You crack me up, but you're destroying your cred. Basically you dont mean what you say.
Leechers of chess.com
Sort:
Mar 15, 2014
0
#143
Sam, mosai is either trolling or there are other... issues, either way it doesn't look like this thread is going anywhere.
Look, I think we all got a clear idea of the attitudes the leechers have. Both of the self confessed leechers who posted on this thread showcased their narcissistic qualities. Leeching is an activity done in bad taste.
This is an ethical argument. My point about increased matching time was just pointing out that there is a tangible consequence if these behaviors become more widespread. That's a mathematical fact.
You guys are making fun of people who play on chess.com for free?
mosai wrote:
This is an ethical argument.
I think you failed that class.
Mar 16, 2014
0
#147
Somebody_ wrote:
THIS IS AMAZING
BEST THREAD ON THE INTERNETZ
Wouldn't go that far, but clearly everyone's been busy feeding the troll and taking its verbal diarrhea literally. It can produce some funny responses, most notably by RonaldJosephCote , but it's getting a little tiring seeing adults argue with a dweeb on a rational basis. Egalitarian troll society (in its profile) ? What's next dumb poets society ?
Mar 16, 2014
0
#148
mosai wrote:
ilikecapablanca wrote:
mosai wrote:
Oh I see, you think I have a superiority complex and a big ego associated with the game, like JGambit. Well, I don't. If you had actually read through the thread you would realize that.
Quite frankly, no. The way that you're being so defensive against not very much suggest either boredom or insecurity. I have no intention of trying to start a fight. Really,I don't have time for cyber-combat. I'm simply stating my point of view.
I see, you're a troll.
You're welcome to stay, but you will have to bring your own food.
Yeah, like that.
ilikecapablanca wrote:
mosai wrote:
ilikecapablanca wrote:
mosai wrote:
Oh I see, you think I have a superiority complex and a big ego associated with the game, like JGambit. Well, I don't. If you had actually read through the thread you would realize that.
Quite frankly, no. The way that you're being so defensive against not very much suggest either boredom or insecurity. I have no intention of trying to start a fight. Really,I don't have time for cyber-combat. I'm simply stating my point of view.
I see, you're a troll.
You're welcome to stay, but you will have to bring your own food.
Yeah, like that.
Thank you for confirming.
the_corrupt_bishop wrote:
Somebody_ wrote:
THIS IS AMAZING
BEST THREAD ON THE INTERNETZ
Wouldn't go that far, but clearly everyone's been busy feeding the troll and taking its verbal diarrhea literally. It can produce some funny responses, most notably by RonaldJosephCote , but it's getting a little tiring seeing adults argue with a dweeb on a rational basis. Egalitarian troll society (in its profile) ? What's next dumb poets society ?
And as an adult who is clearly above these childish disputes, it is your duty to read through eight pages of them, stalk the OP's profile, and report your suspicions.
Mar 16, 2014
0
#151
I've given more thought to "leechers" and "bottom feeders" and i think they're just both strategies people utilize to attempt to take advantage of the way the rating system works. Some people prefer low risks, while others go for higher risks. As others have said in this thread, it balances out since eventually the odds would catch up to them.
I doubt the site would become lopsided with having either only bottom feeders or only leechers. There are plenty of others that haven't given as much thought to it. Also, neither have been proven as a fool proof strategy.
Assuming that "leechers" and "bottom feeders" were a problem, the only solution i had that would solve it would be to have a fixed setting. However, that would mean giving up the option for the player to decide on how difficult an opponent that person wants to play against. As we have not yet reached that point yet, i doubt people are willing to give up that choice.
Set your open seek parameters at -100 and +200. And get on with it. VERY SIMPLE.
We all must wait. SO WHAT.
I play with a 5 second bonus. Welcome to the Waiting Club! 
Mar 16, 2014
0
#153
mosai wrote:
ilikecapablanca wrote:
mosai wrote:
ilikecapablanca wrote:
mosai wrote:
Oh I see, you think I have a superiority complex and a big ego associated with the game, like JGambit. Well, I don't. If you had actually read through the thread you would realize that.
