TheGrobe wrote:
Who's the idiot now?
i think that answer is quite clear in this situation.
choosing black when issuing a challenge is not available
Sort:
the only thing this has done is cause people to abort untill they get the color they want. terrible choice chess.com....just terrible....ill be moving to another chess site...thousands of others
May 13, 2010
0
#64
csx2006 wrote:
the only thing this has done is cause people to abort untill they get the color they want. terrible choice chess.com....just terrible....ill be moving to another chess site...thousands of others
just out of curiousity, does that work? eric did say that the computer looks to see what color you've played last. does aborting a game count as playing a game with that color? staff?
May 13, 2010
0
#65
Dazza668 wrote:
Now all you idiots can just piss off. I don't care what you are saying. You don't get it and you obviously never will. You don't listen, you never will.You think you're right about everything without understanding the argument. READ what I am writing. No wonder everyone wants to blow you guys up all the time.
spoken like a true, arrogant, narrow-minded idiot. good luck living under your rock of delusion for the rest of your life :)
May 13, 2010
0
#67
csx2006 wrote:
the only thing this has done is cause people to abort untill they get the color they want. terrible choice chess.com....just terrible....ill be moving to another chess site...thousands of others
says the guy who is still playing in live :)
look, we're working towards solutions, not problems. there is a problem with people always getting to set which color they want in open seeks. if this is causing aborts, we'll fix that next. if someone aborts, then the next game they will still get the same color, or something like that.
point is, we can't return to everyone just wild-westing it on whatever colors they want. it causes selfish people to play only white, and that is a burden born by everyone else. it also causes confusion. chess is a game of white and black. everyone should be playing each side ~50% of the time. that is what is fair, and that is what we will make happen. the kinks will get worked out.
erik wrote:
csx2006 wrote:
the only thing this has done is cause people to abort untill they get the color they want. terrible choice chess.com....just terrible....ill be moving to another chess site...thousands of others
says the guy who is still playing in live :)
look, we're working towards solutions, not problems. there is a problem with people always getting to set which color they want in open seeks. if this is causing aborts, we'll fix that next. if someone aborts, then the next game they will still get the same color, or something like that.
point is, we can't return to everyone just wild-westing it on whatever colors they want. it causes selfish people to play only white, and that is a burden born by everyone else. it also causes confusion. chess is a game of white and black. everyone should be playing each side ~50% of the time. that is what is fair, and that is what we will make happen. the kinks will get worked out.
Well said. In the meantime, for players who desire the White pieces every game, may I direct you to a new chess website:
Enjoy.
As long as the game is rated it may be considered formal whether it is live or not, and then I think the general OTB chess formality should rule: the color is chosen by chance. I always tick that option anyway and I think Erik might indeed consider to remove the black/white choice from online games as well (as I belive he suggested earlier). Yet keeping what I think is currently inbuilt, namely a memory of the colors from the previous game between the same players, so that they are swopped the next time.
Phobetrix wrote:
As long as the game is rated it may be considered formal whether it is live or not, and then I think the general OTB chess formality should rule: the color is chosen by chance. I always tick that option anyway and I think Erik might indeed consider to remove the black/white choice from online games as well (as I belive he suggested earlier). Yet keeping what I think is currently inbuilt, namely a memory of the colors from the previous game between the same players, so that they are swopped the next time.
I agree, but in combination with this, the accept screen would need to be changed to obscure what colour you will play when you're about to accept a random seek.
I'm convinced that the reason I tend to see mostly games where "I play black" when I look at the open seeks list is because of those who only accept seeks where they play white.
TheGrobe wrote:
Phobetrix wrote:
As long as the game is rated it may be considered formal whether it is live or not, and then I think the general OTB chess formality should rule: the color is chosen by chance. I always tick that option anyway and I think Erik might indeed consider to remove the black/white choice from online games as well (as I belive he suggested earlier). Yet keeping what I think is currently inbuilt, namely a memory of the colors from the previous game between the same players, so that they are swopped the next time.
I agree, but in combination with this, the accept screen would need to be changed to obscure what colour you will play when you're about to accept a random seek.
I'm convinced that the reason I tend to see mostly games where "I play black" when I look at the open seeks list is because of those who only accept seeks where they play white.
I agree, I did not even realize that one can see the chosen color before acceptance - that would obviously have to go as well if this idea is accepted
artfizz wrote:
and impose a slight penalty for aborting seeks ... say 24 volts.
.....but if TheGrobe's suggestion is accepted, then no need for this penalty (which otherwise is a goooooood idea 
)
Schachgeek wrote:
Players who abort for color choice should be penalized, and have to play an extra 10 games as the color they aborted from...
However, that would be penalize those who aborted because they clicked on a challenge just as the challenge window scrolled and they were assigned with a time control or opponent they did not intentionally choose.
Right, and therefore much easier to get rid of the color choice altogether (i.e. for rated games). Then the rule is much like the normal OTB rule in chess clubs and tournaments.
Well, if the algorithm tries to balance out your games then there will really be no incentive to abort since you're likely to get assigned the same colour in subsequent games (unless your new opponent is even more out of balance than you). I don't see this as an issue.
TheGrobe wrote:
Well, if the algorithm tries to balance out your games then there will really be no incentive to abort since you're likely to get assigned the same colour in subsequent games (unless your new opponent is even more out of balance than you). I don't see this as an issue.
Right, if choosing color is abandoned (but the player/player history retained for color choice) then there is no longer a problem.
May 27, 2010
0
#79
Phobetrix wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:
Well, if the algorithm tries to balance out your games then there will really be no incentive to abort since you're likely to get assigned the same colour in subsequent games (unless your new opponent is even more out of balance than you). I don't see this as an issue.
Right, if choosing color is abandoned (but the player/player history retained for color choice) then there is no longer a problem.
I agree, that is no longer a problem.
Thanks Trigs for the comment, but according to Homer Simpson Canada is "America Junior". Unfortunately, you cannot have a little bit of freedom with the option of playing unrated games. You are either have freedom or you do not. Freedom doesn't come with options, it is an absolute.
I can't believe I have to try and give a lecture on the semantics of freedom to you guys. Your country's whole existence is based on it. Has it really come to this?
lol freedom in this sense is not absolute. i'm not free to walk down the street and kill people. i'm not free to steal from people. if that is your definition of freedom then no one is free anywhere.
by the way, your definition of freedom is not what america means by freedom, obviously, but thanks for the "lesson". lol.
and honestly, if you're going to make condescending comments like this, you may want to check your facts first.
Hey trigs, thanks for the uniformed response. If you had read my earlier statement you would have seen this While you say that democracies have rules, and that is true, these rules are principally enacted to stop people from harming others or self-harming (such as your smoking in restaurants).". But no, you didn't. Whose ignorance is showing now. P.S. Canada sucks!
but the 'rules' of freedom apply to internet chess? man you are not a smart guy. heed your own words for darn sakes.