I don't think you're in the right thread.
Debate: What to call "Online Chess"...
Sort:
Good thinking...
Apr 20, 2012
0
#964
Online Correspondence Chess.
Terrible? Too long?
Then how about; " OC Chess " ?
Apr 20, 2012
0
#965
chess_kebabs wrote:
or 12 choices.. "We will choose what 'we' like the best, regardless of what the majority likes".
I would amend your comment to the following: "or 12 choices.. 'We will choose what 'we' like the best, regardless of what Erik likes." After all, this site is in business for the profit of Erik but for the enjoyment of its members.
TheGrobe wrote:
chessplayer11 wrote:
I wonder if any one is able to state at least three things that Traditional Correspondence Chess actually have in common with Online Chess here.
The only similarity I can find is the amount of time it takes.
So far all I got is that no one can deal with change. I await your failure.
Communication over a distance
Non-concurrent gameplay
It's chess
You wouldn't use Correspondence Chess for someone nearby or in the same house even, but you certainly can do it here.
Non-concurrent? If you stay on the same page, how different is it from regular chess?
It's chess? So you couldn't think of a third one... :/
TheGrobe wrote:
I'm coming to the conclusion that he's just trolling. Surely he can't be that obtuse without it being intentional.
I'm trolling? Maybe you should read the first post. ...and subsequent ones by the guy who runs the site. I suppose he's trolling too?
Apr 20, 2012
0
#968
Yes, TheGrobe, chessplayer11 does seem to be just trolling, trying to show us how clever he can be. Too bad for him that cleverness is no substitute for sound, sensible reasoning. His approach to the naming issue is merely that of the sophist and yields results as specious as theirs were.
At least I've given reasons for my opinion. All you can do is cry like a child. Maybe if you hold your breath long enough you'll get your way.
I mean, you thought the survey was an election, so why not?
Apr 20, 2012
0
#970
Sooner wrote:
chess_kebabs wrote:
or 12 choices.. "We will choose what 'we' like the best, regardless of what the majority likes".
I would amend your comment to the following: "or 12 choices.. 'We will choose what 'we' like the best, regardless of what Erik likes." After all, this site is in business for the profit of Erik but for the enjoyment of its members.
Well my friend, let's see the final outcome first, to see whose wording was more accurate. :)
Apr 20, 2012
0
#971
Did anyone else not know that the site is actually owned and run by Erik and his partner Jay?
When I say his partner, I don't mean that sort of partner 
lol. I mean his business partner. 
I only just realised that from stumbling across this forum.
http://www.chess.com/article/view/about-chesscom?
Apr 21, 2012
0
#972
Babs, the point of my comment was not accuracy in predicting which name will finally be chosen. You are quite right that the outcome remains to be seen. My guess is that the name chosen will be whatever Erik wants it to be. He obviously views the choice as being exclusively a matter of his own judicial prerogative, not a ministerial act done pursuant to the vote he held on the issue. But whatever name he chooses and the fact that he made the choice will not in any way confer any "accuracy" upon whatever term he does choose. My point was related to the question of whose preferences should be accommodated in the choice. In my opinion, they should be those of chess.com's customers as expressed in the results of the vote Erik took, which results clearly showed a strong preference among chess.com's members for "correspondence chess." After all, it is we who pay for the site. Without us and our money, it wouldn't even exist; and there would be nothing about it for anyone to name!
Apr 21, 2012
0
#973
ketchuplover wrote:
Has anyone nominated the name DEAD (as in not live) CHESS ?
Yes a couple of others have ketchuplover. I don't think many laughed then either. :)
Apr 21, 2012
0
#974
Sooner wrote:
Babs, the point of my comment was not accuracy in predicting which name will finally be chosen. You are quite right that the outcome remains to be seen. My guess is that the name chosen will be whatever Erik wants it to be. He obviously views the choice as being exclusively a matter of his own judicial prerogative, not a ministerial act done pursuant to the vote he held on the issue. But whatever name he chooses and the fact that he made the choice will not in any way confer any "accuracy" upon whatever term he does choose. My point was related to the question of whose preferences should be accommodated in the choice. In my opinion, they should be those of chess.com's customers as expressed in the results of the vote Erik took, which results clearly showed a strong preference among chess.com's members for "correspondence chess." After all, it is we who pay for the site. Without us and our money, it wouldn't even exist; and there would be nothing about it for anyone to name!
Oh, ok Gerry. Sorry, I misunderstood your message. It sounded like you twisted my comment to mean the opposite of what I was saying.
Yes, I agree with you, it should be what the majority of Erik's customers prefer, but whether that happens or not, as you said, is yet to be seen.
Apr 21, 2012
0
#975
If you go back and read your paragraph Gerry, I think you will see that your intended message isn't quite clear there. But it is now. :)
Apr 21, 2012
0
#976
chessplayer11 wrote:
At least I've given reasons for my opinion. All you can do is cry like a child. Maybe if you hold your breath long enough you'll get your way.
I mean, you thought the survey was an election, so why not?
For your edification only, the word "vote" in common English usage is associated with the word "election," while the word "respond" is commonly used in relation to the words "survey" and "poll." We "vote" in "elections," and we "respond" to "polls" and "surveys." Erik used the word "vote" in the designation of his project concerning determination of a new term for "online chess" or "turn-based chess." To those reasonably conversant with the mother tongue, that suggests an "election" and makes your obsession with my use of that word misguided and entirely without any legitimate point.
As for my holding my breath, here's another idea for your consideration. You might be able to engage in enough sophistry on the issue to get your way. Wouldn't you like that? That seems to be what you're going for.
Apr 21, 2012
0
#977
No problem, babs. I wouldn't intentionally twist your words. I respect them. Besides, I think I should leave word twisting to chessplayer11 and his sophistic techniques of argumentation. That seems to be his territory upon which I would not want to encroach. I was merely trying to improve your suggested twelfth choice by sharpening the wording to focus it more on the real nub of the matter. In any case, it seems that it may be I who misunderstood you. I may have read more into your comment than you meant it to have. Sorry if I did.
Apr 21, 2012
0
#978
My comment Gerry was simply to imply that no matter if the majority voting favour 'Correspondence Chess', that I think Erik will go for another name, not the 'winning/won' name. My money's on 'Daily Chess'.
But I could be wrong, it's happened before.. in a previous lifetime. 
Apr 21, 2012
0
#979
Right. Your emphasis was on prediction, while mine was on whose preferences should be accommodated more--Erik's or his customers. Got it! By the way, I guess that other matter was many lifetimes ago. LOL.
I don't think there is a good solution to the cheating problem.