Chess is game of EXCEPTIONS.
Since I don't play online chess. I can't even begin to answer @Chessplayer11's syllogisms posited above.
They go way over my head, without even touching a hair. 
Debate: What to call "Online Chess"...
Sort:
Well if the name doesn't really matter '' artfizz-chess '' sounds good as he put the most effort into it all ?
''artfizz-chess'' should be added to vote-panel.
I vote artifizz-chess, or my old favourite, "chess"
Sooner wrote:
kborg, no I never flunked any courses; but I've never heard of any manual for democracy. Why don't you tell me about it?
I believe your conversation was with our Russian friend, @Valyar. That's where the idea of a Democratic Manual first arose, it seems.
But if you need an outside consultant for U.S. history, @Ziryab, appears to be an Historian. I conjecture he can tell you all about the vargaries of constitutional practices across historical epochs. Not my field. Sorry.
I simply objected to your black and white assertion regarding "democracy," however construed. Checking your profile and finding "Attorney" left me even more surprised.
mattchessus wrote:
I like something like "Deep Chess" better than daily chess (to me daily sounds like a puzzle, but deep describes what it is better - a version where you can get deep into analysis) and anytime chess is not really great because you can't really do it anytime (you need internet access). For that same reason offline does not work since you can't be offline, although your opponent can. Seems most of us like Correspondence Chess since that is what we are used to calling it, although I understand your difficulty with it.
You (probably) think daily chess sounds like a puzzle since this site and maybe others have been calling their puzzles daily-puzzles for so long.
With Conditional moves, you actually can make a move without being online at that moment. It's also a moot point since you of course need internet access to an internet site. They're just looking for a catchy name. Though I'm not defending 'anytime chess'. Not a fan of that one at all. I'd rather correspondence over that one.
Nothing works best, but daily seems to fit best, especially since erik claims to own the site and is establishing the criteria. (though not knowing who your own QA guy is? hmm...:)
My personal vote, (on that limited vote page), was for turn-based, but daily is fine for me. So unless daily chess will cause a grand drive away from it, which I doubt, I see no problems with it as no one has mastered a term that's both accurate and one that everyone can agree on and simple and catchy. (Good luck there)
For me turn-based works okay because it invokes the idea of taking turns. Live chess does this as well, but at a much more rapid pace due to shorter time controls. A board game, like monopoly, without time controls can be turn-based and you can pause the game overnight and continue whenever. So for me this is somewhat fitting.
kborg, you said that I must have flunked "Social Science" big time. I was simply denying your assertion, which seemed to have been made in response to my having no knowledge of a manual about democracy. You sounded so knowledgable about it, I thought you might be able to inform me of it. That's all.
Sooner wrote:
Erik, you held a vote on the issue by the members of the site. Its outcome shows a clear preference for "correspondence chess" by a large majority. Why don't you just defer to the wishes of your customers? After all, they do pay for the site.
A large majority? 825 people (only of which frequent this thread) out of 5 million users. 0.0165048% of the user based have voted for it. The opinions of the vast majority aren't here.
Unlike most surveys, I don't think the margin of error here was the typical ±4%.
Just pointing this out.
chessplayer11, I was referring only to the votes that had been cast. I mistakenly thought that would be understood without my saying so. Just pointing that out.
Sooner wrote:
kborg, you said that I must have flunked "Social Science" big time. I was simply denying your assertion, which seemed to have been made in response to my having no knowledge of a manual about democracy. You sounded so knowledgable about it, I thought you might be able to inform me of it. That's all.
No problem. It's easy for both to be misunderstood. Best regards.
Our Russian friend was making a subtle point, or at least I thought so.
On balance, these threads are fairly cacophonous.
Sooner wrote:
@valyar. When you quoted my post, you omitted the last sentence. I think it's important. After all, the money paid by subscribers is really what makes the site go. As for money paid by advertisers, they wouldn't advertise without the subscribers.
But subscribers don't see ads.
chessplayer11 wrote:
Sooner wrote:
@valyar. When you quoted my post, you omitted the last sentence. I think it's important. After all, the money paid by subscribers is really what makes the site go. As for money paid by advertisers, they wouldn't advertise without the subscribers.
But subscribers don't see ads.
At the moment... 
kborg wrote:
Indeed, didn't one of your countrymen say (if effect)--that it's not who casts the votes, but rather, who counts the votes that really matters.
Yep, and the comment was about election process in a Western country, I do not remember which one or the occasion. Kinda like Gore vs. Bush in the US few years ago.
Sooner wrote:
Erik, you held a vote on the issue by the members of the site. Its outcome shows a clear preference for "correspondence chess" by a large majority. Why don't you just defer to the wishes of your customers? After all, they do pay for the site.
I agree with you Sooner, on the large majority of the voters here did show they preferred to stick with tradition. I wouldn't go as far as to say to stick with the existing name just because the paying customers in this forum are asking for it because I think Erik would see all members as 'potential' paying customers so their opinion should also count. Not sure, but that's my assumption.
But the main point is that the majority did vote to stay with 'Correspondence Chess', regardless if they were paying or non-paying members. Maybe the majority who did vote for this are premium members, haven't checked.
Also can we assume what the majority voted for here is a good sample of what the majority of members of the site would prefer? Maybe.
"live chess" is great. It's accurate and catchy.
"online chess" I find catchy but not accurate. I like online chess because I can study the moves longer, and analyze the game as we move on. So why not find a name along those lines like "studychess" or "analytical chess", rather than "slow chess" which makes those games look dull and low quality... Some games are actually quite fast, and much more frequently played than daily.
valyar wrote:
Yep, and the comment was about election process in a Western country, I do not remember which one or the occasion. Kinda like Gore vs. Bush in the US few years ago.
The Strauss-Kahn caper seems equally intriquing. The French often do scandals better than Americans.
What were we saying about Online Chess?
Have a nice weekend.
kborg wrote:
valyar wrote:
Yep, and the comment was about election process in a Western country, I do not remember which one or the occasion. Kinda like Gore vs. Bush in the US few years ago.
The Strauss-Kahn caper seems equally intriquing. The French often do scandals better than Americans.
What were we saying about Online Chess? Have a nice weekend.
The blind continue to lead the blind.
Anyway, the point was that I see nothing wrong with redoing the elections since the interest turned out high.
I don't play online chess. So the rule of thumb of "using at least one day, or more, to move" seems clear to me.
But I recall ordering "two-half-pints" of beer in London, a few years back.
I wanted two, small, 1/2 pint glasses of beer. But the bartender vigorously gave me "two pints a half" (i.e. 2 pints + 1 half pint), in three different glasses.
I mentioned in passing that while I might be a two-fisted drinker, I still didn't undertand his language. Nor he mine.