stop degeneration of votechess!
Sort:
Make the vote chess teams more specific. For example, USA vs. Russia or East vs. West This would create better conditions for team unity.
Jul 8, 2008
0
#3
If it's vote chess, can you vote out a member of the team? :-)
Jul 8, 2008
0
#4
Or set up a vote chess game in which no discussion is possible and none of the voters sees the votes before voting.Then it would be suprising what the most voted move will be.
ozzie_c_cobblepot wrote: If it's vote chess, can you vote out a member of the team? :-)
No, neither can the chess elite kick out the chess prolerarians, but you'll be surprised at the number of people either silently obeying orders or not bothering to vote. About 80%, though most of it is in the second category.
Well this thread is not just about me - speaking for myself I can't be bothered to set up a votechess game; frankly i dont think i'll be playing votechess any more.
All suggestions are welcome. This thread is for putting-suggestions-on-record. I like the Voting-out-a-member idea --- a democratic coup! right to recall! [pending full participatory democracy which will need establishing a votechess-preletarian hegemony in the Gramscian sense.
Jul 8, 2008
0
#7
vote chess should be ratings based - maybe a level every 200 points - the best players always control the games and dominate the discussion - us hacks just get to watch
Jul 8, 2008
0
#8
Gert-Jan wrote: Or set up a vote chess game in which no discussion is possible and none of the voters sees the votes before voting.Then it would be suprising what the most voted move will be.
a great idea !!!
Gert-Jan wrote: Or set up a vote chess game in which no discussion is possible and none of the voters sees the votes before voting.Then it would be suprising what the most voted move will be.
I really like this idea as well.
frykte wrote: Gert-Jan wrote: Or set up a vote chess game in which no discussion is possible and none of the voters sees the votes before voting.Then it would be suprising what the most voted move will be.
I really like this idea as well.
oh i like the idea too now, for a different reason. [at first sight it looked like that would be a different game - votechess would then split into two categories - not necessarily a bad thing.]
The reason i like it now is - ppl could if they want still discuss/campaign via messages/notes/chess.com email - and ppl who didnt like being pestered by this could block such messages ...
how about a separate message box to go with this kind of votechess? ppl can opt to block this message box or opt out of having it altogether. Or default is no votechess-messagebox - ppl can opt in.
Who even bothers to look at the discussion? I assume it must be boring as anything to sift through. I just go to the board, spend a couple of minutes thinking, and make my move. Votechess doesn't seem serious enough to warrant anything beyond that
In the 4 games i am playing [actually 1 is over really - positional [who might as well resign even against a novice] v tactical [the side i am in]; the other is democratic by nature and in practice - at least on my 'computer' side(actually 'centaur/advanced chess') - against 'humans'. the 3rd is the one against GM Nigel Davies so i suppose there should have been more suggestions, the 4th is where i am with 'intuition' against 'calculation'. In the 3rd and 4th I think i'll just follow your suggestion - and at 1914 rating i cannot be that horrible at chess anyways :) ]
wormrose wrote: vote chess should be ratings based - maybe a level every 200 points - the best players always control the games and dominate the discussion - us hacks just get to watch
A category for rating-range-slotted votechess is not a bad idea, IF it is made clear in the announcement that people outside the range *may* join either team but will not have the vote until their rating rises or falls to within range. Likewise voters whose ratings rise or fall to outside the range midgame automatically lose voting rights: if they don't like that they can lump it ie leave the game.
I suggest a range not more than 100 points broad. That would make it democratic. If there are few takers for this sort of votechess, so be it.
How about this addition: observers below-range [and only them] have another sort of voting right instead: they can vote by simple majority to strip a voting member of voting rights, or elect to give a nonvoting member voting rights!
Jul 8, 2008
0
#14
tbierig wrote: Who even bothers to look at the discussion? I assume it must be boring as anything to sift through. I just go to the board, spend a couple of minutes thinking, and make my move. Votechess doesn't seem serious enough to warrant anything beyond that
If I were to play vote chess, this would be exactly my thought.
I like to see other's thoughts, not to be controlled by it.
Everytime I think of something i can check with the other players' comments. It's the best instant game analysis
the bad thing is that then good move is discovered, all votes have been given to another moves and there is no chance for new move to be done.
Allow vote retraction to take care of that?
This is not completely true. If you look at the game gm nigel davies vs. chess.com the high rated players were out voted early on and a couple quit. the game took a turn for the worse (ps we're catching up, thanks to other high ranked players). I think the system is fine (by the way i'm not one of the high ranked players. especially at the time of nigel vs. chess.com). We (low-midranked players) do not have to listen to the high ranked players. we can vote for what we will. we can even add to the discussion and make good points, and learn from the explanations of higher ranked players. I enjoy vote chess and think the system is completely fine.
Jul 8, 2008
0
#19
the point is that it is an open democracy - everyone gets a voice and a vote :)
Present trends in votechess at chess.com are:
A few top-rated members of each team tend to browbeat others into voting for their choice. Almost all the discussion is beteween top 8 players by rating. In one ongoing votechess game, a high-rated member said 'i wish this team had a captain with draconian powers'.
If present trends continue:
Next we'll have: 'lower-rated players, like it or lump it ie leave the game'.
Sooner rather than later: votechess games will be between 4 high-rated players on each side. high-rated is relative - by GM standards they'll play trashy chess.
Soon: the 4 high rated players will start squabbling. The only interesting part of the game will be the team comments for everyone to read after the game is over.
Finally: votechess games will have one member on each side. Time for everyone to jump on the bandwagon: anyone who wants their unrated game displayed prominently on the home page to members and nonmembers alike, will just call it a votechess game.
Any suggestions how to prevent this are welcome.