Promoting chess discussion.
|
|
Chess Forum Promoting chess discussion. |
As far as the Chess.FM "supersite" goes, they are already off on the wrong foot. They dropped NM Dennis Monokroussos's "Great Games In Chess History". Fortunately, the Chessbase server Playchess.com picked it up. I wonder if they also dropped IM Paschall, IM Diesen, and Pete Tamburro too? The flash presentations and the live game coverage were their best features. NM Monokroussos was their best analyst for their live game coverage. What they didn't tell you in their on site message is that the new "supersite" will probably cost money. Odd how they left that little fact out. If indeed they do charge I wonder if your ICC membership fee covers it or will it be an additional cost? If ICC wants to act like a worldwide chess server one of the things they need to do is drop Eastern Standard Time (EST) and use Universal Time Coordinated (UTC). As far as the interface goes you are correct, there needs to be drastic improvements. Go to the Playchess server,for example, and look at how easy it is to see what players and games are going on. Now do the same on ICC. Primitive. If you are in the game screen on ICC there is that big blank white area to the right. That's where they could show people who are watching your games or use it for some other useful information. I have made all of the above suggestions to ICC. J.T.J. |
I agree with your criticisms as well. The ICC needs to be brought into the modern world. The funny part is that it can be done easily as the ICC has a body of members willing to pay for it. They just need to do it. If they don't, it is only a matter of time before someone else does and starts stealing their thunder. Condemned to the Games, S.D. Tortorice ======================================================= "The nearest way to glory---a short cut as it were---is to strive to be what you wish to be thought to be."---Socrates, quoted in Cicero, De Officius |
> I agree with your criticisms as well. The ICC needs to be brought into > the modern world. Is there any kind of world other than a modern one that can support an _internet_ chess club? Dave. -- David Richerby Enormous Cheese Projector (TM): it's www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a 16mm film projector that's made of cheese but it's huge! |
message news:<Vhe*[email protected] >... > Wargamer Scott <[email protected]> wrote: > > I agree with your criticisms as well. > > The ICC needs to be brought into the modern world. > > Is there any kind of world other than a modern one that can support an > _internet_ chess club? Dear Mr Richerby, Perhaps he has been reading "The Victorian Internet: The Remarkable Story of the Telegraph and the Nineteenth Century's On-Line Pioneers" by Tom Standage, who also has written "The Turk: The Life and Times of the Famous Eighteenth-Century Chess-Playing Machine". :-) --Nick |
Greetings, >>>> David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote: Is there any kind of world other than a modern one that can support an > _internet_ chess club?<<< Your piercing insight leaves me at a loss for words. Perhaps next time you will actually make a positive contribution to the discussion? Wise guy.... ;-) Condemned to the Games, S.D. Tortorice ======================================================= "The nearest way to glory---a short cut as it were---is to strive to be what you wish to be thought to be."---Socrates, quoted in Cicero, De Officius |
message news:<[email protected] >...(to David Richerby): > David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote (to 'Wargamer Scott'): > > Is there any kind of world other than a modern one that can support > > an _internet_ chess club? > > Your piercing insight leaves me at a loss for words. Perhaps next time > you will actually make a positive contribution to the discussion? > Wise guy.... ;-) > > Condemned to the Games, > S.D. Tortorice 'Wargamer Scott', I thought that I should mention (just in case you had not noticed it) that, although your post was addressed to me in the order of this thread, your comments were responding entirely to what David Richerby wrote to you, *not* to what I wrote afterward to David Richerby. --Nick |
