Do You Think Admins Should Be Allowed To See Who Votes What In Vote Chess?

while i agree with nytik, there is one thing i'd like to point out.  there were allegations of "ballot-stuffing" in the Kasparov v. the World game.  you can read about it here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kasparov_versus_the_World

The biggest improvement that could be made to Vote Chess would be to allow people to change their votes, up until the time when the vote locks.  Seems perfectly reasonable that if something is discovered in the analysis late in the time period, that people can still act on it -- that's how real consultation chess goes.

That said, I'd like to at least be able to see who has voted, if not what they voted for.  Would be very nice to know that, as a member of a small team.

I support that idea, while it might take away the fun, it would help.

 I think it is a good idea too nut I don't see how it would take away the fun.

No. 

They should not be allowed.

Go this way, and eventually you end up with a long discussion about the possible moves, some leader picking the winning move, and everybody voting for that.

Nice and tidy, but's more like Discussion Chess than Vote Chess.

But you're supposed to discuss the moves not vote randomly.

Hi gang,

Yes, admins should be able to see which move each player votes for in vote chess.  Why not?  Is there something to hide?  If someone has something to hide, then I feel more strongly that admins should be able to view it.

The best groups already do this. Guess what? They win a lot of matches, and group members are proud of that achievement.

but in grups  there are peple who don't read posts and votes for loosing moves or some stupid variations even when someone post mate combination. It's very good idea and i think that people who don't want it have somethink to hide. I that admin should have option to block people who votes for bad moves. The teams will paly better in vote chess.

I can't stand vote chess for this very reason.  The top 2 or 3 rated players in the group will go into the thread (even though they are the last players that need help finding a good move) and discuss everything.  Move by move they present very strong lines.  Often enough these players are willing to share home-cooked opening novelties that could/would score some very quick wins.  But the lowly rated 12-1600 players (sorry to generalize) look at the position for two seconds, throw some vote out (sometimes hanging a piece they're so weak) and walk away.  This isn't a huge problem, as the majority of drive by voters will vote different things, and the small group that is invlved in the discussion will still have the most votes, but in the opening, it's rediculous.  The top few people agree that a particular group (after hours of studying the games of their top members/the games of the group) would have trouble facing a particular opening, (ie. the Sveshnikov).  Then, a flood of patzers join, who either 'drive by' vote, or read the thread, respond "Stuff it, d6 voted" and ruin our shot at a sveshnikov. 

If there are any vote chess groups out there that aren't useless, let me know :).

-matt

I couldn't disagree more! Take any team in the Vote Chess World Cup, for example, look at their archived moves, and tell me if you think any of them is "useless" ;-)

the whole thing is about team - if you have a good team, you are in business, otherwise it's just random playing...

try the unorthodox opening group we have good leaders and seem to win alot of matches

Well then you're agreeing with me aren't you? :P.  I want a decent team!

In my group (Chess Empire) I have about 90% agreement, which seems a good result compared to other teams. TDT also has 100% often.

There are some really good vote chess groups, also some really bad ones....

Wow - I'd be surprised if anyone took the time and effort to do something that pointless.

This is probably my favorite idea on this thread so far.

Consider the following:

Nowadays I usually only log in once per day, and often less often then that.  Suppose I am in a 24hr/move vote game, and I happen to be logged in when we have 16 hrs before votes are locked.  There probably won't be much discussion yet.  Since I might not be logged in again in the next 16 hrs, I probably have to make the choice now:  either vote now or abstain from voting for this move.

1)  If this particular group is very strong and the best move is not obvious, then I will probably choose not to vote.  If I was to vote now, it would be based on meager discussion and my vote would not be well informed.  However, the group can fend for itself without me, and I trust it to eventually come to a consensus on a good move.

2)  If the group is not that good or does not discuss much anyway, I will vote based on my own analysis.  In any group that does not reach a consensus before voting, usually the votes will be spread out among a bunch or reasonable-looking moves, and mine could make all the difference.

Now think how the option to change our votes would affect these situations.  I could vote based on my best judgment with 16 hrs to go.  Then, if I happen to be logged on again before time is up, then I can reconsider my vote based on any discussion since then.

Not a fan of empowering group admins or group super admins.

To me, this is the same core issue as "I should be able to delete a thread after creating it, because it's mine". The group doesn't belong to the admin, it is collectively owned.

In my opinion.

That being said, I am in favor of the group admin/superadmin being able to kick people out of the group.