My vote chess rating would be -1000 with all the stupid votes in the votes chess games that i take part in.
Vote Chess Ratings???
Sort:
Mar 3, 2014
0
#63
it should not be a rating, the questioner wanted to reduce the number of people leaving the game, or the vote chess games flooded with rubbish by trolls and weak players discussion, That is why I suggested the percentage system. That way u can remove bad voters from the vote chess game, if that was your problem. Ratings are there to determine players strength, vote chess games are a discussion on the moves, when we consider your move, we look at your real rating, not your Vote chess rating which makes no sence, cause it is not used to determine strength in this sence.
The NMs example was not made by me, it was just an extreme circumstance that was talked about.
ifoody wrote:
My vote chess rating would be -1000 with all the stupid votes in the votes chess games that i take part in.
Sounds like you didn't read any of the comments becasue you just confessed that you rogue vote. Plus, you must be in a very unorganized group, if weaker players rule Vc.
LazyChessPlayer3201 wrote:
it should not be a rating, the questioner wanted to reduce the number of people leaving the game, or the vote chess games flooded with rubbish by trolls and weak players discussion, That is why I suggested the percentage system. That way u can remove bad voters from the vote chess game, if that was your problem. Ratings are there to determine players strength, vote chess games are a discussion on the moves, when we consider your move, we look at your real rating, not your Vote chess rating which makes no sence, cause it is not used to determine strength in this sence.
Which I think is good idea
I mean if you are guys are dead set on not having a rating system for Vc, perhaps the "percentage system"?
If we can get that working, that would be fine by me, as all i want is to remove rogue voters and give a little more detail on who an admin is inviting. That is my goal, whether it is by rating or percentage
LaskerFan wrote:
"Vc will always be a coaching tool no matter what"
Depends! In group vote chess - maybe! In public vote chess, too many drive-by voters who simply refuse to read the comments spoil the game. I do not think anyone can or wants to learn from such games...
Unless you are in a group that no one comments on (which is called a dead vc game). Then you will have at least one person learning.
Yeah, no one can really learin in public Vc. ButI am more focusing on group Vc and not public
I think this whole discussion is moot. Chess.com will say they wont add ratings or precentage cause it to much coding and will waste money. They will also say that no matter what you call them, everyone has the right to vote in a vote chess game even if they disagree with the rest of the team and no one has the right to ban anyone from a team VC match.
"Chess.com will say they wont add ratings or precentage cause it to much coding and will waste money"
Never said that I expected them to
ConnorMacleod_151 wrote:
As a vote chess addict... its fine as it stands!
I am also a vote chess addict, and with playing many games, I saw how popular Vc it is. And thought it was shame that it was the only thing not rated (not ranked) in C.c. So I thought of this rating system.
If you are truely Vote Chess addict, then you will try your best to perfect it and create a greater experience.
It does not have to to be this idea of mine, it could be anything. For LaskerFan, it would be his models. For me, it was this rating, and to see if it was practical at all.
That's true, but you did say you want them to consider it. Some expectation must be there if you are sending it in to be considered. If not what would be the point os sending it to them for consideration.
"I have every intention for chess.com to consider it, but I realize that it has a very low chance, if not 0%. But I do want them to consider it hence forth why I said "I don't really expect it".
But I am hoping none the less that they do! :)"
Your words say say that.
Lol, we are close to an arguement even though we are saying the same thing!
But yes, that is the point of the topic.
No aruguement at all, just letting you see your words as you wrote them and just putting a logical thought behind those words. Do you really think that ches.com is going to code 6 million players and keep track of of say at an average of 4 games for each player 24 million vc games and have that tracking add or deduct points from each game played by every team out there. When for them who want people to play chess put in a system that will get them banned from playing because they disagree with a move and are allowed to diagree without facing retebution by any admin? Do you really think that? They are in business to keep players and have them buy memberships and have fun playing chess. Not being run off by admins who decide they arent worthy to play a game of VC.
First of all-LOL! @ConnorMacleod
If you are not good at playing a VC game, shouldn't recruiters know that? Some groups are all about Vote Chess, a system will help them greatly on who to invite.
No, no fight at all. Just knowing that first and formost, chess.com is a business and wants to make money and keep customers. Second, that they dont want to lose any customers hey already have nor lose any potenial future customers. Third, how much it will cost to code that type of complicated system for 6 million players, at least 24 million on going vc games, and, add tracking and computing program that can add and subtrack points from said players and games. Just so an admin can decide if they want you on their team and vote with the majority. When they have in place already a system where anyone on each team can play and get or lose 5 points for a win or lose. Why would they want to change what they have that works for them for something that could lose customers for them?
Mar 4, 2014
0
#78
Chess.com need to spend some a % on development.
Otherwise they will be left behind by others, newer outfits.
*unless ...of course... someone like google buy them out*
913Glorax12 wrote:
First of all-LOL! @ConnorMacleod
If you are not good at playing a VC game, shouldn't recruiters know that? Some groups are all about Vote Chess, a system will help them greatly on who to invite.
If you are not good at VC, then you are most likley a new or a player thats learning the game. And every team has their low rated players. How do you expect them to get better if that cant play the game without making mistakes. Like the Majorty that loses games. They also learn from their mistakes. Or at least I hope they do... Maybey we should deuct points from all majority players that lost the game for each move that took them to the majority loss and reward the lesser votes and give them points for not losing the game. Nor following the majority vote for the loss to the team. Now that would be fairer...
I also leave on the first -very bad move- and also I all most never see NMs suggesting moves or discussing it. I don't think NMs want to waste there time debating with -1600s. I made my point based on the users question, not that I agree this should start.