The Forums: Time for sub 1600 player restrictions

It is clear that one of the major problems with the crappy state of the forums is the repetitive nature of the threads. Surprisingly low quality threads like : Who is the best player of all time? Why do women suck at chess? and... Is Magnuson better than Fischer? always get a huge amount of responses despite the fact that there will never in the history of forever be a clear answer to any of it.

The bishop vs knight issue is another prime example.

Every single possible chess question has been asked at least ten times over and trampled to dust by a legion of posters, all this sublime knowledge is at your finger tips in the archives and yet we are forever subjected to the same rubbish over and over again.

I have noticed the biggest culprits are players rated lower than 1600 and while I have nothing personal against weak players I think it is high time cc restrict the posting rights of sub 1600 players to Off Topic forums only where they can discuss anything but chess.

People who know little about chess should not be released on the rest of us where they can commit their ultra useless threads without any restriction whatsoever.

Obvious troll is obvious.

1. Look at your own rating (hint: none).

2. Really? <1600 players shouldn't discuss chess? Who are you?

my lack of rating has to do with ethical reasons and not my chess ability.

And B ...sub 1600 players don't know enough about chess to comment on chess, send them to the archives.

I think it is hardly fair that you show this much aggression toward me while I am simply trying to improve the quality of the site.

Okay, I guess discard my first comment. If you have only 2 posts here and no other public activity I guess you are on another legitimate account. That is none of my business of course.

If on the other hand you truly have no rating no one can validate your chess ability to satisfy your own rules. If this is the case I assume you are trolling...

Perhaps I was more "directly" aggressive than you were, but your assertion that players who aren't as good at you as chess shouldn't be posting on the fora is arrogant in itself.

I meant "who are you" as in "why are you/1600+ players so important." Honestly I just woke up, but I fail to see how it is so obvious to block out the vast majority of the chess.com population so higher rated players don't have to listen to them, as if nothing matters but the value 1600+ players get from interacting with anyone else on the fora.

blitz...lety it go, just another typical "Im better than anyone" troll

Let's say there is a crowd of 100 people that are into baseball. 5 of those play for the Yankees and the other 95 play for fun on weekends. Who would you rather listen to concerning the inner workings of baseball? It doesn't mean the 5 Yankees are superior beings they are just very good at baseball. So you would rather listen to the Yankee players especially if the other 95 guys are asking the same dumb questions over and over again.I hope this makes it more clear. This is why the Romans had the senate in the forums ,you just could not leave things up to the mob and allow them in there.

@Diakonia ,you have missed the point utterly ,with a rating like yours I find it almost depressing unless you are an engine user.

Sorry, this is impossible, it would require the chess.com devs to write some code.  We're looking at a minimum of two years before it can even be considered.

The talking down to people thing is old.  Its been done repeatedly here.  

Really? says the guy who missed the point and then started the talking down thing.

If 1600 players can't post in forums, how would 1) chess.com encourage new members to become more interested in chess and 2) how would new members learn by not asking questions?

@kieseritzykvskis-revenge surely it cannot be that difficult , another option is for the community to simply report sub 1600 players that post any chess topic and mute them for 12 months.

Yes really...and i didnt talk down to you.  I pointed out your overly done online personna.  At least find something original.

this is a fun thread- I (a sub 1600) definitely want in on this!

so how does this work, perhaps by saying something you get automatically insulted... interesting.

and why is it that its always "ducks" that are the most trollish animal on cc?

@ Mervyn they could learn by simply going to the archives where they can easily search literally every chess question ever asked.Also if you are interested in chess not being able to write threads untill you have a high enough rating shouldn't be a problem, especially considering the crap 99% of sub 1600 players write.

This guy is hilarious!

No one said you have to listen to them and you certainly don't have to read the threads (like you, I find a lot of the popular threads silly but apparently have the ability to ignore them). Lots of other people disagree with you anyway. 

The replies here are pretty much following the scientific method from the dark ages: crap all over the voice of reason and logic.

Those are what I'd call chess culture questions. They may never have a definitive answer, but it gives people a sense for what's out there. For example you may not agree Fischer or Kasparov was the best player of all time, but you see their names pop up often enough to know that they belong in the conversation.

You may not agree that for some people it's impossible to be a grandmaster, but in the arguments you get a sense for how much time or effort might be required.

This is to say, I think they're useful. And ultimately, if you don't want to read them again, you don't have to click on the topic.

I'm kind of regretting getting on the VERY long rematch thread though.  you know in many of these threads rating is entirely irrelevant.  instead if someone goes on the attack and insults people, the thread goes On and on...

if you want to exclusively talk to stronger players- there's groups made up of stronger players And there's forums on those groups.