Tunatin wrote: ... in 'view players', and chance of sorting by average time/move? ...
There are some of the ideas for improvements to Member Search in this topic
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/member-search---how-to-improve-it?lc=1#last_comment
Sorry if it's already been suggested, but I think it would be useful to have all your current games (i.e. the boards themselves, not just a list of who you're playing) on one page. So you can just print that page and go think about your games somewhere other than the computer. It's possible at the moment but it's tedious to do each game - each page - individually.
And/or all your games where it's your move.
There doesn't need to be any detail. Just the boards (with the name/players of the game above).
your improvment itinary sounds really good, but whatever you do, your still the best chess site on the web!
I think it would be helpful if the Messages tab in turn-based chess displayed the move number for each line of chat. Looking back on a game it's impossible (AFAICT) to determine what the "Nice move" or "Argh" comments might refer to. 
lotsoblots wrote: I think it would be helpful if the Messages tab in turn-based chess displayed the move number for each line of chat. Looking back on a game it's impossible (AFAICT) to determine what the "Nice move" or "Argh" comments might refer to.
During both rated and unrated games (I don't play LiveChess). If I remember in time, I usually append the move number, so I actually say "good move #15" or sneaky move #15. I usually make this comment before my next move - either #15B or #16. http://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/is-this-a-good-move
artfizz wrote:
lotsoblots wrote:
I think it would be helpful if the Messages tab in turn-based chess displayed the move number for each line of chat. Looking back on a game it's impossible (AFAICT) to determine what the "Nice move" or "Argh" comments might refer to. During both rated and unrated games (I don't play LiveChess). If I remember in time, I usually append the move number, so I actually say "good move #15" or sneaky move #15. I usually make this comment before my next move - either #15B or #16. http://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/is-this-a-good-move
LOL, so obvious yet I didn't even consider it. Like many chess tactics for me. I still think the feature should be added, but I'll adopt your notation until then.
An in server CHAT program where you can CHAT with people live without having to log into "Live Chess." It's annoying to have to send messages to people or type in a game window.
CHAT program!
Little clocks on your homepage with the time where you are 
And it recently came up in another forum - a sign for database users and non users on profiles.
WAYNE1984 wrote: chess.com staff vs chess.com member in vote chess :)
NO! chess.com do not have enough time to both play chess AND implement all these wonderful facilities.
how about an option for us to check to make 'forced moves' automatic? kind of like a conditional move, when checked, if we only have one place we *can* move, we don't get a choice, to move games along quicker?
An option that would announce check would be helpful for beginners and nice to have in friendly games.
WAYNE1984 wrote: chess.com staff vs chess.com member in vote chess :)
artfizz wrote: NO! chess.com do not have enough time to both play chess AND implement all these wonderful facilities.
paul211 wrote:
I for one think that it is up to Erik to decide if something needs to be implemented or not, with your programmer's abilities as you have shown all of us in your expertise to locate forums similar to the one posted when a person is opening a new post, I would like from you an expert opinion on as to why you make such a statement, and I am positive that you can enlighten us all. At times some reference material and explanations does a great deal towards a better understanding for néophytes point of view, pardon my french.
artfizz replies: I was, of course, joking when I stated that chess.com staff should not play chess.
My logic was as follows: Erik's posting #1 listed 26 features. His posting #99 estimated 2000 man-hours of programming, excluding testing and other requirements. That gives us an average of around 80 hours per feature (2 man weeks per feature).
This Topic has now reached 186 postings. Each posting has added, on average, one new feature request. Assuming the same average implementation cost, the new features will take around 15,000 man hours - IF all of them were implemented.
Suppose chess.com has a staff of six (including Erik) - but only half are working (!) on programming (the others are maintaining, fixing, administrating, supporting, marketting, etc.). Further assume each programmer works only 60 hours/week (and only 40 hours of which are paid!) - but spends a further 10 hours/week of his free time playing chess.
If these THREE hypothetical programmers gave up chess - and worked for another 10 hours/week (unpaid), the implementation schedule would run 15% faster. Thus proving my original assertion: chess.com do not have enough time to both play chess AND implement all these wonderful facilities (as quickly as we would like them). QED
Writing software is a very creative task, requiring skilled craftsmen. Adding more people to the job does not necessarily make it go faster nor achieve a better result.
artfizz> If these THREE hypothetical programmers gave up chess - and worked for another 10 hours/week (unpaid), the implementation schedule would run 15% faster.