Quite frankly, no. The way that you're being so defensive against not very much suggest either boredom or insecurity. I have no intention of trying to start a fight. Really,I don't have time for cyber-combat. I'm simply stating my point of view.
I see, you're a troll.
You're welcome to stay, but you will have to bring your own food.
Yeah, like that.
Thank you for confirming.
That you're snappish? I'm glad to have helped.
Mar 16, 2014
0
#154
the_corrupt_bishop wrote:
Somebody_ wrote:
THIS IS AMAZING
BEST THREAD ON THE INTERNETZ
Wouldn't go that far, but clearly everyone's been busy feeding the troll and taking its verbal diarrhea literally. It can produce some funny responses, most notably by RonaldJosephCote , but it's getting a little tiring seeing adults argue with a dweeb on a rational basis. Egalitarian troll society (in its profile) ? What's next dumb poets society ?
That reminds me of the quote, "We have a device capable of looking up a treasure trove of knowlage. And we use it to argue with complete strangers and to look at pictures of cats."
ilikecapablanca wrote:
mosai wrote:
ilikecapablanca wrote:
mosai wrote:
ilikecapablanca wrote:
mosai wrote:
Oh I see, you think I have a superiority complex and a big ego associated with the game, like JGambit. Well, I don't. If you had actually read through the thread you would realize that.
Quite frankly, no. The way that you're being so defensive against not very much suggest either boredom or insecurity. I have no intention of trying to start a fight. Really,I don't have time for cyber-combat. I'm simply stating my point of view.
I see, you're a troll.
You're welcome to stay, but you will have to bring your own food.
Yeah, like that.
Thank you for confirming.
That you're snappish? I'm glad to have helped.
Seriously. I'm not feeding you. Go away.
People should be able to play people with higher ranks, they'll just lose quickly - or, if they deserve to, win and get to those higher ranks themselves. I play 100+ 100- and it works fine. Of course, I agree that to show one's deserving of a higher rank one should beat those who are of the same/similar rank.
teletolumby wrote:
I'm butt-hurt because I am pointing out the fallacies of your logic? If you don't have time for an objective view on your opinion then you shouldn't post a topic on a public forum.
The insult was harsh but I feel I should point out that they pointed out the fallacies in your logic.
teletolumby wrote:
I'm butt-hurt because I am pointing out the fallacies of your logic? If you don't have time for an objective view on your opinion then you shouldn't post a topic on a public forum.
The insult was harsh but I feel I should point out that they pointed out the fallacies inyour logic.
------------
Since when is calling names and whining logical? i'm pretty sure that is emotional.
I thought it was pretty obvious (as well as stated multiple times) that leeching causes an increased matching time.
Back in my day, you would get a game on chess.com immediately, every single time, 24/7.
Nowadays, while this is still mostly true, I sometimes have to wait upwards of 5 minutes to get matched for a 5 minute game. As leeching becomes more widespread and encouraged by the community, this will only get worse.
Well! The cat is finally out of the bag! It was not at all obvious, because I just re-read the thread and nowhere did you mention that "inreased matching time" was your only reason that "leeching" is bad.
I guess you think that "leeching" is up recently as opposed to "back in your day" Don't know how you could think that. People are getting smarter?
Essentially, your agrument runs, "People that leech make for a longer wait time, and this affects everyone." So, if "leechers" are willing to wait 5 minutes in order to play a game, that's not okay? I never have to wait for more than 10 seconds. EVER. And I'm in a percentile with less people even.
Basically, the smaller your seek range is, the more time you have to wait. If my minimum is -25 and I'm getting games every 10 seconds. That's not a problem. But ovbiously if what you'er saying is true and I have a 5 minute wait. I'll ovbiously lower my minimum to say -75 and cut my wait time way down.
So really it's whatever each person is willing to wait.
Just because it's still cold in your country doesn't mean global warming isn't happening. And getting people to move up north is not a real solution.