ARCHIVED POSTS
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 815 OF 1118 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
May-10-15
 | | OhioChessFan: <A small code change that might effect some users: > "affect" |
|
| May-10-15 | | zanzibar: <CG> one might supplement the list by adding players with a large number of games on <CG>. ChessGames.com Statistics Page
Bisguiser is #181 according to N_games. |
|
| May-10-15 | | zanzibar: <OCF> ha! Always at the ready. |
|
May-10-15
 | | Penguincw: < zanzibar: <CG> one might supplement the list by adding players with a large number of games on <CG>. > Speaking of the Stats Page, is anyone here in favour of extending the "Which chessgames.com users have kibitzed the most?" to something like top 75? :) Or maybe there would be too many repercussions... |
|
| May-10-15 | | zanzibar: <Penguincw> another slice that might be useful would be to sort users by YTD numbers. Maybe a YTD/Total or vice-a-versa listing? |
|
May-10-15
| | OhioChessFan: <Speaking of the Stats Page, is anyone here in favour of extending the "Which chessgames.com users have kibitzed the most?" to something like top 75? :) Or maybe there would be too many repercussions...> I'd kind of like it removed completely. |
|
May-10-15
 | | SwitchingQuylthulg: I don't think it would be a good idea to add new most-kibitzes lists, or to extend the existing ones; if anything, I agree with <OhioChessFan>'s view that scrapping the list entirely would be better. Historically, all such lists have done is encourage people to spam and post fluff to increase their post counts. Back in the day, people spammed the Wesley So page in an attempt to get it to overtake the Carlsen page and the Kibitzer's Café; that might have happened even without the Statistics Page, but it certainly didn't help.
Before that, we had the 2007 Spam Wars, with the list of Most Popular Chessforums getting the axe. Granted, posting fluff for the sake of posting fluff isn't necessarily that harmful - at least when it takes place in people's own chessforums, where legitimate on-topic discussion won't get sidetracked. A number of people have found spamming fun, and I won't begrudge them that as long as they don't take it to a page where it's not welcome. But the notion that "most kibitzes" is some kind of competition, with people wishing to move up in the standings, is something we shouldn't encourage. |
|
May-10-15
 | | chessgames.com: <Minor nitpick: guideline #3 has 'users', while #5 has 'members' - should be synchronized. I prefer the term 'members', personally. :)> Thanks for pointing that out. I prefer "members" too. The term "users" is sort of elitist. <Penguincw> <Do birthdays count (ex. posting their date and month, but not year)?> If the person has not announced their birthday openly here, then we shouldn't be dropping clues. Part of the logic here is not only an overall respect of privacy, but to prevent crimes such as identity theft, to making internet-snooping more difficult, and so forth. There are some double-standards built into the rule. If you are famous to some degree, like say a GM, you automatically lose an expectation of privacy when it comes to things like birthdays. This in accordance with US law, where celebrities are not afforded the same protections as us "ordinary citizens" when it comes to their private lives. The price of fame, I suppose. |
|
May-10-15
| | chessgames.com: <Penguincw> <Speaking of the Stats Page, is anyone here in favour of extending the "Which chessgames.com users have kibitzed the most?" to something like top 75? :)> <OhioChessFan> I'd kind of like it removed completely. I tend to agree with Ohio more than Penguin. There are regrets ever making it, as it has at least once inspired somebody to go on a spree posting fatuous comments by the hundreds in an effort to "make the list." I doubt we'll remove it but let's just leave it as it stands. |
|
| May-10-15 | | Jim Bartle: I'd prefer to get off the list... |
|
May-10-15
| | Penguincw: Heheh, probably shouldn't have brought up that topic. D: :| Gonna temporarily change topic here:
<cg>, on April 22nd, I sent you an email, but haven't gotten a response yet. I re-sent the same email on May 2nd, but still no reply. :| The first question I asked, has been answered. The next section of the email was just corrections around the site, so take your time on it. The last question was: When is the next team vs. team challenge (like, any specific date)? I also left a "P.S." section on the email, notifying that from now on, I'll be sending emails from my new email account, instead of the one I registered with. :) |
