@Supreme_Gamer_Girl, post #13-----"chessturbate"...LOL!! I love this girl; she tells it like it is.
Why does the league system exist?
Sort:
Most Recent
Forum Legend
Following
New Comments
Locked Topic
Pinned Topic
I'm talking about the wood/stone league thing in chess.com.
So basically: If I play way too many games, lose all my friends and become a hikikomori, I will get to emerald league and dry my tears with a worthless virtual trophy?
Do people fall for that? It's a typical EA/Activision move to get people addicted.
You can easily leave the league if you don't like it I don't know why anyone would have a problem with it though.
Because some people will get stuck in it, just like microtransactions and lootboxes in games. Most people can ignore it, for a while at least, but some will do something harmful even when they know it's bad for them. "Just one more spin", "just one more game", "just win back my money and quit".
At least league don't cost money and only possible negative outcome is an unhealthy amount of time spent on chess while chasing first place.
I guess that it maybe makes people to play chess a little bit more but is it bad or good thing? Some people needs motivation to it would be fun for them and having fun is the point, isn't it? As far as there are not involved any money, payments and etc. I don't see a problem. If it was bad only because its a competitive thing then every competitive sport would be bad.
I personally don't see much sence in this feature and I am not in any league but maybe some other people like that. Comparing it with microtransactions feels a bit weird to me...
While I love gamification in general, at least when done for a good purpose (making medicine taste good is fine, making fast food taste better and potentially more addictive is less fine), this specific type of gamification or at least it's implementation is a bit iffy.
What are this type of league motivate people to do? It's not a "good learning" scoring where by doing one lesson a week, at least one puzzle every day and one game with review get you point. That would motivate new players to adopt somewhat good learning practice and not to drop chess for a long period of time. But leagues like this, both here and on duolingo, have a tendency to motivate "quantity over quality" grind. If you want to continue to advance find what gives you most points per time unit and then do it whole day. No time for lessons since they give 0 points, no time for puzzles since they are worth 0 points and no time for reviewing played games. And since you have an upper limit on number of point you can realistically get in an hour, you will have to increase amount of hours played instead to increase your points.
You see where it might get wrong for some people?
I believe that playing games and looking for what did you do wrong in them is the most efficient way how to learn chess. I have not done here a single puzzle either a lesson... of course I had some knowledge of these things before I came here so its not like people could skip these things when they learn chess..
But when something is called league I would say that you should get points there from winning games and not from how many puzzles you solved or how many lessons you did. Just look at the puzzle ratings of people.. they don't colerate at all with how strong in chess the people really are .. motivating people to analysis their games would be nice, but I am not sure how exactly you would like to do that. There is no way how to say if the person actually tried to find the mistakes and get something usefull from the analysis.
If there is something what I would change with the system then I wouldn't give people points for the lost games because how you said it doesn't motivate people to be better but only to play more.