Black list for farty losers - Chess Forums - Page 2

ChessWitch

Nov 9, 2007

0

#21

jamjosh wrote: There is no way to know for sure if someone is ducking you and only making moves when they have a chance to win, I played JennaJamison myself and had no such problem. If you want your games played more quickly then select the 1 day per move for all your games. That will eliminate the frustration of waiting on your opponent. I like to get my games over with as soon as possible like most of you, but if you are playing a 14 day game, expect each move to take 14 days...

Well, look at my position vs him. What can I say better ?

ChessWitch

Nov 9, 2007

0

#22

jkor wrote: erik wrote: guys - seriously, we have a really neat way to take care of this soon. kinda like a consumer report / feedback thingy :)

When I suggested something similar in another topic, Refusal to resign (http://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/refusal-to-resign?page=3), writing:

"What about a new feedback system that would allow everyone to leave his comment about the correctenes of players after every game, so that it would be possible to avoid non-reliable contenders?"

someone defined this as a way of "ratting people out".

And you wrote a right thing! But often those who are ratting you out, by action, blame the same on you. There is nothing at all wrong with such feedback. You and I can afford not to think about the notorious politicorrectness

ChessWitch

Nov 9, 2007

0

#23

wetpaste wrote: thats just the way I play, I check here every once and a while and look at my alerts. If there is a move to make I make it. A lot of those games are ones that I started and made a bunch of moves in and didn't have time or energy to finish. Thats why this is not live chess. Why don't you whiners play live chess on a server or something if you care at all about speed.

You wanted to say "winners" of course, just typo I guess . You didn't understand. The whole thing was not at all about speed.

ChessWitch

Nov 9, 2007

0

#24

Igornikus wrote: erik wrote: guys - we're working on a solution to this :)

As I noticed, in every player's statistics there is such thing as time/move. It might be a very useful criteria. Those who constantly procrastinate resignation cannot have it impressive. Why not to add it as another column on the players list we have here? It is not an ultimate solution of course, but it will really give some idea who is who at that point.

I only didn't understand why to create that new column if it's already in the statistics? Saving time when pick a player from there? Well, probably this is what you meant.

Puppaz

Nov 9, 2007

0

#25

Wow... can we have our own personal blacklist for over-reacting nutters we seriously never want to play in case we have to stop playing, whilst in a bad position, and then they come on to the forums to bitch about us?

ChessWitch

Nov 9, 2007

0

#26

Puppaz wrote:

Wow... can we have our own personal blacklist for over-reacting nutters we seriously never want to play in case we have to stop playing, whilst in a bad position, and then they come on to the forums to bitch about us?

You sure can.

Queenie

Nov 9, 2007

0

#27

ChessWitch wrote:

Here is my proposal. Why not to create a list here where everyone can put a name with whom he experinced such a shallow non-gentleman behavior. We can keep it up-to-date. And it will be very useful to decide whether you want to play that guy or not. It's really interesting what you think about this.

Who is it that decides what is and what is not gentlemanly behaviour, your standards my not be the same as mine. I may be more tolerant than you. Plus how do we know the person who add's someone's name to this Blacklist, is telling the truth. We should all be able to decide if we want to play someone again, or never again. So no its not a good idea.

But who decides what

ChessWitch

Nov 9, 2007

0

#28

Igornikus wrote: Igornikus wrote: erik wrote: guys - we're working on a solution to this :)

As I noticed, in every player's statistics there is such thing as time/move. It might be a very useful criteria. Those who constantly procrastinate resignation cannot have it impressive. Why not to add it as another column on the players list we have here? It is not an ultimate solution of course, but it will really give some idea who is who at that point.

Forgot to add: time/move in lost games . Then it's almost perfect. You can say, in general everyone spends more time when he loses. That's right, but the difference between a resonable resistance and just delaying by all means seems to be signifficant.

