Meower wrote:
Well, certain people cannot do that. I cant persuade my parents to buy me a cheap membership, and I cant do it myself. Im 12
Thats the unfairness, same for me, try playing in tourneys, i got mine from one.
Non-Members should be able to make clubs and promote to SA
Sort:
Jul 31, 2020
0
#144
CounterproductiveHam wrote:
You can create clubs without...
Not anymore. That was removed.
Jul 31, 2020
0
#147
I believe they changed it for other reasons too.
An avalanche of issues ...
Chess.com is generous - allowing free accounts in the first place.
Jul 31, 2020
0
#148
CounterproductiveHam wrote:
I created one 3 days ago
Then it was removed sometime after that 
Jul 31, 2020
0
#149
BISHOP_e3 wrote:
@Martin_Stahl >>>
1) Currently chess.com does not allow non-premium members to create clubs?
2) May non - premium members be coordinators, admins, and super-admins?
There were recent changes.
Non payers (non-premium) could always be coordinators or admins - but not superadmins.
But recently - chess.com changed it so that nonpayers could create clubs - and therefore be superadmins -
as when creating clubs - one is therefore automatically a superadmin (SA).
'Club owners' are always superadmins.
But apparently - nonapyers able to create clubs is being rolled back to 'no can do'.
And I've also heard that nonpayers able to be promoted to SA also to be rolled back.
All verified? Too soon to tell.
Admins able to promote - was rolled back to - 'no not able to do so'. And good thing.
Aug 1, 2020
0
#151
As of a few days ago non premium members can no longer create new clubs but for now (at least) non premium members can still be promoted to SA. They can still be promoted to admin or coordinator.
twice the seconds expired and increased again. this is not fair. the game should have ended in a draw. but because the seconds expired and increased again, the other side won the game. this is not a fair site. it is a biased and bigoted gaming site. unacceptable.
Dec 10, 2023
0
#155
umutceviren wrote:
twice the seconds expired and increased again. this is not fair. the game should have ended in a draw. but because the seconds expired and increased again, the other side won the game. this is not a fair site. it is a biased and bigoted gaming site. unacceptable.
The site has lag compensation and it's possible if you have a lot of lag, that you'll see exaggerated time changes on your opponent's clock
https://support.chess.com/article/423-why-did-the-clock-times-suddenly-change-the-clocks-seem-broken
Dec 10, 2023
0
#156
'lag compensation'. Interesting.
That would mean for example that on premoves - players' clocks advance exactly equally whichever of the two makes the premove - his clock advances equally to the other player when that other makes a premove.
That would also mean that the slower player's clock lag gets added to the other player's too on every single move?
Gets complex because lag may change during a game.
Dec 11, 2023
0
#157
playerafar wrote:
'lag compensation'. Interesting.
That would mean for example that on premoves - players' clocks advance exactly equally whichever of the two makes the premove - his clock advances equally to the other player when that other makes a premove.
That would also mean that the slower player's clock lag gets added to the other player's too on every single move?
Gets complex because lag may change during a game.
Your opponent's lag is never counted against your clock, only the lag between you and the server process.
Dec 11, 2023
0
#158
Martin_Stahl wrote:
playerafar wrote:
'lag compensation'. Interesting.
That would mean for example that on premoves - players' clocks advance exactly equally whichever of the two makes the premove - his clock advances equally to the other player when that other makes a premove.
That would also mean that the slower player's clock lag gets added to the other player's too on every single move?
Gets complex because lag may change during a game.
Your opponent's lag is never counted against your clock, only the lag between you and the server process.
Which could mean a lot of things - and which has implications.
Meower wrote:
I think the fact that normal members cannot be SA or make a club makes me angry. People who don't pay the site do not have the capability to make a club that they enjoy in? To chill out and also have fun? Not only that, normal members also can't be SA. In a lot of clubs, I am much more active than most of the SA, and I do much more. But guess what? I can't demote members or manage the club at all. I can only post news and do vote chess. I think this is really unfair and should be changed.
freeloader
noun
- One who does not contribute or pay appropriately; one who gets a free ride, etc. without paying a fair share.
- An individual who gets merchandise from the back of supermarket premises that is past its sell-by date.
- Someone who takes advantage of the generosity of others.
I think that people who pay for a Chess.com membership should not have to read posts from freeloaders.
Dec 12, 2023
0
#160
Q
"I think that people who pay for a Chess.com membership should not have to read posts from freeloaders."
chess.com gets a big share of the internet chess market by allowing free members.
Obviously - paying members have to be offered a lot more privileges than nonpaying members or else why should they bother to pay for membership?
Regarding what one reads - nobody is compelled to read anything on the website.
And regarding those who don't want to see unwanted posts in forums they make - there's this feature available to all members called 'blocking'.
Unfortunately there are powerful cliques among chess.com members who try to isolate and harass people who use their blocking options.
Also 'unfortunate' - chess.com has made blocking 'global' instead of venue-based. The rationale appears to be that if somebody blocks somebody else then (doesn't follow) that the first person 'doesn't like' the second person so it 'may as well' be global.
When I've brought this up before that blocking should be venue-based ... I've gotten 'oh you'd need a lot of 'code' for that'. Which I don't believe.
Regarding those who don't want various people in clubs they make - that one is taken care of by something called 'banning'.
Oddly - banning often gets less backlash than blocking does.
One can also simply construct one's club 'by invitation only' and doesn't have to be by using the chess.com 'Invite' feature either - and/or simply switch to such policies after the club has become big enough and active enough to be viable.
Nobody makes fun of non premium until they start whining and griping about what they can and cannot do when they already have more features than you get by paying on most other sites