Chess.com Feature Request and Wishlist #4

Good list.

A topic title filter would be nice too - though tougher. For instance, any topic containing a reference to a much-publicized cheat.

An interim approach, if there were any topics that chess.com did not want encourage, would be to impose a Member Points penalty for posting in certain topics.

It would be very cool if there a way to share avoid lists, either directly or simply by copying + pasting the names. Eg, I trust BillWall's judgement and he plays much more blitz than me... I could leverage his experience about who not to play here.

A complementary idea is to make the entries by default expire after one year. This gives players a fair chance to 'reform' whatever behavior got them avoided.

both are already on our list.

Perhaps Chess.com - as the world's premier chess web site - could provide accreditations via an online test (c.f. Microsoft Accredited Exams, or the UK Driving Test - Theory part).

It could be derived from the Endless Quiz (FUN -> Endless Quiz). The questions/answers would need to be validated and calibrated. Remove the personality/chess-history questions ("What was Capablanca's first name?").

Throw in a lot of positional analysis:

• What would you do at this point? check, take the bishop's knight, resign, no move possible.
  
• How many forks are possible in the next TWO moves?  
  
• Which element of chess theory would you deploy in order to win this game? Opposition, Zugzwang, Fianchetto or En passant?

thanks

I'll wait for them!

good luck

 Art I wonder if you have tried the ICC, I was just curious since you call this site the world premier chess site, then you must consider the ICC the Universe premier chess site. Look,I like this site but you guys are getting carried away a little, don't you think. The list is great but please someone tell me why I should drop the ICC for chess.com, I am being serious about this question. I just started playing chess about a year ago and love the game but I get tired or hearing how great this site is when it is just mediocre. I have made several friends here and think this site is good as a free site but again I ask with a strait face what is the major deference's between chess.com and the ICC.

If I could make a request, that chess.com create a GM mentoring program for young beginning chess players like my self. I have researched my area and have found a few GM that charge $50.00 an hour, now if you could offer this type of program for life time members then I would see the benifite in joining.

I would like to say that I have great respect for the work that is done at this site and for the dedication that is shown by some of its members.

this is just a small request,come up with some more trophies that we can give to our opponents.

Hey hey lady 25 bucks an hour & I'm all yours, deal?

There is a discussion over here  http://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/help-make-chesscom-even-better - in which baseballfan is collecting ideas for new trophies. He is regularly creating new game trophies - partly based on these membershipship suggestions. Check out page 5 of the trophies; they are all new in the past few weeks.

There is currently no direct method to view game trophies except at the point of awarding them, other than using the Billium Method ... (see post #37 here ... http://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/help-make-chesscom-even-better ).

Get a remote control!

 This is what happens on topics you have TRACKED, of course. You get an Alert ...

When you click on read, you are shown a list ...

When you click on one of these topics, it opens at the page containing the posts you haven't read. e.g. http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/maybe-chess-isnt-for-me#lcc=7

The URL confirms that I haven't read the latest 7 comments. Page 2 of the discussions runs from post 21 to post 40. There are 43 posts in all. It should display from post 37 - which it does.

Is this the behaviour you would like on ALL forum topics?

That 'would be great every time I went into a forum if that were the case, but I suspect that the sheer volume of tracking and scale of the change probably makes this a non-starter.

A more immediate annoyance is with the alert itself -- it only clears after I've clicked "read" or "ignore" with no regard for whether I've found my way to that topic independent of the alert or not.  The alert also doesn't clear the first time I click read -- the page refreshes immediately (and scrolls the page down to the tracked topics section) but the alert stays.  I suspect the latter issue is simply one of sequencing and timing.

There already are accreditation programs and they're administered by FIDE and the USCF among others (the awarding of titles).  I'm not actually sure that it would be good for chess.com's credibility to try to set up a parallel, unofficial certification programme simply for chess knowledge/skill.

An alternative might be to provide accreditation for chess coaches -- although it looks like this too might already be FIDE's domain.

This type of accriditation would probably take more than just testing for knowledgability and skill level, and would also probably have to include some kind of code of conduct/ethics for coaches, different certification levels that dictate who you can coach (i.e. up to a particular rating), and some consideration for insurability (possibly right up to actually mandating insurance) as well as some kind of system to keep the creeps out (you wouldn't want someone who shouldn't be working with children in the first place devaluing everything you've done to put the accreditiation programme together).

My take?  I think chess.com's time is better spent sticking to their core competencies -- that is, continuing to build on the incredible value they already offer on this site by continuing to build out more of the innovative functionality that's got us all hooked in the first place.

I was thinking more along the lines of Scouts' merit badges - which probably wouldn't overlap with the titles that FIDE/USCF administer ...

• SFC = Skewer (First Class)
  
• Fork (Silver Setting)
  
• Blunder Aware
  

but you're undoubtably right.

Gotcha -- I think I maybe ascribe too much weight to the word accreditation perhaps in part as a result of the comparison to driver licensing and Microsoft's programmes.

I think if you wanted to drive more people to use certain parts of the site (like Tactics Trainer, or the Endless Quiz as examples) something like this could actually serve as a good incentive for them to do so.  There's something about official, yet ultimately valueless, status on the Internet that drives people to spend all sorts of time in pursuit of it.  You have to look no further than the member point-seeking that goes on in the forms for a good example.

Those recommendations are good, however, it is really up to you to do the work. If you treat chess as just a hobby, then follow the normal course of your learning. If you want to be someone note mentioning in the future by chess players, then dig down deep and analyze those games whether they are losts or wins; more important is that you understand concept. Amen. Good luck to you.

rating ranges in vote chess

example two teams that are about equal in strenghth want 2 play but 1 of the teams has a 2000 rated person and the other team has a top rated person at 1700 could you just have the rating range at 1-1600 so the 2000 rated player doesn't have the reest of his team do his move

I don't know that you want to keep higher rated players from playing vote chess altogether, but I did see a suggestion elsewhere for a nomination phase -- perhaps if this were implemented breaking the nominators/voters into groups based on rating would acheive some of what you're after:

Nominators: Over 1600
Voters:        Under 1600

Would likely give for a solid vote chess game

Nominators: Under 1600
Voters:        Over 1600

Would likely be a more entertaining game

The idea would be that there is an initial voting period for the nominators only and only the top three or four moves on to the voting stage as an option.  Voters can then only vote on moves that have been nominated.

TheGrobe, ooh, that sounds fun! It reminds me of Gary Kasparov vs The World, where Irina Krush would make initial recommendations so "The World" wouldn't fall into a mate-in-four. I would only propose one small modification:

Nominators: Top 20%-25%

Voters: Botton 75%-80%

Some teams are higher- or lower-rated... using percentage means vote chess would auto-adapt to ensure nominators are likely to be online and making strong recommendations relative to the overall strength of the team.