Solitude
Mr. Nice Guy
Yep I've lost to both of you. Good luck! Hey and I hope to meet you in the tournament. Finally managed to beat vuade and will now lie in wait to hopefully play better against you.
ChessConquest - official discussion thread
- Thread starter Solitude
- Start date
Yep I've lost to both of you. Good luck! Hey and I hope to meet you in the tournament. Finally managed to beat vuade and will now lie in wait to hopefully play better against you.
ViperGTI
New member
When I first played against him I thought I should be able to win since he has lost against two people who I've won before... I was wrong. He must have had an off day or something because this guy is very strategic and sneaky. Have never been able to beat him.
...or he was just warming up. I've noticed a couple of players starts playing much better after a few games. Especially those who haven't played chess in a couple of years.
Yotta, my experience is that the standard of play among the leading players on this site is noticeably higher in the last few weeks. Even so, the improvement Jakkals has shown from the first game has been remarkable.
Your games will start automatically. Had a look at your current position in die SK II knockout tournament Fivel, and two games still needs to be completed before your next game kicks off.
The winner of Roger vs Methos plays against Ramsaychess, and that winner plays you.
Roger and Methos is both on 1 each because of automatic timeouts. A random decider game was started, and if neither one of them makes a move Methos will progress to the next round (randomly decided by automatic timeout system).
Last edited:
We were thinking of making change the conditions to enter a ChessConquest tournament, since inactive players can pontentially hold up the whole tournament.
I thought this forum might be the best place to hear what you guys think about our idea. We were thinking that players may only enter tournaments after they have completed at least 5 games. This will prevent players from signing up, entering a tournament and never making a move.
Would love to hear what you guys think?
I thought this forum might be the best place to hear what you guys think about our idea. We were thinking that players may only enter tournaments after they have completed at least 5 games. This will prevent players from signing up, entering a tournament and never making a move.
Would love to hear what you guys think?
Solitude
Mr. Nice Guy
That's a good idea, yotta. It looks like a lot of players enter the tournaments only to not play at all. Maybe you can even make it that a player must have an official rating before he is allowed to play in tournaments. Or are you trying to cater for players who specifically join the site to play in tournaments?
On a different subject, I'm going to try and be at Sci-Bono by 10. Kasparov will be addressing the people before he plays. Eh, I hope it's worth going, since I haven't been in that part of Joburg in years and it's quite far away from where I live.
Our vision is to create a website for players that enjoy chess casually, as well as the more serious tournament player. We're more interested in creating a website where every level of chess player is welcome. Will put my thinking cap on about the rating limit on entering tournaments.
Solitude
Mr. Nice Guy
With the official rating I mean, ChessConquest official rating of course.
So that they have to play that initial 10 games to be able to play in tournaments.I've been thinking about the problem of defaulting players in tournaments. It's my experience that it happens on most sites.
I don't think that it is wise to force new players to play a few non-tournament games first as this creates the image that Chessconquest is an exclusive clique. I would prefer to provide a welcoming environment for new players.
On the other hand, there is something wrong when a player does not make a move in a game with two day time controls AND a five day time bank. We need to make such infractions visible.
My suggestion is that where a player has forfeited a game on time, that this should be shown on the rankings page as well as on his/her profile. This might be done by showing the date that this occurred for a period of, say, six months. In that period the player will only be allowed to play one tournament at a time.
When the site goes commercial I would suggest that non-premier members be allowed to play only one tournament at a time. That would also help to address this issue.
Does anyone else have thoughts on this?
I don't think that it is wise to force new players to play a few non-tournament games first as this creates the image that Chessconquest is an exclusive clique. I would prefer to provide a welcoming environment for new players.
On the other hand, there is something wrong when a player does not make a move in a game with two day time controls AND a five day time bank. We need to make such infractions visible.
My suggestion is that where a player has forfeited a game on time, that this should be shown on the rankings page as well as on his/her profile. This might be done by showing the date that this occurred for a period of, say, six months. In that period the player will only be allowed to play one tournament at a time.
When the site goes commercial I would suggest that non-premier members be allowed to play only one tournament at a time. That would also help to address this issue.
Does anyone else have thoughts on this?
ViperGTI
New member
Yotta, this actually sounds like something on the right track to me.
Maybe you can have a field like "Time-out losses in past 6 months" which would be a number and if that number is greater than 3 for example, than limiting factors should come into play. Not all games are 2 days to move + 5 days timebank. Some games like Speed Kings does not have timebanks and something can happen that a person is not available over a weekend for instance and loses 2 games like that due to timeout which almost happened to my one opponent I'm playing now.
Or perhaps you can combine your and tallfred's ideas by setting prerequisites per tournament. E.g. for "Speed Kings V" tournament, a player must have played at least 5 games already and have less than 3 timeout losses or maybe even something with ratings like a "Top 20 tournament" where the official rating must be at least 1200 or if you really want, a newbie tournament where only people still with a provincial rating can enter.
Horlicks00
New member
I like tallfred's idea and ViperGTI's, but i don't think i will go as far as restricting players, rather make the stats available and players with a bad rep will find it harder to get opponents willing to play against them. The system where they get auto opted out in tournaments is also good and should keep a tournament going. Maybe add a button for reporting bad players but that might get abused.
Thanks for the video post, it is a shame i only read the whole thread today and saw that i missed the Gary Kasparov exhibition, would have like to see him play in real life.
@Yotta keep up the good work and thanks for a great website which helps playing chess against others fun in a day where our busy lifestyles don't always allow us to sit down and enjoy a game of chess. Chessconquest.com is also a lot better than other websites and i have tried to play on a few but they end up being to confusing. Keep it simple and user friendly and they will come, lol. @Solitude i also had to read "The Design of Everyday Things" for my course on System Informations.
Will see you guys at chessconquest, @tallfred i will only challenge you when i get a bit more better, have to get rid of some rust.
Thanks for the video post, it is a shame i only read the whole thread today and saw that i missed the Gary Kasparov exhibition, would have like to see him play in real life.
@Yotta keep up the good work and thanks for a great website which helps playing chess against others fun in a day where our busy lifestyles don't always allow us to sit down and enjoy a game of chess. Chessconquest.com is also a lot better than other websites and i have tried to play on a few but they end up being to confusing. Keep it simple and user friendly and they will come, lol. @Solitude i also had to read "The Design of Everyday Things" for my course on System Informations.
Will see you guys at chessconquest, @tallfred i will only challenge you when i get a bit more better, have to get rid of some rust.
I@tallfred i will only challenge you when i get a bit more better, have to get rid of some rust.
Welcome to the site. I'm looking forward to playing you. Most of the time I keep the number of games I'm playing down to a limit that I can handle, so I sometimes decline games. I'm sure that when a new stronger player comes along the demand for my attention will drop
And yes, I agree that publishing the names of defaulters can act as a social deterrent, but that needs to be fitted in to the greater context of the site.
My plain observation is that Chessconquest is NOT for everyone. If we encourage newbies to play here, we should recognize that at least some of them will find that it does not suit them. The only way that they can be certain is by actually trying it. We should not get upset if they decide some time in a game that they want out. It's a free country, no?
The other side is that it is no fun sitting alone with a set of pieces wondering what happened to the other party.
My view is that we have a responsibility to encourage both newbies and established players to finish what they started. Showing that we take defaulting seriously is one way.