>>>I thought that I should mention (just in case you had not noticed it) that, although your post was addressed to me in the order of this thread, your comments were responding entirely to what David Richerby wrote to you, *not* to what I wrote afterward to David Richerby.<<< Yes, I know. I could not find the original post by Mr. Richerby, only your reply to him. That is why I made a point to note who wrote the quotation. That way if he was still reading the thread, he would see that it was aimed at him and not you. Anyway, this whole series of exchanges are beside the point. My point, again, is that there is great potential within the ICC, but they must update their interface so that it is easier to utilize than it currently is. I like the idea of incorporating the multimedia content of Chess.fm, now I hope the rest of the interface will better reflect this more MODERN-WORLD content. ;-) Condemned to the Games, S.D. Tortorice ======================================================= "The nearest way to glory---a short cut as it were---is to strive to be what you wish to be thought to be."---Socrates, quoted in Cicero, De Officius |
> Nick wrote to 'Wargamer Scott': > > I thought that I should mention (just in case you had not noticed it) > > that, although your post was addressed to me in the order of this thread, > > your comments were responding entirely to what David Richerby wrote to you, > > *not* to what I wrote afterward to David Richerby. > > Yes, I know. I could not find the original post by Mr. Richerby, > only your reply to him. 'Wargamer Scott', Thanks for clarifying why you responded as you did. > That is why I made a point to note who wrote the quotation. Unfortunately, some other writers here tend be less careful when they attribute (or misattribute) their 'quotations'. > That way if he was still reading the thread, he would see that > it was aimed at him and not you. Unfortunately, some readers here (which is not to say that they would include David Richerby) seem often not to read carefully enough, and sometimes they may write mistaken 'responses' that seem based entirely on their misreadings. > ... My point, again, is that there is great potential within the ICC, but > they must update their interface so that it is easier to utilize than it > currently is. I like the idea of incorporating the multimedia content of > Chess.fm, now I hope the rest of the interface will better reflect this more > MODERN-WORLD content. ;-) Let us at least be thankful, however, that, unlike in the past times of a potential Victorian 'Internet Chess Club' (based on the telegraph), we do not have to know Morse code in order to use the interface. :-) --Nick |
> 'Wargamer Scott', > > I thought that I should mention (just in case you had not noticed it) > that, although your post was addressed to me in the order of this > thread, your comments were responding entirely to what David Richerby > wrote to you, *not* to what I wrote afterward to David Richerby. It's much better to think of posts in newsgroups being addressed to the group and not to individuals. If a message is to be addressed to just one person, it should be E-mailed. Thread ordering is a tool of navigation, not a tool of `ownership'. Dave. -- David Richerby Poisonous T-Shirt (TM): it's like a www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ fashion statement but it'll kill you in seconds! |
<[email protected] > wrote: >It's much better to think of posts in newsgroups being addressed to the >group and not to individuals. If a message is to be addressed to just >one person, it should be E-mailed. Thread ordering is a tool of >navigation, not a tool of `ownership'. Well said. Trying to use the newsgroup for "private" correspondence is like using a speaker-phone in a restaurant. |
message news:<kxf*[email protected] >... > Nick <[email protected]> wrote to 'Wargamer Scott': > > I thought that I should mention (just in case you had not noticed it) > > that, although your post was addressed to me in the order of this > > thread, your comments were responding entirely to what David Richerby > > wrote to you, *not* to what I wrote afterward to David Richerby. > > It's much better to think of posts in newsgroups being addressed to > the group and not to individuals. Dear Mr Richerby: As I recall (distantly), I already had proposed a position similar to the one that you have just expressed (above), but not everyone else seems to have agreed with it at that time. When I was a comparatively new writer at RGCM, I once responded to a post by 'A', who had responded to a post by 'B', by responding (in my same post addressed to 'A') to some comments--which I did take care to keep distinct--that had been made separately by 'A' and by 'B'. As I recall, 'A' objected to my response on the grounds that I should have addressed my response to the comments by 'B'--which I had clearly indicated was a response to 'B' and *not* to 'A'--*only* in a separate post to 'B'. Although it was not clear to me that I had been wrong to respond as I did, nonetheless, I offered my apology to 'A'. > If a message is to be addressed to just one person, it should be E-mailed. > Thread ordering is a tool of navigation, not a tool of `ownership'. My point was about improving clarity