Suggestions for Vote Chess

I have been in 2 Master vs Many vote chess games that have failed due to the players commiting a serious blunder causing our side to lose a piece. (These were against Bokjov and Kraai.)

It seems that this will be a recurring feature. Players join and then spend very little time deciding their move, presumably ignoring the chat.

So I have a few suggestions.

1. Some alternative voting system. There were several cases where a move was played without a majority approval (23...c6?? vs Kraai was one of them - only 40% voted for it!!) See http://electology.org for more information about this. (That site pertains mostly to "competitive" elections but even this "cooperative" election seems to be failing...)
   1. A simple "5-star rating" could work, if the system assumed any move not rated was e.g. 3 stars. Or even a system of "approve, disapprove, neutral".
2. Perhaps a way to "like" private chat comments. You could then have three views: Recent, Most Voted (current turn), and Most Voted (all game). One of the first two should be the default view.

• However, this may be unnecessary since players may decide to keep quoting important comments (like "don't play Bf5 because Rb4 wins a pawn") thus making sure more people can see it.
• Still, it gets annoying that important comments get shoved under useless ones and then people do not see what they should see.

A reminder placed prominently to think carefully and read the chat! Perhaps even a checkbox saying "I agree I have done that" before voting. (Yes, people could fake it, but I think the problem is laziness, not malice.)

I don't think there is any way to deal with the bad chess players. They keep trolling and there is probably no way to stop them.

This might sound a little unfair, but what about weighing a vote? In other words, the higher your rating, the more your vote counts; this would ensure that those who are more "qualified" to initiate a tactic can be favored to do so without having to sell their vote like a petition.

Yes, but I thought the initial rating is 1400 or 1500... you would have to make it based on the number of games played on Chess.com as well.

Another option is to join some of the online clubs that play vote chess.  Some of them are well organised and have a good discussion group, insisting on analysing the position before people vote.

If you see any let me know. The only Vote Chess games I have been able to see are the Master vs Many ones. Might have something to do with free accounts.

I actually run a club that plays vote chess: https://www.chess.com/club/the-ultimate-training-center.  You'd be welcome to join.  Our discussion group includes players such as NM @Impractical, NM @haskovec, and others, and we make a point of discussing the position together before we vote on it.

Here's a list of all the clubs that play vote chess: https://www.chess.com/leaderboard/clubs/votechess.  Most of the teams at the top of the list play a ton of games with little or no discussion, so if you want to see some discussion, look at teams a little farther down and on later pages.  Look at one or two of their completed games, and look through the archived comments to see what kind of discussion they have.  You could join several clubs, look around, and see which ones you like.

You don't see any other vote chess games because you've never joined a club.  It has nothing to do with free accounts.  If you join a club, you can see all their games.

Yes. Drive-by voters will be the bane of any VC team.

How did Kasparov vs the World manage to produce such a good game?

Kasparov vs the World probably didn't have as many teenagers taking part.

Another advantage to private clubs is that they can remove drive-by voters.

I would suggest an extra analyses section, where moves can be discussed. After the analyses has been approved  by a minimum number of votes (e.g. 10%) they can be voted on. Maybe moves could be disapproved too, although I am not sure how that should be arranged. Maybe if 20% confirm a negative outcome?

I think this will only be necessary in these world vote games. At the club votegames I attend all is well.

When I look at the discussions, I think a moderator is badly needed. Someone who will move or remove remarks in the team session that are not about the analyses. Even in the first few moves members start to heavily discuss their preferences. A moderator should make the shift. Personal remarks can be moved to the public secttion.

i have a question about vote chess. after a challenge is accepted, how long is it until the game starts and the white team can vote? is it 1 hour, 2 hours? how long?

The game starts and the white team can begin voting immediately.  However, many clubs ask players to not vote until the last 24 hours before the deadline so that they can factor the discussion of other players into their decision of how to vote.