point.

Joeydvivre

According to you a a coach(in basketball or in football) that substitutes a player because he doesn't play well is a fascist.

   The worst is , you think you are right.

You have no idea what fascism and what democracy is. 

I remind you, seems your memory is weak.

  It's amazing that anytime there is a vote the Fascists among us try to control the process and use the same silly rhetoric.

First ,calling "silly rhetoric" other people's opinion is the real fascism.Nobody would insult your opinion but you did insult other person's opinion with phrases like "fascism" and "silly rhetoric".That is the real fascism.

Second, "silly rhetoric" is the one that talks about team effort?Do you believe on team effort or not?If yes why  the coach/team captain of a vote chess game should not be able to substitute the one(or the ones)that don't play for  the   team and don't even care ?

I don't have a problem with anyone voting anything he wants.But just take a look at the position and deciding the first nonsense , is a problem.Because it is a team effort.There can be games where anyone can vote anything he likes , I respect their right.But there should be the choice for a team to play a team discussing vote chess game.They have to respect my right too.

Where exactly is the fascism and the silly rhetoric in that?

I enjoy vote chess the way it is and will continue to use it regardless if there will be any changes or not. I like the main rules about it: anyone can join whenever they like, everyone can discuss the moves in team discussion, everyone can vote 1 vote each and the move with the most votes wins when the time is up. I'm just stating that it is far from perfect and some minor things could (and should) be improved.

No surprise at all.People that don't respect other peope's opinions can't respect discussion too.

Typical reaction of the true fascist.

All like you are so boringly predictable. 

@joeydvivre, what is wrong with an option to remove someone from a single vote chess game instead of removing them from the whole group (including the vote chess game)?

As I previusly said I believe the only right that has been removed is the secret of what you vote for as the admins would be able to see it (item #14). I was first against it as I thought it should be a secret, but I think it's good to be able to locate if someone tries to ruin the position or votes to resign on move 2.

For what it's worth: Up until now I participated in more than ten vote chess games where wormrose is admin, and I never ever experienced any sort of "fascist" vote control on his part. Apart from sometimes kindly reminding team members (including me ;)) what opening we were to play, all he does is insist that we discuss moves first for a given amount of time before voting, and I wholeheartedly agree with that. The discussion is what makes these games fun for me, otherwise I'd play just my own one-on-one games.

Chess.com actually allows any administrator to be fascist.Wormrose could just delete the suspicious guys(we all know who they are) but he didn't.Rules don't stop anyone from being a fascist only his ethics can do that.

     Wormrose is here discussing about it and he is ready to accept his wrong(if he is wrong).Wormrose wants and try to learn , some guys don't care.In a group I am administrator some of the members want to learn French.I made an announcement kindly asking from those that don't care not to participate.There are plenty of Vote chess games where there are no rules and anyone can vote anything he likes and I can make plenty more , as many as they want.I only asked that they respect the 2 training games the group has, and follow the rules ONLY in them if they want to participate.

Result:They keep coming , and they keep voting the first nonsense they see.They simply don't care(a training game has already been ruined).

Administrators have the authority to remove someone from a team match.Why shouldn't they have the authority to remove someone from a Vote Chess game?Isn't it the same?Why not having the authority to make invitational Vote Chess games?What is the wrong with that?To participate in a group you have to be accepted by the administrator , we accept that as correct , we also accept as correct that administrators can remove someone from a team match(I find that unnecessary and useless).Why don't we accept as correct to be able the admin to remove some members from certain Vote chess games if that protects the educational value of these games(if any)?

That is the "silly" and "fascist" question Wormrose(and not only) sets.

I have participated in vote chess with wormrose in more than 3 years. It is clear some teams (including those wormrose is admin of) wants to reduce the number of drive-by voters and don't want people to vote for moves that haven't been discussed. Still everyone can vote whatever they want, but if a team wants a policy that people should not vote for moves that haven't been mentioned or discussed there is nothing about being a "fascist" about it. Drive-by voters can join teams that like drive-by voting and not be in the way for other teams. I believe it is about the same as having policies against timeouters in team matches, but a policy for vote chess instead.

Thanks guys, for the support, but let's remember this forum is about improving vote chess. I don't care if he calls me a facist or whatever. I know what I am and most you guys do too. We're just trying to make it better.

Martin0

I also believe that a group can have many vote chess games for all tastes.Why not?

        If some don't want to discuss the moves and they want to vote anything they like  they must be respected.But those who do want to discuss the moves and doesn't want random moves to be played should be also respected.

There are two ways to play vote chess.

a) Play as a team when we work together and try to reach a consensus

b) Play as individuals; each person treats it like it's his personal game

I prefer to play as a team in my groups. Those groups are created for that purpose. However, if enough members wanted to do it the other way I would create the game and even post reminders that there is to be no discussion. But I would not expect that to be a high quality game.

If it's a team game then when people join the game they are also joining a team. Consider a basketball team; if one member of team is doing whatever he wants, it diminishes the team. The team will want to be rid of him. Can you blame them?

Someone who votes secretly for moves he didn't tell the team about is acting against the team. He doesn't belong on the team. He belongs somewhere else. This does not deny anybody of anything. There are nearly ten-thousand groups at chess.com and each individual should be able to find a place where they can do it the way they want.

By the same token they should allow the fascist teams to play like fascists.

Wormrose,

we supported your right to say your opinion and discuss about it.Because if you lose it , we will lose it too.

So don't flatter yourself because I don't really care if someone called you a fascist.

joeydvivre starts insults everytime he has no arguments.Let's not fall in the same level, we are far too smart for it(and anyone that has finished at leats highschool is).

Ignore him,he doesn't deserve anything more.