Even this feature already exists if you open one more page of details. I agree it gives some idea.

delta5ply

Nov 9, 2007

0

#29

ChessWitch wrote:

Probably each of you, at least occasionally meets an opp onent who has no guts and dignity to admit his loss. What they do is they start spending all 3 days per a move in a position where even your pet can finish them blindfoldly. They do it even if before that they sent 20 moves an hour. And they don't start doing that unless they find themselves totally lost. You know it's a pain to have those games open. It can take you a couple of months to finish someone's lonely king even with a bunch of extra pieces. One can advise simply not to play such "fart masters". I agree, but the problem is you never know. Explore every opponent's history? - It is not much amusing. Here is my proposal. Why not to create a list here where everyone can put a name with whom he experinced such a shallow non-gentleman behavior. We can keep it up-to-date. And it will be very useful to decide whether you want to play that guy or not. It's really interesting what you think about this.

ancientpistol

Nov 9, 2007

0

#30

batgirl wrote: Nuttin' like a good ol' chess witch hunt.

well said.... this is a slippery slope, the idea of fixing the problem i understand. the idea of a member submitted blacklist, whoa........ this would be way to subjective. there must be a better solution

ChessWitch

Nov 9, 2007

0

#31

I just worked out a good practical method how to quickly see if a guy of that farty kind. Just look at his current games, those one in particular where his move and time left already counts hours (not days). And if you see that he is totally lost in all of them - it's exactly that kind of player . Don't believe? - Here is an impressive example: JennaJameson

Of course you'll easily find others, which will prove the method works fine. Takes a bit of time but really reliable.

erik

Nov 9, 2007

0

#32

last_file wrote: erik wrote: guys - seriously, we have a really neat way to take care of this soon. kinda like a consumer report / feedback thingy :)

I don't know about that. Some people are spiteful, and though you won fairly without being discourteous they would slander you anyway. Besides it's enough to 'worry' about my chess rating without worrying about my nice guy rating.

This is a good point :) However, your rating would also be a function of how often you rate other people poorly. If you rate people poorly often, your ability to affect other people's ratings diminishes greatly.

ATJ1968

Nov 9, 2007

0

#33

I don't see what the problem is. On some turn based chess sites they allocate you a certain amount of games that your allowed to play for free, and in this case it's abit of a bane that if your opponent won't resign, you can't start another game. Fair enough. But on chess.com you can play an unlimited amount of games for free,so it doesn't matter if you have an awkward opponent. Just start another game and go back to your other game when they've decided to move. Simple.

spaceman

Nov 9, 2007

0

#34

less arguing over superfluous details, have more fun please

http://www.chess.com/play/live.html  :)

defenderCR

Nov 9, 2007

0

#35

I think beginners should be made to feel they have to resign just because they are a few pieces down though. I'm currently playing a game I'm almost certain I will lose but I hope it's ok that I haven't resigned yet because I feel I can still elarn some defense from sticking it out a few moves longer. I'm not taking ages to play moves though, which does seem wrong.

erik

Nov 9, 2007

0

#36

how would people feel about having a rating next to their name ONLY in places where people can decide to play you or not (like on your stats panel, on challenges, open seeks, and the players list). maybe something like a certain number of stars, etc. thoughts?

Loomis

Nov 9, 2007

0

#37

I recall one thread where a user was seriously upset at people who didn't say "hello" or similar when the game started. I'd hate to think that people with this outlook are out there giving negative feedback scores.

Also, I hope that you will be encouraging people to give positive feedback as well as negative.

erik

Nov 9, 2007

0

#38

oh yes. we encourage good feedback. if you only give bad, then your own rating suffers as well as your effect on your opponents' ratings. i had some stanford game theory guys help me with this :)

Loomis

Nov 9, 2007

0

#39

I knew I should just trust you to roll out something cool. ;-)

King_William

Nov 9, 2007

0

#40

Quixotical wrote:

How about a blacklist for continuously repeated topics?

I second that motion!