The solution to what?
I think when the game is finished you can no longer edit comments.
It is possible to edit comments from finnished games
I just tried that and yes you can. It seems I tried that a few times a long time ago and was unable to make changes. Maybe they changed it or maybe it was a glitch.
I still don't see what problem would be solved by giving up editing and/or deleting capabilities. I don't see how that's going to stop cheating and I don't believe cheating is a major problem in vote chess. Group rankings are based more on activity than winning/losing.
It doesn't have to be a question of a mole. That's besides the point. The point is people should not be allowed to hide their footprint in vote chess games, specifically because the discussion for both sides becomes a public archive. In one team alone (one of the highest performing teams at that), I found not one, not two, but three of the most active members editing and/or deleting their posts from most every turn when I reviewed the archive. It's this kind of crap that's got to stop, and the way to do it is to restrict this kind of behavior.
[COMMENT DELETED] refute that!
I agree with joeydvivre. From the moment you write something in a public site, it isn't yours anymore.
Has it been discussed at any point as to how silent votes and voters can be exposed and/or eliminated in VC games? I ask because in my group, we are trying to weed out silent voters as it has become a detriment and a bit of a cancer...and it seems that several groups have similar problems in their respective VC matches. I will not go as far as calling it sabotage; but if it is a hasty and blunderous move the rest of the team is aware of that is ultimately cast, it makes participation in such matches a waste of time.
After the time expires and all votes are cast for the next move, we can (presently) see only the number of votes and the percentage (for the overall votes cast). Only then do we realize that votes were cast for other moves that were neither suggested nor discussed. In incidents where there is a tie, I believe it is usually the first vote cast in the tie that registers when the clock expires (i.e.--a 1-to-1 vote):
What I would like to see is the final results showing a list of all registered team members and the votes they cast beside their handle:
In the above example, the c4 vote is the silent and blunderous move that was cast in an actual VC game...the names have been changed to protect the innocent. This would create more transparency in each VC game if it is seen (by all registered members) who cast votes for each move...especially those not discussed or even suggested to the rest of the team for consideration.
To save space on the screen, the format could appear as a two column list if several members (maybe 10+) have voted. The following is not a good example because the formatting styles are limited:
The quandry (for me) is whether it is better for it to appear in a revised version of the existing results (currently at the top right corner of page) or as a final post in Team Comments.
I am extremely grateful for feedback and will be tracking discussions in this forum. Cheers!
If we are discussing history, it also shows that many do not like to operate in a group unless they have some degree of power and control, and that they also do not like accountability and transparency. It is much easier to sneak and do things anonymously and feel gratified with that route.
If people want to play their own way, that is what individual matches are for. If people want to play as a team...even if there are disagreements within the group (and even if the final results are blunderous), there should still be more cohesiveness. However, this requires a degree of humility which history also reveals is not fully understood by some...because pride and arrogance is more prevalent and 'popular'.
For some group admins (of course I cannot speak for all), such behavior in VC games is a common frustration when certain ones in such matches are too selfish or inconsiderate to share their views or suggestions for moves and just go out on their own and cast votes that do not give others a fair chance to consider (whether for or against). I'm sorry you think my statement was a bit strong. That was not my intent; but, if you consider the human body (which consists of many members with different functions), and there is a 'cancer' or other serious 'infirmity' that is causing the overall unit to not operate at its best, you would not just let it sit there and fester...risking further infection.
The proposed transparency in vote chess results for each move just levels the playing field for the team. People can still vote silently; but, at least it can be seen (by all) how the votes fell.
I don't think there's anything wrong with trying to create a super race of vote chess players to be honest.
Chess is a single player game as far as I can see. I mean, I'd learn from being in a team of higher rated players, but then I'm not contributing. I don't care what someone weaker than me thinks about a move.
So when you list your personality traits do you include "authoritarian" or you just haven't thought about it very deeply?
