What happened to the other thread about sizing pieces and board squares?
A System for Sizing Chess Pieces and Boards (long)
Sort:
chessroboto wrote:
What happened to the other thread about sizing pieces and board squares?
Misunderstanding, OP is working things out with Admin. Hopefully, the thread will return soon. If Chess.com was a religion (who knows?), there wouldn't be enough stone tablets to hold all the "Thou shall nots."
@Loubalch Good luck! They gave me the run around about one of the Morphy threads they deleted. It took about 10 days or so for the admins to restore the thread. They kept insisting there was spam which there was not. I believe they even said they can't restore once it was deleted. I had to pose the question what kind of IT do you have if you allow an AI to delete something that you can't restore... or something to that affect. They restored it after that question. Anyhow, they eventually restored the thread but it ruined the discussion.
Hope so! Don’t want to waste my popcorn.
chessroboto wrote:
Hope so! Don’t want to waste my popcorn.
Have no idea what the Admin found objectionable in that thread? Did one of the formulas stray too close to the nuclear launch codes?
MCH818 wrote:
@Loubalch Good luck! They gave me the run around about one of the Morphy threads they deleted. It took about 10 days or so for the admins to restore the thread. They kept insisting there was spam which there was not. I believe they even said they can't restore once it was deleted. I had to pose the question what kind of IT do you have if you allow an AI to delete something that you can't restore... or something to that affect. They restored it after that question. Anyhow, they eventually restored the thread but it ruined the discussion.
Political correctness run amok!
The thread I mentioned had nothing to do with political correctness. We were discussing proper board sizes for the 3.5 Morphy set from SC. The OP was wondering if his 2.35 or 1.75 board would work with the Morphy set. Somehow chess.com thought that was inappropriate enough to delete. If that was offensive then I have no idea what any of us are doing here.
Anyhow, I take it the thread in question here was also about sizing. There must be something about sizing that triggers the deletion. I am not sure why.
"Political Correctness - a term used to describe language, policies, or measures that are intended to avoid offense or disadvantage to members of particular groups in society."
When you set the bar low enough, everything becomes offensive to somebody. Who knows, perhaps our discussions offended those who are math-challenged or those who lack the math gene necessary to comprehend simple, basic equations. In doing so, we may have impugned their intelligence, and made them feel less than adequate? When the standards are written so as to offend no one, and you allow computers to make those decisions (with little or no human oversight) I guess this is what you get!
Guys! (And girls)! I’m back, and I think the thread and posts are back up.
The bot identified some ‘suspected spam’, but I’ve been cleared of all charges.
Sorry for the interruption and abrupt disappearance. Anyway, please check out the thread if you’re interested. Or not — I wouldn’t want to spam you with my thread hijacking
I would only eat Spam in a can, if I ever ate Spam at all. 
@Loubalch It is true what you said about not offending anyone. I just think in this case the AI engine's logic for detecting spam was not written correctly. Whatever the powers that be are looking for was not correctly implemented. But then again catching spam is very difficult. It is very slippery when out of the can. Haha.
@Eyechess I never saw that one but I remember the Holy Grail movie. I'm not a big Monty Python fan but the scene with the rabbit was pretty funny. I hope the OP doesn't hate us for going off topic.
MCH818 wrote:
@Eyechess I never saw that one but I remember the Holy Grail movie. I'm not a big Monty Python fan but the scene with the rabbit was pretty funny. I hope the OP doesn't hate us for going off topic.
As long as there's a gossamer thread to the topic, it's fine by me. It's the difference between stepping off the path and going in a completely different direction. After all, this is supposed to be entertaining, and occasionally, enlightening.
@Loubalch. I'm glad! But I just realized you made a comment about eating spam above. Haha. I forgot about that one.
MCH818 wrote:
@Loubalch. I'm glad! But I just realized you made a comment about eating spam above. Haha. I forgot about that one.
Bill Shakespeare once quipped that brevity is the soul of wit. It is my contention that we should inject a bit of levity in there as well (from time to time). For too much seriousness, like too much sorrow, can be a very heavy load! Or as my great-grandma used to say, "smile while you still have the teeth."
Yes, levity is good. We need that... especially in a year like this one.
MCH818 wrote:
Yes, levity is good. We need that... especially in a year like this one.
Anything to keep me out of the Vomitorium!
Sets with kings with a diameter of 68-70% of a square still looks very good to me. This also seems standard in European Tournament play. In Netherlands you don't have to bring your own chess set. At the Wijk aan Zee Tata Steel chess tournament all amateur sets had 68% kings with four pawns on the square. 78% would look way too crowded to me.
My Dubrovnik chess set from Chessbazaar with 32mm diameter pawns and 42mm diameter king looks perfect to me on 60mm squares. While most people have these on 57mm squares.
In the end it's all personal.
Duvupov,
Nothing trumps personal taste (no pun intended). The system was developed to work in concert with your aesthetic tastes. I never intended the system to be a "one size fits all," take it or leave it proposition. Given a balanced chess set, I've worked out ratios that look good to me, and remain within published guidelines. Once the system has identified the appropriate chessboard, my final recommendation is to move up or down to the next size board depending on your preference. If the selected board looks too sparse, then move down in size, if it looks too crowded, then move up in size. Either way, if you've selected a balanced set (where the kings and pawns are proportional), then the results should be to your liking.