You are making a joke, yes? Despite what math seems to prove, when I work X hours, relax Y hours, and study Z hours I produce more in the long-term than if I were to work X+Y+Z hours straight. I think it is the same for most designers and programmers. :)
likesforests wrote: artfizz> If these THREE hypothetical programmers gave up chess - and worked for another 10 hours/week (unpaid), the implementation schedule would run 15% faster. ... Despite what math seems to prove, when I work X hours, relax Y hours, and study Z hours I produce more in the long-term than if I were to work X+Y+Z hours straight. I think it is the same for most designers and programmers. :)
According to my sources (Dilbert), "you have to work 20 hours a day to compete in this business". In any case, these 3 guys need to "work smarter not harder".
dwaxe wrote:
orejano wrote:
a change in the Points systems would be good. right now, the person who is first in the Tournaments Points Leaderboard, is not neccessarily the best player. A ranking by a Point/Tournaments played ratio would be grat. For example: AWARDCHESS is the score leader, but, he has 2399 points and played 274 tournaments, so his ratio is 8.75 points/tournament NM ozzie_c_cobblepot is second with 2047 points but he had played only 50 tournaments so his ratio is 40.9 points/tournament. So who you guys think that should be the first on the list?. I, for example, have 553 points and played 50 tournaments and may ratio is 11.0 points/tournament. So my perfomance is better than the points leaderboard. Changing the system (actually only including this ratio idea) we will be able to see the best players of chess.com in the top of the scoreboard (as it should be) NO. Points per game would favor those who play the biggest tournaments.
I do not want points per game. Please read carefully before posting. I want a ratio of points per tournament won/tournaments played. Which is a completely different thing.
This topic chesscom-feature-requests-and-wishlist-3 is essentially about the set of features chess.com members would like to see - and the set of features that chess.com has chosen to implement.
We can discuss priorities, financing schemes, economics of chess.com, speed of implementation and collaborative working. These are all matters of business and although interesting, I regard them as none of my business.
Erik does sometimes ask for specific assistance from the chess.com community: in tracking down bugs or reporting unsavoury ads, for example. There's a big jump between harnessing users as beta testers - and bringing them in as development collaborators. There are issues around IPR, control, security, quality, interfacing, communication, scheduling, accountability, continuity, managing, reporting, ...
Currently, chess.com consists of a tightly-knit team of developers (I assume). If the team size is increased, the communication overhead goes up, there is a learning curve for the new people and the output goes down (at least initially). Much depends upon how modular the system is - and how much the development work can be split into separate units of work. In response to a suggestion about providing additional funding, Erik pointed to the difficulty of finding the right people with the right skills to do development (at the right price presumably).
chess.com is a commercial enterprise. Any development work to the site has to be done to a professional standard, be documented, maintainable, secure, etc. While there would undoubtably be enthusiasm among users to get involved, the task of selecting and managing suitable volunteers should not be underestimated.
In summary, I prefer to add to Erik's workload by suggesting new features for him to consider - rather than attempting to subtract from his workload by offering any help in implementation. But that's just me!
interesting discussion! we do our best to listen to suggestions and implement them. that said, artfizz is correct - we can't really accept community help in programming. we have tried that in the past many times and it has never gone well. it's just hard for people to wrap their minds around how complex Chess.com is and working on tiny piecemeal parts is impossible. additionally, sub-optimal code can punish the entire site by stacking up bad queries.
i appreciate the enthusiasm! honestly, the best support you can give us is, yes, you guessed it, to open up your wallet and help fund. we need more professional programming resources! :)
... I'd like some sort of 'no play' list. The block list is perfectly fine but I have a game against an opponent right now who I have no intention of ever playing again (he moves slow and declined a draw in a very very drawn position (bugs me so much))...anyways I don't want to block him because I'm sure he's a good guy and were he to want to talk to me about whatever.. well I'd still like him to be able to... BUT, I don't want to play him again, ever.