Should development time be set aside to update the Clan feature?

@Ghost-of-a-Duke said
You said you were off to play some chess.

Do that.

@Ghost,

I will do as I PLEASE within the site TOS and you'll not tell me what to do, GOT IT?

Learn no one has to listen to what you say, or what I say for that matter. You don't run the show here or do I!


-VR

@Ghost-of-a-Duke said
No, you are wrong on this. It is poor chess etiquette and goes against the spirit of chess. - It merely highlights you have lost your way in your pursuit for quantity over respect for one's opponent. - Every time you have asked a clan member to ditch their games to end a challenge, a part of your chess soul has perished.

This remains true, irrespective of the times you have beaten your drum.

I will agree to disagree with you on this. In my youth, I played OTB tournaments for 4 years averaging about 1 per month. In the team events, once a match was decided, it was quite customary to end the remaining games draw/draw and if the oppoent didn't agree, we would resign the game. Didn't happen often, but it did happen a few times. Unless you provide a benefit to playing the games out, you are wasting time playing them out. Team competions are goal driven, the goal of which is to win. If you want to play out the string in every game, don't play team chess. As it is now, there are ZERO benefits to playing them out and there is no sportsmanship issue either IMO.

@Ghost-of-a-Duke said
These limits are a good thing, to aid clan leaders unable to self regulate. (And as collusion risk is an issue for you, prevent clans playing other clans repeatedly that they know they can easily beat).


And if clans are indeed refusing to play you, maybe reflect on why this might be the case. (Rather than looking for ways to make it compulsory to play you).

So, are you proposing that in this "new set up, all clans will not have to play all clans? I am not sure how that will boost the popularity.

Once again, I defer to all other organized sports I am aware of.
If one team doesn't like another, they don't have to play each other??
Does not happen that way. Just saying.

@shortcircuit said
So, are you proposing that in this "new set up, all clans will not have to play all clans? I am not sure how that will boost the popularity.

Once again, I defer to all other organized sports I am aware of.
If one team doesn't like another, they don't have to play each other??
Does not happen that way. Just saying.

No, I am not proposing that. I have already explained the format, based on the premiership etc. (Set fixtures where all clans play each other).

If however we are just talking about a general cap, then clans will continue to choose who they want to play. (This will not affect your particular clan however, as you would clearly have no issue reaching 2000 challenges, for example, even if certain clans didn't want to play you).

And repeatedly referring to other organized sports really doesn't help your case, as in no other organized sport is the winning team the one who has simply played the most games. You get that right?

@shortcircuit said
I will agree to disagree with you on this. In my youth, I played OTB tournaments for 4 years averaging about 1 per month. In the team events, once a match was decided, it was quite customary to end the remaining games draw/draw and if the oppoent didn't agree, we would resign the game. Didn't happen often, but it did happen a few times. Unless you provide a benefit to pl ...[text shortened]... is now, there are ZERO benefits to playing them out and there is no sportsmanship issue either IMO.

Again, you are wrong on this and it is definitely a sportsmanship issue.

If my clan leader asked me to resign games prematurely just to end a challenge, I would leave the clan.

@Ghost-of-a-Duke said
No, I am not proposing that. I have already explained the format, based on the premiership etc. (Set fixtures where all clans play each other).

If however we are just talking about a general cap, then clans will continue to choose who they want to play. (This will not affect your particular clan however, as you would clearly have no issue reaching 2000 challenges, ...[text shortened]... rganized sport is the winning team the one who has simply played the most games. You get that right?

EVERY sport rewards you for winning the most games.
Think about it. The team with the best record wins (excepting if they lose in a playoff round).

You seem hung up on the volume of games, but the impetus is the collection of points, which is, in fact, the goal, is it not?

@Ghost-of-a-Duke said
Again, you are wrong on this and it is definitely a sportsmanship issue.

If my clan leader asked me to resign games prematurely just to end a challenge, I would leave the clan.

Let me ask you something here.

Say you are playing a game angainst an opponent and you make a horrible blunder in the game. The game looks helpless. Do you play that game until you are mated?
Have you NEVER resigned a game? Now by your definition, resigning is poor sportamanship because you rob your opponent of the dagger that ends the game. Whereas, resigning is an act of sportsmanship honoring your opponent by not having to make him waste his time finishing you off.

Which is it??

Edit.... place yourself in a game where you opponent has no chance to win and is just dragging the game out. Granted, they can do that, and granted you should win the game anyway, but do you consider this good sportsmanship as well?

