Wouldn't we all, but it's "Jay" who's stifling our ambitions and leaving us to wallow in our fetid cesspools.
Maybe somebody else in chess.com could make you the official "Just thinking out loud" guy.
Just thinking out loud.... ;)
You're not married to "jay" by any chance?
The forums created here are property of chess.com And it will stay here if chess.com wishes so.
Now I'm really confused: yin/yang were the pair of giant pandas presented to London Zoo as a breeding pair in the early 1980's - IIRC.
Oy, we'd have Rosemary's Baby.
Aren't breeding pair marriages in Britain called the Royal Family?
Hilarious!
At least he wins a knight though, and he did win in the end...I'd say it counts more as a ? than a ??, since it doesn't change a winning position into a drawn/lost one. Though yeah, missing forced mates (not to mention mate-in-ones) is always a bit .
It's actually worse than that. I saw that I my move won a knight because kf8 would lead to Qf7#... but completely missed the fact she didn't have to go to h5 first :(. (drunk, latenight, terrible excuses for terrible play I know :p).
And for the record, I thought it was going to be about the greatest blunders made on Chess.com, hence thinking missing mate in 1 might qualify :).
Now I'm really confused: yin/yang were the pair of giant pandas presented to London Zoo as a breeding pair in the early 1980's - IIRC.
Well, we knew LisaV's avatar isn't what she really looks like. Apparently she's all furry and moves slowly.
Hey, so am I . . .
Oy, we'd have Rosemary's Baby.
Aren't breeding pair marriages in Britain called the Royal Family?
Hilarious!
Not when they get your tax money it isn't.
ya'll want some cheese to go with that wine ?
Let's say 100 posters contribute to a thread. Why should the original poster be entitled to throw all their efforts away on a whim?
Because the original poster is intolerant of people with different views and opinons of course.
He only wants a thread where people agree with him and validate his ideas (regardless what they are).
That's the same reason people block you, so you can't contribute to threads they start...and the same reason people will boot you from groups too if they have a problem with your articulating yourself in open forums - it's mostly just malicious.
Bottom line should be if you can't handle the possibility that not everyone will agree with you in the forums, you're not mature enough to entertain debate, or you're prone to making insults when you have no intelligent refutation then you should probably refrain from starting forum threads.
I couldn't said it any better
In my opinion one of the biggest blunders c.c has committed is in the discussion forum. Above your comment there is a click-able square to [Edit] your comment and another to [Delete] your comment. If you click to delete your comment, whatever it may have been is replaced by the words in parentheses (Comment Deleted). For a while, if you clicked on [Delete] two times, the box would disappear also. But they fixed that and so now there are these useless comment boxes that take up space and only convey that somebody said something and then decided not to say it.
On the plus side... You can still edit the comment "(Comment Deleted)" to say whatever you want it to say. However, in most cases it is no longer relevant to the evolution of the discussion in it's original time slot.
chess.com works pretty hard. They make their website a great place. But, they definately do have blunders. and i haven't played around with a lot of their features, but if any of you have taken the endless quiz, it's pretty repetetive after a while. allowing anybody at all to post on that truly makes it endless, but people start asking rediculous questions that nobody knows the answer to, stupid questions that someone who's never played chess can figure out, or questions that 10 other people have posted. that quiz is pretty fun, but like i said it starts repeating and gets boring after a while. . .
Oh, I agree that they are striving for a really great website and there are certainly a lot of good things here. But even Grandmasters commit blunders and that's how I see the spirit of this topic; not to be harsh on the boys (and girls) in the office.
In my opinion one of the biggest blunders c.c has committed is in the discussion forum. Above your comment there is a click-able square to [Edit] your comment and another to [Delete] your comment. If you click to delete your comment, whatever it may have been is replaced by the words in parentheses (Comment Deleted). For a while, if you clicked on [Delete] two times, the box would disappear also. But they fixed that and so now there are these useless comment boxes that take up space and only convey that somebody said something and then decided not to say it.
On the plus side... You can still edit the comment "(Comment Deleted)" to say whatever you want it to say. However, in most cases it is no longer relevant to the evolution of the discussion in it's original time slot.
I think that's not a blunder but actually a problem solver. Before that change, someone would post something, or start a thread, then people would respond, then he/she would delete the post (or some moderator would) and the thread wouldn't make sense at all. You would often come across a topic and feel "what's been going on in here? What has happened?" etc.
Even the starter of such threads would change when the first post got deleted. This way things at least look more sensible.
For example, take a look at here and imagine how less sense it would make if the first entry disappeared and the thread looked like it was started by the second poster: http://www.chess.com/forum/view/suggestions/my-ratings-not-increased
In my opinion one of the biggest blunders c.c has committed is in the discussion forum. Above your comment there is a click-able square to [Edit] your comment and another to [Delete] your comment. If you click to delete your comment, whatever it may have been is replaced by the words in parentheses (Comment Deleted). For a while, if you clicked on [Delete] two times, the box would disappear also. But they fixed that and so now there are these useless comment boxes that take up space and only convey that somebody said something and then decided not to say it.
On the plus side... You can still edit the comment "(Comment Deleted)" to say whatever you want it to say. However, in most cases it is no longer relevant to the evolution of the discussion in it's original time slot.
philidor_position wrote: I think that's not a blunder but actually a problem solver. Before that change, someone would post something, or start a thread, then people would respond, then he/she would delete the post (or some moderator would) and the thread wouldn't make sense at all. You would often come across a topic and feel "what's been going on in here? What has happened?" etc.
Even the starter of such threads would change when the first post got deleted. This way things at least look more sensible.
For example, take a look at here and imagine how less sense it would make if the first entry disappeared and the thread looked like it was started by the second poster: http://www.chess.com/forum/view/suggestions/my-ratings-not-increased
Are you quite sure the DELETE TWICE TO DELETE option has gone? It worked the last time I tried it.
For some people those empty boxes end up being their most intelligent posts. I wouldn't want such folk denied their opportunity to make meaningful contributions. 
Cystem_Phailure wrote: For some people those empty boxes end up being their most intelligent posts. I wouldn't want such folk denied their opportunity to make meaningful contributions.
Ouch!
Chess.com's reluctance to announce changes constitutes a blunder in my book. (e.g. can no longer choose colour in LiveChess challenges; non-premiums can't be group admins any more; delete twice withdrawn; analysis board legal move checker switched off {then on again}; 100-page limit on searches; minimum rating change reduced to zero; ...).
These policy changes and bug fixes are no doubt generally sensible but their unexpected arrival invariably causes a swathe of queries and bug reports as members independently discover something that used to work now doesn't. (Not to mention the howls of indignant protests!)
How hard can it be to summarise site changes on a monthly basis?
Not much stopping you from becoming a Group Admin - and working your way up from there.