Forums

ChessTV -- POB Topic 4: Internet Chess Ethics!

Sort:
Avatar of qixel
qixel
Aug 13, 2010
0
#41
bsrasmus wrote:I agree, an optional maximum time per move, which both players would have to agree to, would be a great solution.

Thanks, bsrasmus, I should have been clearer on that point. 

Yes, I'm talking about an optional maximum time per move that you would specify when setting up a challenge in Live Chess.  You would not be forced to use it.   

Potential opponents would see the per-move time listed in your challenge (and could filter it in their "seek" specifications), and decide whether or not they would accept a game on this basis.

Maybe this would cut down substantially on the number of your challenges accepted, but I would actually seek out games like this because I know I couldn't be stalled for a long period.  That being said, I personally only play long games (typically 30 | 3) so I'm particularly vulnerable to being stalled.

Avatar of WanderingWinder
WanderingWinder
Aug 13, 2010
0
#42
bsrasmus wrote:
eddiewsox wrote:

Non-paying  members have to look at the advertising, which generates revenue.

Not nearly as much income as a Gold member pays.  It's pretty much pennies.

You can't know for sure how much money the site gets from ads per traffic, etc. Surely they get more per person from paying members, but then paying members also get other features. If you really think that being a free member is such a better deal than paying, I don't understand why you're a paying member.

Avatar of Loomis
Loomis
Aug 14, 2010
0
#43

An alternative to a maximum time per move is an hourglass time control.

As an example, both players start with 5 minutes, on your turn your clock runs down and on your opponent's turn your clock runs up. Just as though there were an actual hourglass that you flip every time you move. If hourglass runs out on your move, you lose.

The drawback with this time control is that there is no maximum length for a game.

Avatar of cocteau
cocteau
Aug 21, 2010
0
#44
An opponent disconnected against me in a live game last night in a losing position. Rather than spending the five minutes I had to wait until abandonmrnt fuming at the poor sportsmanship I thought about his reaction. Probably banged the table, sat back in his chair and slumped. My minor irritation at the cowardice of facing up to his defeat was counterbalanced by the thought of his feelings. I won, he lost, end of story. Yes it's poor ethics, annoying, but in the end it is literally his loss!
Avatar of StrategyFiend
StrategyFiend
Sep 1, 2010
0
#45

Didn't read all the replies, but:

I think the solution is an etiquette rating.

A simple + or - by the opponent. Tracking both ratings given (how many +'s and -'s) and ratings recieved, would tell the story of a player before the game started. I'd say maybe a few checkboxes to go along with each to both explain the reason, and help sort out unjustly recieved marks should the player cry foul.

For team play, the team could perhasp be rated identically to it's to it's weakest link. Admins could then jettison the jerks from their teams to improve the team rating. This sounds less than perfect, but perhaps a good starting point.

People are more inclined to use the system for negative reporting than positive, so tracking the number of positives and negatives given is crucial.