Upper limit on games playing concurrently
Sort:
I say we all go over to his/her place, kidnap him/her in a nice, polite manner, and send him/her to LIVE IN A VAN DOWN BY THE RIVER with a steady diet of Government cheese and plain, black coffee... And then we'll see how fast he/she plays!
Jun 19, 2008
0
#122
ozzie_c_cobblepot wrote: Would a feedback system, like they have at eBay, work here at all?
heheheh. we actually worked on this and got the algorithms and graphics and everything done.... and then we brought it up... and people freaked out. :)
Jun 19, 2008
0
#123
yes a feed back system. that would be a very good as I've been playing a jerk in my tourney.
TheGrobe wrote:
I still think a supplimentary statistic to timeout percentage indicating how frequently a particular premium user falls back on their time-out protection would do the trick provided it could be used in all the same ways as timeout percentage is (i.e. as a qualifying metric for tournament eligibility to be specific).
I'd also love to see the same controls afforded tournament directors be made available as qualifying criteria on open seeks. Giving players this level of control might actually lead to more seeks being created as players won't have to be wary of what kind of opponent might accept their seek and may be more likely to create one as a result.
You can control who you play when someone accepts your open seek that you do not wish to play. You can simply abort the game if you dont like something about your opponent, such as their time out ratio or average time per move, or maybe that they have 20,000 games going?!! 
i am worried i might not have enough time to play in a 8 at one time tournement and be competitive
How about a nice game of Scrabble IN A VAN DOWN BY THE RIVER!?
Jun 20, 2008
0
#127
OK. Agreed that a feedback system wouldn't be good. I've had enough times on FICS where a user just insults me for beating them, or drawing on time, or whatever thing that they do not like. Well to be clear they don't like anything that loses rating points.
I agree with the above poster that something about percentage of time that they involuntarily go on vacation would be a useful metric. This type of self-policing is good, and much better than the (very manual) abuser system on FICS.
I have a difficult time playing one person...yet sometimes I feel I'm playing the computer on "chess base"... I only hope its not true I'd rather be stupidthen CHEATED...THINK ABOUT THAT FOLKS
The unmentioned AWOL opponent is back. It will be interesting what happens?
I've sent the gentleman concerned a link to this forum. Perhaps, we will now get "the other side of the coin", I wait with interest.
Jun 20, 2008
0
#133
LOL. It's lovely to have you back, your Lordship, and good to see that your enthusiasm remains untrammelled by embarrassment or humility at pissing off so many people.
Seriously, I hope you can get it back together again.
Jun 20, 2008
0
#134
A ton of your timeouts were move 0 or move 1, usually a "second" game from a tourney where the first ended in a timeout.
I know for sure that the game where I just played Qf4+ leading to exchange of queens and the passed a-pawn was going to be a loss for you no matter the timeout! :-)
Hey, everyone... I say we get together and sing Kum-ba-ya IN A VAN DOWN BY THE RIVER, and share some succulent Government cheese and several pots of black coffee. Wow, regulated games, this-n-that, overloaded matches and so-forth. Have you noticed gasoline is $400 a gallon now? Obama paid $10,000 a year for his daughter to take ballet lessons. Prioritize, prioritize, prioritize... IN A VAN DOWN BY THE RIVER!
ok, suggest some solutions people.singing kum by ya might make you feel better, but people seem to have a bee in their bonnet over this issue.
How about limiting basic members players to 50 games and unlimited unrated games and paying members CAN DO WHAT THEY LIKE.
If they have a bee in their bonnet they need to get over it. 155 responses to this post, of which I am an accomplice. Hey, if we pose solutions-- limited this and unlimited that, and those with cash can do what they like, then where's it going to stop? I know, let's add two extra rooks to each game or perhaps place a surcharge like proposed for gas-guzzling SUVs. How about taking off their bonnets and then the bee goes with it? Change the channel if you don't like the programming. Mountain out of a molehill? Issue out of a whining complaint. How about this - how about they do their homework and if a player has, say, 200 games ongoing, that should be a sign... Don't play. I, for one, am not going to be suckered into defending the victimization of someone who makes wrong choices. I already LIVE IN A VAN DOWN BY THE RIVER.
Van-Boy,
whilst I think your post has some merits, I would like to make the following points:
1. "155 responses to this post": a successful thread then, doing exactly the job for which forums exist.
2. "how about they do their homework and if a player has, say, 200 games ongoing, that should be a sign...": agreed, when one accepts a one-on-one challenge, but are you seriously asking us to check every profile in a tournament?
3. "I already LIVE IN A VAN DOWN BY THE RIVER.": yeah, how is that? nice van? good standard of living? Aaah! the open road and a fish-filled river! I can almost smell it! or was that the dog? 
I think if I hear about that van one more time, I will fly over there tonight and... well, you fill in the blanks, my (blood-filled) friend. 
Point-counter-point conversations are pointless, particularly when considering that you can't take out of a person's mind with reason what reason didn't put there in the first place. How many of those 155 responses actually have any degree of merit above the fifth grade IQ level? Wow. What a thread. More like a string of snot. (How many games are there in a tournament? Seriously. Is it truly out of order to check that many?) Anyway, the early bird may get the worm but the second mouse gets the (Government) cheese. Umm, by-the-way Dark Heart Boy, you forgot to comment on: "I, for one, am not going to be suckered into defending the victimization of someone who makes wrong choices." Wasn't that the most interesting sidebar to my on-the-outside-looking-in curiosity about this "thread?" Okay, then... you've heard about my van one more time. British Airways? Lufthansa? Olympic? Help me out- go ahead and fill in those blanks: ___ _______ ___ __ _________ __ _____. And, I might add, it's better to be filled with blood than to be full of... Well, you fill in those blanks as well.
Okay, everybody, let's settle it once and for all. Too much legislation, rules and regulations rob us of something unique about this experience (game) called chess. Psychology and 'mind games' and such are part of it. Getting under the skin of the opponent is part of it. Whining is not part of it. I'll even suggest that sarcasm is part of it. Distraction, 'principle of the thing' and so forth. Chess is for all ages - the experience (game) of the ages, timeless. But it's best enjoyed by people who are mature enough to handle it's various subtleties, direct and indirect affronts. It's best enjoyed by people who are "grown up" emotionally and actually have another life apart from becoming fixated on sixty-four squares, time clocks, chewed-up fingernails, presbyopia, myopia, eso- and exo-tropia, and anal retentiveness. And people with bees in their bonnets.
"Whilst" I continue to be intrigued by this "thread" I consider it something laughable and of peculiar drama, enough so to peruse the replies, responses and reactions with a miniscule degree awe. And from the porch I like to watch the little dogs scratch and howl and whine wondering why they have to play in the yard...
"Attention! Flight 8PWNED now boarding at gate 1. Destination across the pond to the VAN DOWN BY THE RIVER! Fish and chips will be served."
PS What's the most irritating is folks who play against others who are 100+ below their rating. Hummm.