@shortcircuit said
EVERY sport rewards you for winning the most games.
Think about it. The team with the best record wins (excepting if they lose in a playoff round).

You seem hung up on the volume of games, but the impetus is the collection of points, which is, in fact, the goal, is it not?

I said 'played' the most games, not 'won' the most games.

Obviously if all teams in a given league played 38 games, the team that won the most games would deserve the win. But if one of those teams won the most games due to having played an extra 50 games, would that victory be deserved?

@Ghost-of-a-Duke said
I said 'played' the most games, not 'won' the most games.

Obviously if all teams in a given league played 38 games, the team that won the most games would deserve the win. But if one of those teams won the most games due to having played an extra 50 games, would that victory be deserved?

Then you don't really understand the concept here. You cannot win games without playing games, right?

To win the most points you had better being playing a lot.

Oh the whining we would here if one chal won every single challenge they played.
It would never happen because no one is perfect.

You may not recall when the champion was crowned based on total points.
Many detractors said that the winner would be the one who played the most games if they had a decent win percentage.

Then they changed it to net points. That was to punsih lost challenges because they negate previously won points.....but in the end, it is still who generates the most points....period. THAT is the game.

@shortcircuit said
Let me ask you something here.

Say you are playing a game angainst an opponent and you make a horrible blunder in the game. The game looks helpless. Do you play that game until you are mated?
Have you NEVER resigned a game? Now by your definition, resigning is poor sportamanship because you rob your opponent of the dagger that ends the game. Whereas, resigning is an ...[text shortened]... at, and granted you should win the game anyway, but do you consider this good sportsmanship as well?

In an individual game, if I blundered a piece and the position was clearly lost, then yes, I would most probably resign. (Unless I saw a possible chance for a stalemate).

This is a million miles away from resigning an individual game that isn't lost, just because the clan challenge as a whole is lost.

This is your error, not mine.

@Ghost-of-a-Duke said
In an individual game, if I blundered a piece and the position was clearly lost, then yes, I would most probably resign. (Unless I saw a possible chance for a stalemate).

This is a million miles away from resigning an individual game that isn't lost, just because the clan challenge as a whole is lost.

This is your error, not mine.

YOU call it an error, I say it is not. Again we agree to disagree.

Because YOU don't like it, that doesn't make it wrong.

@shortcircuit said
Then you don't really understand the concept here. You cannot win games without playing games, right?

To win the most points you had better being playing a lot.

Oh the whining we would here if one chal won every single challenge they played.
It would never happen because no one is perfect.

You may not recall when the champion was crowned based on total points. ...[text shortened]... on points.....but in the end, it is still who generates the most points....period. THAT is the game.

The clan feature needs a cap on challenges.

Your clan would still probably win, but I suspect things would be a lot more competitive.

That can only be a good thing. Or do you prefer the perpetual two horse race?

@shortcircuit said
YOU call it an error, I say it is not. Again we agree to disagree.

Because YOU don't like it, that doesn't make it wrong.

I suspect you are in the minority. I'm content with that.

@Ghost-of-a-Duke said
The clan feature needs a cap on challenges.

Your clan would still probably win, but I suspect things would be a lot more competitive.

That can only be a good thing. Or do you prefer the perpetual two horse race?

Again, you don't know me, but my position has always been since my first day on the site regarding the rules, caps, whatever.

I do not care what they decide to do. It doesn't matter. We will adapt to whatever is put out there, as long as it is even for all clans. That is why I am not arguing for or against any particular change. I am simply justifying my actions based on the rules in place now. When they change the rules (they have done that 5 times since I have been here by the way), we will figure out our appropriate actions to excell in that format. I have explained this many times. Should I manage to figure out how to win in that scenario, they will probably want to change it again. So what?? I am a competitor. When it ceases to be fun, I will walk away.

I am not trying to be argumentative, I am simply explaining the reasons for my actions. Fair enough?

@shortcircuit said
Again, you don't know me, but my position has always been since my first day on the site regarding the rules, caps, whatever.

I do not care what they decide to do. It doesn't matter. We will adapt to whatever is put out there, as long as it is even for all clans. That is why I am not arguing for or against any particular change. I am simply justifying my actions based ...[text shortened]... I am not trying to be argumentative, I am simply explaining the reasons for my actions. Fair enough?

As I acknowledged in a previous post, clan leaders who are prolific in their challenges are not doing anything wrong. That is the nature of the current beast.

But it's in all our interest to make the clans more competitive, to slay that particular beast.

A reasonable cap on challenges would be one way to do that.