|
May-10-15
| | chessgames.com: Sorry Penguin, I somehow overlooked that email. (Both of them!) Please check your box, I sent a reply. |
|
May-10-15
| | chessgames.com: By the way, you can update your email on your account any time at the Chessgames Preferences Page. The only wrinkle is that you'll have to go through the email verification phase before you can post again. |
|
May-10-15
| | Penguincw: < chessgames.com: Sorry Penguin, I somehow overlooked that email. (Both of them!) Please check your box, I sent a reply. > Quite alright, thanks for the response. :)
< chessgames.com: By the way, you can update your email on your account any time at the Chessgames Preferences Page. The only wrinkle is that you'll have to go through the email verification phase before you can post again. > So it's that easy... |
|
| May-10-15 | | Abdel Irada: <OhioChessFan: <Speaking of the Stats Page, is anyone here in favour of extending the "Which chessgames.com users have kibitzed the most?" to something like top 75? :) Or maybe there would be too many repercussions...> I'd kind of like it removed completely.>
I agree, although it does sometimes supply grist for amusing exchanges like this: <<HeMateMe>: ...unlike <mort> and <abdel>, who have nothing better to do than sit around talking about politics on a chess server.<Colonel Mortimer>: Says the man with 30,716 posts.> ∞ |
|
| May-10-15 | | Shams: <cg> <There are regrets ever making [the most frequent kibitzers list], as it has at least once inspired somebody to go on a spree posting fatuous comments by the hundreds in an effort to "make the list." I doubt we'll remove it but let's just leave it as it stands.> You think he wouldn't have done that without the list? I doubt that. His posting style reminds me of that couple in Florida (now facing serious prison time) who insisted on having sex on a public beach in full view of the gathered crowd. Personally I'd like to see the list go, just because I find it a bit embarrassing to be on it... |
|
| May-11-15 | | shivasuri4: The closing date of the latest Grand Prix tournament should be changed to May 27th. |
|
| May-11-15 | | shivasuri4: Also please have a look at the names of Vachier Lagrave and Dominguez. |
|
May-11-15
| | chessgames.com: Thanks shivasuri4, I'm full of typos today. |
|
May-11-15
 | | Domdaniel: < His posting style reminds me of that couple in Florida (now facing serious prison time) who insisted on having sex on a public beach in full view of the gathered crowd> Ah, Florida ... whose behaviour is most reprehensible -- the (exhibitionist) couple, the (voyeuristic) crowd, or the (draconian) authorities? |
|
| May-11-15 | | zanzibar: I thought she was dancing...
(Better to learn it on the beach than on the street - or maybe not - given the problem sand presents, speaking hypothetically of course) * * * * *
Question for <CG> - is there a possibility of getting some meaningful sorting of tournament games? I'd like to see the games sorted by round, e.g.
Buenos Aires (1970)/Robert James Fischer And if the round number isn't available, then how about using alphabetically sorting. Not too hard a programming request. As it is now, it seems all so random, like dancesteps on the beach. |
|
May-12-15
 | | Fusilli: <CG>, please see egilarne's kibitz on the page for Simen Agdestein. It appears that the photo on Wikipedia was taken by user egilarne, and it may be uploaded. There is presently no photo of GM Agdestein. |
|
May-12-15
| | chessgames.com: Thanks Fusilli & Egil, we can use that. |
|
May-12-15
| | chessgames.com: I just made a small change at the suggestion of a solitary user: I enabled "square highlighting" in pgn4web. That means a small dark outline appears around the piece that was just move and the square it came from. I'm not sure how controversial this is. I can make an option from the preference page to turn this off or on. I'd like to know if anybody has an negative opinion of the feature to warrant the addition of an extra option. Of course, if you don't use pgn4web, this is not your concern. |
|
| May-12-15 | | zanzibar: Almost everybody uses pgn4web though, according to the infamous stats page (~99%). I'm immediately inclined to have this an option so I can turn it off. I use few, if any, of the highlighting options in SCID. I don't mind being default disadvantaged on this, but it is nice to keep something that is old and familiar, old and familiar - like me! |
|
 |
|
ARCHIVED POSTS
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 815 OF 1118 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
