15204 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Okay, the most recent vote chess game was corrupted by three members creating numerous fake accounts to sabotage one side. In response, I have suggested several prerequisites and rules for future vote chess games to keep it fair and hopefully, encourage members to continue participating.
Below is the system of prerequisites and rules I have suggested for the vote chess games that should be considered by administrators to enact.
Minimum of 6 months membership on chess.com
10 games of any type played on chess.com with at least 4 different opponents (combination of live, correspondence, online, vote, etc.) and/or participation in 5 vote chess games.
10 moves made on both sides restriction deadline.
10 move restriction deadline
So far, based on the opinions of several members, I have created this list of prerequisites and rules from a system of compromises. I would appreciate if those who read this would give their opinions on these rules, whether more rules needed to be added, more compromises/revisions of these current rules, and/or removal of some of these current rules.
As for the enforcement of these regulations once an agreement has been reached, I propose the idea that each day, a list of members who join the game within the 10 move deadline will have their profile checked by administrators when they joined and whether they meet the other rules. Those who join after 10 days on either team will be removed and have to wait until a new game starts.
For experienced members, the administrators will check for whether membership is at least 6 months. If not, then that individual will be removed from the experienced team and can choose to wait until they meet the 6 months and other requirements or join the new members team in the meantime. If the member meets the 6 month requirement, administrators will check their game history on chess.com for all games played and participation in other vote chess games. If these prerequisites are not met, then the member will be removed and can choose to play enough games to meet the requirement or join the new members team in the meantime.
These rules and enforcement processes may be strict and take time to enact and enforce, but to maintain a fair system for vote chess games, I have created this proposal.
Once again, I would like the opinions of those who read this forum on how the proposed prerequisites and/or enforcement process can be amended, whether other regulations are needed to be added, some need to be adjusted/compromised, or some need to be removed. In addition, please include your opinions and your agreement/disagreement- if disagreement, please state why and how there can be a compromise made.
When a agreement based on the majority of responses from members of chess.com, these prerequisites, rules, and enforcement processes can be proposed to administrators to consider enacting and enforcing some of if not all of those the general public would agree on.
Thank you for reading this and I would appreciate your opinions and responses.
People come to a chess sites to have fun, and owners of sites want more and more visitors and accounts. On the other side hackers and internet criminals enjoy what they do. Right now those three scoundrels are analizing what we do to plan their next attack. There is some flaws with these anarchic way of voting. May be , as it is with governments, a counterweight (parliament and or president) is needed. The first voting previous to initiating the game should be to elect two or three judges or censors of mistakes, they could be the most serious or well rated members of the team. Their only power would be detect and eliminate absolutly clear blunders. And permit any tipe of move, not being clear mistakes, even though it can be seen as doubious moves,continue as candidate moves. Its only an idea.
I like your idea fontier. It's interesting and yes. How about the top three rated members are selected as those who check for obvious blunders? However, to prevent arguments over who are the leaders, the members of the team have a choice of the top 6 candidates, and vote for who should be the top 3. The losing three will substitute in for an assigned winning candidate if they cannot participate one day; if one of the winners knows they can't help one day, they will post on the team comments and the member assigned to them as backup can fulfill that role during the absence. In the meantime, they can still vote.
Anyone else agree with Fontier's idea? Please voice your opinions and/or suggestions as how to perfect this proposed rule.
For experienced members, the administrators will check for whether membership is at least 6 months. If not, then that individual will be removed from the experienced team and can choose to wait until they meet the 6 months and other requirements or join the new members team in the meantime.
I disagree if someone joined the experienced members team without meeting the proper requirements they should not be aloud to join the new members team because they could spout off all of the secrets and plans of the experienced members
I see your point avs_fan06. In response, I have two things. This is why I have the administrators check daily on both teams. However, you have a point that they could spout secrets and strategies; so, they will be removed and banned from the vote chess game completely so that they cant even use public comments until the game is finished. Sound fair enough - agreed or disagree? what is your opinion on the other prerequisites? are they okay to you?
There are other vote chess games besides exp. vs new, so the rules should be more general if possible.
True, but how do you suggest we proceed then because the current one is a little more difficult to enact rules for except the 10 move deadline. Any ideas?
Do chess.com staff interact in this forum? how would you know when your suggestions are read by them? do they provide any feedback at all?
You realize that there are millions of forum members, with thousands of them online at any one time. How many "Administrators" would it take to make these daily checks of all the Vote Chess games? Do you really think that the Forum Staff has that much manpower, or that much time?
Why hasn't Ivanov been banned yet?
by owltuna a few minutes ago
posting the obvious
by davebrah a few minutes ago
Stuff Non-Chess Players Say
by manspider29 a few minutes ago
What is your favorite kind of tactic??
by nameno1had a few minutes ago
by caveatcanis a few minutes ago
Chess ratings of the old players
by GeorgeBlackChess123 3 minutes ago
12/12/2013 - Polugaevsky - Szilayi, Moscow 1960
by ChristopherSaindon 4 minutes ago
by GeorgeBlackChess123 4 minutes ago
English Opening - harryz Attack
by CP6033 5 minutes ago
How do I go about studying the middlegame
by Goob63 6 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!