of communication, perhaps, not about asserting 'ownership'. To be realistic, many readers here (I am not including you among them) seem often to read too hastily or carelessly. For example, you yourself have admitted in the thread "How to score a grand master norm" (22 January 2004): "For some reason, despite the huge amounts of context, I managed to read that as 'get the turtle'." (instead of 'get the title') I suppose that some readers here--reading hastily--might have overlooked the fact that 'Wargamer Scott' was responding only to you and mistakenly assumed from the order of the thread that he was responding only to me. In any case, I can recall several occasions when another writer's words have been *misattributed* here to me. Sometimes the misattribution seems to have been a genuine careless error; at other times, it evidently was a deliberate misrepresentation by a troll who was attempting to attack me on account of what someone else had written. My interest is in reducing unnecessary confusions and conflicts by improving the clarity of communication (which sometimes might include thread ordering). --Nick |
> > David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote in > message news:<kxf*[email protected]>... > > Nick <[email protected]> wrote to 'Wargamer Scott': > > > I thought that I should mention (just in case you had not noticed it) > > > that, although your post was addressed to me in the order of this > > > thread, your comments were responding entirely to what David Richerby > > > wrote to you, *not* to what I wrote afterward to David Richerby. > > > > It's much better to think of posts in newsgroups being addressed to > > the group and not to individuals. > > Dear Mr Richerby: > > As I recall (distantly), I already had proposed a position similar to the one > that you have just expressed (above), but not everyone else seems to have > agreed with it at that time. When I was a comparatively new writer at RGCM, > I once responded to a post by 'A', who had responded to a post by 'B', by > responding (in my same post addressed to 'A') to some comments--which I did > take care to keep distinct--that had been made separately by 'A' and by 'B'. > As I recall, 'A' objected to my response on the grounds that I should have > addressed my response to the comments by 'B'--which I had clearly indicated > was a response to 'B' and *not* to 'A'--*only* in a separate post to 'B'. > Although it was not clear to me that I had been wrong to respond as I did, > nonetheless, I offered my apology to 'A'. > > > If a message is to be addressed to just one person, it should be E-mailed. > > Thread ordering is a tool of navigation, not a tool of `ownership'. > > My point was about improving clarity of communication, perhaps, not about > asserting 'ownership'. To be realistic, many readers here (I am not including > you among them) seem often to read too hastily or carelessly. For example, > you yourself have admitted in the thread "How to score a grand master norm" > (22 January 2004): "For some reason, despite the huge amounts of context, > I managed to read that as 'get the turtle'." (instead of 'get the title') > > I suppose that some readers here--reading hastily--might have overlooked the > fact that 'Wargamer Scott' was responding only to you and mistakenly assumed > from the order of the thread that he was responding only to me. > > In any case, I can recall several occasions when another writer's words have > been *misattributed* here to me. Sometimes the misattribution seems to have > been a genuine careless error; at other times, it evidently was a deliberate > misrepresentation by a troll who was attempting to attack me on account of > what someone else had written. > > My interest is in reducing unnecessary confusions and conflicts by improving > the clarity of communication (which sometimes might include thread ordering). > > --Nick Jeez, whadda a 'tosser' who ya gonna cum on now Nick, wanna put yer sperm on a British museum catafalgue of Stalinist proportions, or maybe a Neferiti mummy? - It's ok Nicky, you can toss off to your hearts delight. I won't disturb you - tosser.. |
> It's much better to think of posts in newsgroups being addressed to the > group and not to individuals. If a message is to be addressed to just > one person, it should be E-mailed. Thread ordering is a tool of > navigation, not a tool of `ownership'. Yes, you are probably right. In the past I've tried addressing people by name, unfortunately, I have seen such methods serving for an attack: e.g. calling someone "Dear Mr. X" in one post, and "Mr. X" in another. I suppose one could posit a virtual chairman whom one never mentions by name, unfortunately he can't call RGCM to order! Regards, Simon. |