Chess.com Feature Request and Wishlist #4

I've said it before, but don't know whether it's in the offing so I'll throw it out there again: 

Ladders.

[Edit -- nevermind; I see that it's on the list.  Read first, ask questions later....]

Swiss tournaments would be nice because I think more people are used to swiss rounds.

One feature request, one annoying bug:

When a user is quoted in the forums it would be great if the quote box had a hyperlink to the original post.  Often the quotes are abridged by the person doing the quoting and if you want to see the original post in it's entirety you have to dig back through the thread to find it.

When a member I'm tracking creates a topic in a group that I'm not a member of and don't have presmission to access, I still get alerts.

I'll add my name to the list of people loooooogning for LADDERS!

I've implemented ladder play on a group (GrayMatter Ladder Chess) but so much of it need to be done manually.  It is the one feature I really miss from my former favorite chess server.  But even without ladders chess.com has become my current favorite chess server...  

As a stopgap measure, how about at least citing the post number (266 in this case) above the quoted text? (Hyperlinks to forum postings are only resolved to the level of a page of 10 or so posts, unfortunately. Deleting an earlier post changes later post numbers, of course.)

A point: my best win at the moment is someone who I beat without playing a move, my rating did not change and I certainly received no satisfaction.  This is really ridiculous, who would want to see this game when browsing people's best wins, I'd much prefer to have the slightly lower ranked game there; it is of more interest to me and others.

My proposition:  do NOT include timeout victories or games which are too short to affect ratings on the best win or worst losses. Cheers.

 I second that, for if you look at most players Best win, it must be around 80% due to time outs!

One more vote for Fischerrandom/chess960 here!  It would be a super addition.

Hi -- I have an easy one (hopefully) -- when creating an open game, it says that I have to include my rating in the range of ratings of players that can accept my challenge, but I never know/remember what my rating is.  Is there a way you could change it so that when it reminds us to include our own rating, it will also tell what our rating currently is?  The text in green below is just a suggestion -- thanks!

"Your rating range must include your own rating (currently 890)."

How do members earn points?

 Every time you post in the forums, blogs.....etc you get a point for each post that you post!

Is chess 960 really that hard to implement?  This may be a gross oversimplification, but it strikes me that it is very similar to the pre-set opening positions that are currently in place in the sense that you start from a non-standard position.  Once you've set up the 960 combinations, created a mechanism to randomly select one of them when a game commences and splitting out the ratings into a seperate pool the hardest part seems as though it would be implementing the additional castling rules.

it's tough because then you need a whole new stats section for 960. that just takes time to do and there are other projects with higher priority.

a superb list!

Gotcha -- therein lies my oversimplification.

How about the ability to create events similar to those on Facebook?  I think this might serve to encourage members from the same location to meet off-site (likely for, but not limited to, the purpose of playing OTB) and help to knit a tighter overall community.

A group of players descending on some public locale may also spur some interest in both the game and in chess.com among folks who might not otherwise find their way here.

you can do this through groups and teams :)

Would it be possible to add 960 but require all the 960 games to be unrated, at least until you guys have the time to create the new stats section?

I wish that when patzer24 says "here's a game with full annotations and commentary." doesn't really means it. and also that he stops commenting 1.e4 with something like "actively playing for the centre":-) It's kind of silly.