22 Jul 07
1 edit
in fact, how about subs getting a high resolution board . .you know . .clear and precise . .. and non-subs get a low resolution board where you can barely make out the difference between knights and rooks and pawns look like bishops and the king is almost indistinguishable from the queen (edited this last one due to going too far - we wouldn't want to be unfair)
22 Jul 07
Naaah.. subs get boards. Non-subs have to play by memory or keep their own board at home.
If they want to make it a bit of a challenge, make it so non-subs aren't even notified where their opponent moved. They just have to guess, and only after they move will their opponents prior move be revealed.
22 Jul 07
Originally posted by PsychoPawnyeah, i like it .. . i think we are arriving at a really good system now . . . i hope the RHP gods are listening . .. . please, don't confuse hour sincere interest in helping to improve RHP with some form of twisted sarcasm . .NEVER, i SAY NEVER!
Naaah.. subs get boards. Non-subs have to play by memory or keep their own board at home.
If they want to make it a bit of a challenge, make it so non-subs aren't even notified where their opponent moved. They just have to guess, and only after they move will their opponents prior move be revealed.
23 Jul 07
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaThe point is that we didn't CHOOSE the handicap. If we agreed to it, it's fair.. but in this thread I've already stated that it's not fair that subs get vacation, and non subs don't.
Why is choosing to start a game with a handicap unfair?
We should either abolish the vacation system completely or give it to everyone. At this stage it's not fair.
Edit - and about that point that you should just subscribe... well, there are a number of people (particularly those still living with parents and without credit cards or any other means of payment) who aren't able to subscribe whether it be because 30 bucks is too much (unlikely because if you have internet you have 30 bucks sitting around) or because they aren't allowed for whatever reason (probably parents). The system is unfair no matter how you look at it.
23 Jul 07
Originally posted by ih8sensYes, you accepted to play with the handicap because you're not forced to play with subs.
The point is that we didn't CHOOSE the handicap. If we agreed to it, it's fair.. but in this thread I've already stated that it's not fair that subs get vacation, and non subs don't.
We should either abolish the vacation system completely or give it to everyone. At this stage it's not fair.
Edit - and about that point that you should just subscribe.. ...[text shortened]... whatever reason (probably parents). The system is unfair no matter how you look at it.
23 Jul 07
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaBut it still doesn't make the GAME fair. [as in not equal terms]
Yes, you accepted to play with the handicap because you're not forced to play with subs.
For it to be "fair" there would have to be no advantage to either side; simply because someone accepts to play the game doesn't validate it's fairness..
It may be considered fair under the present rules but that's a different story.
23 Jul 07
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveNo single game would be fair, then. Statistically, white has an advantage and chances are not equal and therefore the game isn't played in equal terms.
But it still doesn't make the GAME fair. [as in not equal terms]
For it to be "fair" there would have to be no advantage to either side; simply because someone accepts to play the game doesn't validate it's fairness..
It may be considered fair under the present rules but that's a different story.
That cannot be a definition of fairness.
23 Jul 07
Originally posted by PalynkaWhite having the first move advantage is an accepted necessary part of chess. There is no necessity to give one side longer than the other to move. [none to do with chess, anyway]
No single game would be fair, then. Statistically, white has an advantage and chances are not equal and therefore the game isn't played in equal terms.
That cannot be a definition of fairness.
Imagine that happening in a world championship match - it would never be allowed.
23 Jul 07
Originally posted by PalynkaI don't understand what the problem is. Who get's hurt by giving the vacation system to everyone? You don't have much of an argument here, you've just been trying to refute ours for no apparent reason.
No single game would be fair, then. Statistically, white has an advantage and chances are not equal and therefore the game isn't played in equal terms.
That cannot be a definition of fairness.
23 Jul 07
1 edit
Originally posted by ih8sensI don't want non-subs to be given the use of the vacation system.
... ummm ... as much sense as that was supposed to make not everyone is following your train (or maybe it's a bus...) of thought.
And as it is apparently not possible to have an on/off option it seems we will have to live with it. 🙁
At least for now.
It still is not a fair way to play chess though.
24 Jul 07
Originally posted by hAnimateHoliday time is 36 days, as far as i remember.
excuse me but that is just stupid. Simply because something was there before we got a say in it doesn't make that we agreed in putting it there. Do you always agree with your parents? Or did you ever always - blah
The vacation system is unfair.
This game deserves to be timed out as Tequila has not moved for a month: Game 3126663
That is the point.
I took my holiday, and one extra day so i could make my moves before they got skulled......I like the system.
24 Jul 07
each game needs to be on equal terms or it's not fair . . and i am a sub star 200+ game player
i would like to see the vacation system be a true vacation system, either you don't get to move on vacation, or you have sealed moves that only get viewed when you return from vacation
i'll settle for fairness for everyone though