The way a team operates reflects back to its leadership. Authoritarian may be your description for me. However, I prefer republican...hence the root word. An authoritarian wants total obedience, without question. But I suppose if we are going to compare apples and oranges, would you include "anarchist" in your list of personality traits? Or have you just not thought about it very deeply?
Many types of authority exist everywhere and on all levels. Whether the authority is dictatorial or democratic in nature, the core purpose is to establish and maintain some sense of order (albeit not perfect). Otherwise the role of authority is diminished.
To a fool, rules are the bars of a cage, but to the wise man they are the stones which pave the road to freedom. ---anonymous
First - I don't think the activities of Internet vote chess teams are likely to fall under scrutiny by human rights groups for cruel and inhuman practices. Vote chess teams should not be allowed to declare war or overthrow governments or practice genocide or massacre whales.
Second - Like minded people (should) have a right to peaceably assemble for the purpose of achieving a goal and they (should) have the right to remove those who would interfere with the success of their ventures. Silent/drive-by voters are troublemakers plain and simple.
Third - The main reason I can think of to play discussion/vote chess is for the learning experience, not to promote the spread of fascism.
Fourth - Publishing who voted for what move, would discourage a lot of people from voting, hence participation would decline.
My suggestion earlier was for the creation of a list of candidate moves for team consideration and only the moves on the candidate list could be voted for. Anyone could submit a candidate move and that person would be known. That means the silent voter, the rebel, the drive-by voter could not vote for their vandalous secret move without revealing their secret identity.
Hmmmmm. There seems to be a lot of static noise on this frequency. Let's leave the floor open to some real 'fruitful' discussion.
You keep loosely using the term 'little guy'. Does the 'little guy' actually portrays himself as little? I think not if he has any ambition about himself. It's those who tend to look down on others as insignificant and unimportant that classifies one as 'little'. Each person has to stand tall on his own feet and make his mark...not just sit back feeling entitled to something.
But hey, post your reply since you are hard-up for getting the last word in regardless of what anyone says in this forum.
Thank you wormrose. This is what I was trying to inquire of before this entire forum got hijacked. I missed your post amidst all the smoke that was being blown.
I can understand your angle, and the candidate vote approach sounds quite logical.
Some of the ideas are good. The only problem I can see is, having staff dedicated to implement them. None of these ideas are high priority for chess.com and most will never happen. It's a wish list and a lot of work for any staffer that has to write a lot of code to make it all happen the way I see it written here. Good luck with this.
This is a nice article Matin0. Keep it up.
Over the past several months, I figured this wasn't anywhere near the top of the priority list. On the positive side (speaking for The Glory of Chess in particular) the silent/rogue votes have mostly subsided. There seems to have been an upsurge in group participation and communication in the VC matches, which has minimized the frustration among the admins.
I suppose another thing to consider is if Chess.com was to implement any of these ideas, what would the cost be to the paying members?
Some years ago it was uncommon with teams that said "discuss first vote later" and have rules like "Don't vote until <24 hours left"
Anyway more features means more members and more members means more paying members and more paying members means lower cost for paying members. It's not like it costs much (only time) to implement these ideas and they are always improving chess.com.
Some years ago it was uncommon with teams that said "discuss first vote later" and have rules like "Don't vote until
I for one really am a fan of Vote chess. That being said when I came across you very well written article, I would hope that at least some of you ideas will be implemented. I left another paying site to join Chess.com because of features such as Vote chess and Online Chess. Thanks again for taking the time for the post !
I have a question: Does anybody know who voted for what move?
In our team, Ponziani Power, we have extensive discussions on what is the best move and why? Sometimes several moves are discussed. Sometimes we pretty much agree and just about everybody votes for one certain move. At other times there are usually only two candidate moves and we see which candidate move gets the most votes.
We are asked not to vote until the discussion is finished.
One thing I do not like is the provision that whoever votes first is the tiebreaker as that encourages people to vote before there has been a discussion of the merits of various candidate moves.