Yes oinquarki.
Maybe chess.com may improve this for diamond members only (no offense to you oinquarki)
Why limit tournament size and computer analysis?
Sort:
No, I think it's fine how it is.
How many people here even play 100 games a week anyway, let alone want chess.com to analyze them?
oinquarki wrote:
No, I think it's fine how it is. How many people here even play 100 games a week anyway, let alone want chess.com to analyze them?
Someone who plays lots of bullet games in Live Chess each day.
Then they would be a lot better off buying an older cheap version of Fritz or Rybka instead of a diamond membership.
Jun 15, 2010
0
#26
Windows-7_ wrote:
Why are platinum and diamond members still limited to 100-player tournaments and diamond members to 100-game computer analysis? There seems to be no reason for the first because Chess.com's official tournaments have hundreds (often over a thousand) players! The second point is not too rational because people rarely reach the 100 limit, unless there's a lot of live chess.
That is true. Chess.com tournaments are huge. But I guess if there was no difference between the size of the official and the player made tournaments, why join the chess.com one? I do think your point is one of interest and I would like to hear reasoning as well, even if it never gets changed.
I think the analysis thing is more understandable personally. It takes a lot of power to analyze that many games, especially if lots of people are doing so at the same time.
oinquarki wrote:
Then they would be a lot better off buying an older cheap version of Fritz or Rybka instead of a diamond membership.
Chess.com can analyze multiple games at once, you can't with desktop engines.
Jun 18, 2010
0
#29
arthurdavidbert wrote:
Limits are necessary because infinite is unrealistic.
that answer is not good enough for Windows-7 apparently. he needs specific reasons as to why there are limits that he does not agree with.
Jun 18, 2010
0
#30
trigs wrote:
arthurdavidbert wrote:
Limits are necessary because infinite is unrealistic.
that answer is not good enough for Windows-7 apparently. he needs specific reasons as to why there are limits that he does not agree with.
Specific reasons for limits are relative to the person giving them. He may not be too happy with the range of specific reasons.
Jun 18, 2010
0
#31
arthurdavidbert wrote:
trigs wrote:
arthurdavidbert wrote:
Limits are necessary because infinite is unrealistic.
that answer is not good enough for Windows-7 apparently. he needs specific reasons as to why there are limits that he does not agree with.
Specific reasons for limits are relative to the person giving them. He may not be too happy with the range of specific reasons.
agreed.
trigs wrote:
arthurdavidbert wrote:
trigs wrote:
arthurdavidbert wrote:
Limits are necessary because infinite is unrealistic.
that answer is not good enough for Windows-7 apparently. he needs specific reasons as to why there are limits that he does not agree with.
Specific reasons for limits are relative to the person giving them. He may not be too happy with the range of specific reasons.
agreed.
Correct.
Windows-7_ wrote:
trigs wrote:
Windows-7_ wrote:
trigs wrote:
Windows-7_ wrote:
trigs wrote:
Windows-7_ wrote:
trigs wrote:
Windows-7_ wrote:
arthurdavidbert wrote:
Windows-7_ wrote:
Why are platinum and diamond members still limited to 100-player tournaments and diamond members to 100-game computer analysis? There seems to be no reason for the first because Chess.com's official tournaments have hundreds (often over a thousand) players! The second point is not too rational because people rarely reach the 100 limit, unless there's a lot of live chess.
Any organization needs limits.
Explain
if we had no limits, it would be anarchy!
just imagine if i could make a tournament with as many people as i wanted. the entire website would go insane! chess pieces would start eating each other! white would change to black and black to white! dogs and cats living together! pure chaos for sure.
be real.
for the obvious reason that it could be taken advantage of in various ways. you really don't see how a limit is necessary? really?
if you don't, then let's start our tournament of 10,000 people and you can get every tournament game analyzed for us on the chess.com computer.
EDIT: and btw, there's nobody more real the Bill Friggin' Murray!
But who says we can't do 1000-player tournaments?
chess.com does.
And what's the reason?
"for the obvious reason that it could be taken advantage of in various ways. you really don't see how a limit is necessary? really?
if you don't, then let's start our tournament of 10,000 people and you can get every tournament game analyzed for us on the chess.com computer.
EDIT: and btw, there's nobody more real the Bill Friggin' Murray!"
This is not a concrete reason why Chess.com does things that way.
im goin for 100 quotations then!
Maybe the tournament lobby would be full of 1,000 person tournaments that never filled up. 100 person tournaments are adequate I think. I'm kinda crowd-phobic though.
The computer analysis limit seems generous and reasonable to me. I only feel the need to analyze a game 3 or 4 times a week though. If chess.com's computing cycles are finite, why is it not understandable there would be limits on the demands each user can place on them?
UPDATE:The Premium Memberships and Subscriptions page (http://www.chess.com/membership.html) on Chess.com now says diamond members get UNLIMITED analysis. Great!
Actually, I see no reason why the limit could not be raised. No need for 10,000. But I think at least raising it to 200-250 is fair. I myself am running multiple tournaments exclusively for premium members, and it would be nice to be able to up the limit for certain events.
BTW, as a father of 8 daughters, with 5 still at home, answers like "Because, cuz, cuz I said so", as well as others that simply say FU & your $12.99 @ month isn't very user friendly.
Sorry about that. I don't know much about computers.
But you know what I mean.