You've gone too fucking far, Yahoo Games!

The BBQ Pit
1

New slogan for Yahoo games: Interface Devolution Since 1998!

Yahoo games has essentially remained unchanged since that date, the only innovations being increases in SUCK FACTOR.

In 1999 or 2000, Yahoo introduced a pay-to-play program (“All Stars”) in which you could get into special rooms, use different icons/avatars, and get a start by your name (whoop-dee-doo!). The product was a FUCKIN’ FLOP, and instantly served to depopulate to the point of unplayability all ladder rooms for chess, as they were made All-Stars Only.

Interface Devolution.

Yahoo chess used have a very clean, clear chessboard; perfect, really (there was nothing blocky, primitive, or unpro about the interface in that regard). Then in 2002 or 2003 or so, they tarted up the pieces, making them “fancier” but much harder to see (light gold on white pieces for white making them hard to see on the light squares).

Interface Devolution.

It used to be that you could cuss at will in Yahoo games. Just the other week, they added a filter, so that now “bitch” comes out “@ @ @ @ @.” Yeah, that’s going to prevent misbehavior ‘n’ cussin’, you fucking morons! I won’t write those words b1tch, cvnt, fvcker, sh1t. Too much trouble!

Interface Devolution.

Yahoo has dicked around with various ways of advertising in its game rooms, but now it’s added banners to the pop-up where you play the game itself. Now I can understand a non-moving banner. But NO, these are your typical shit: flashy, tawdry mortgage ads, etc. And there’s a little “lightning flash” in the popup every time the ad changes (oh, yes, you get a selection!).

This area is sacred, mutherfuckers! It’s chess, it’s about concentration, you wretched FUCKS! I cannot play at your fucking site any more, CUNTS!

(Or should I spell that FVCKS and CVNTS, repespectively?)

Interface Destruction!

At the same time, Yahoo has failed to solve a single problem that existed in 1998, when I first started playing. That eight years in which to evolve, an eternity in Internet time, but it’s the same shit. I wrote out two pages by hand several months ago expressing my dissatisfaction, intending to post the monograph here–even before Yahoo’s latest depredations. Instead, I’ll give three examples of problems that should have been solved long ago:

  1. If someone creates a game table but doesn’t man it (that is, their avatar is sitting there but they are off taking out the garbage, etc.), you go to the table and nothing happens. This is the worst in multiplayer games in which lots of people go into a room, press START, wait, and leave–because the host is AWOL. Ridiculous.

  2. In many card games, if people get pissed off, they can stall the game by playing a card every 3 minutes. Spades on Yahoo is pretty much unplayable because, a distressing percentage of the time, if you are losing your partner will try to get you to force-forfeit by stalling the game. If they make you quit, their rating doesn’t change but yours goes down a lot.

  3. In hearts, someone can take revenge on the would-be winner by taking a forced forfeit (by doing nothing) and denying the win. The ff-er takes a point hit, but there enough vicious losers who take actual pleasure in doing this kind of thing for it to be not at all uncommon.

I’m going to start looking for a good chess site, but I’d appreciate any suggestions.

In the meantime,

FUCK YOU, YAHOO!

2

Actually, I need to clear up a few points. First, I cannot “understand” a nonmoving banner ad in the chess room. I could probably tolerate one.

Two, Yahoo tweaked its rating system for chess in 1999 or so, making it better. It used to be that a very low-rated player would get an increase in rating even if s/he LOST to a higher-rated player (and the higher-rated player’s rating would go down). That was good.

Yahoo also made it so that if you resigned a chess game right after it started, the game would not affect the ratings. This was obviously done to prevent rate-kiting by people logged in with more than one handle. It made the interface less fair for the players, however: now someone could quite a game quickly (if he didn’t like your opening, etc.) and not have it affect his rating. Still, that’s rare, so I won’t hold this against Yahoo.

That’s ALL the credit I can give Yahoo, however.

Another long-standing and major, MAJOR complaint against Yahoo Games is that, in games with a high chance factor, people simple won’t play against lower-rated people–regardless of actual skill level.

Take Gin, for example. Now matter how good you are, there is still a very high chance that you will lose against an overall worse player. So, given the choice of playing against someone of equal/higher rating or lower, people always choose the former. The result is absurd ratings strata and big gaps. I am rated in the high 1800s in gin. But there are very few people in my strata, so I have to strive mightily to get a game going. If I play lower-rated people, it WILL drag my rating down, with the effect that I can NEVER play challenging opponents. At the same time, there are people rated 2500 who are really no better than I am.

It’s a fuckin’ joke. And it’s been a joke for 8 years or more.

3

They’re giving you thousands of hours of entertainment for free. What could they possibly owe you? If anything, you owe them.

4

Yeah, $20 a pop for most of the games I like, if I want the full-feature versions.

Robin

5

Their value proposition is “come to our site for free, enjoy yourself, see some ads.” Rather like TV. If that value proposition changes for the worse, I have every reason to complain.

Plus, the situation is one of something I found to be good becoming less and less fun over time. That’s highly frustrating.

6

And he’s demanding a rebate WHERE?

7

www.chessatanytime.com

looks good!

8

Worst website ever.

9

Is anyone else getting a mental picture of Pierre Bernard’s Recliner of Rage?

Don’t worry, Aeschines, I’m sure there are at least two or three other people out there who know exactly how you feel.

10

Thanks, asshole!

11

No problem, dickweed.

12

What’s the idea of the rating going down for the winner?

13

I think it just doesn’t go up (or at least not significantly) if you defeat a player with a rating significantly lower than your own. Since some games have an element of chance, it’s possible for an otherwise bad player to defeat you, so by playing a low-rater, you stand to gain nothing (well, except the entertainment value) and possibly lose quite a bit.

14

In the old chess rating system, if you played a much-lower-rated player, your rating would go down even if you won. That’s changed now.

As for gin and other games with a high chance factor, what Bryan said.

15
16

I just registered for gameknot, but it’s not what I want. It’s basically correspondence chess. I like to play 5-min. games. They have blitz, but it’s unrated and a crappy interface.

The search goes on.

17

I signed up there to try out their card games (after the recent “improvements” to MSN’s gamezone) and thought I was watching a beta test site, or something being hosted on an old Atari 2600 console.

For chess, try World Gaming Center. They’ve sprung up very recently to serve as a place where pissed-off MSN gamezone people can go for for traditional looking interfaces. The only problem is they’re so new, there aren’t a whole lot of people over there just yet. Also they’re still working out some bugs in the code. But they seem to be putting in a valiant effort.

18

Here’s what chess is going to look like. They took votes from members and I think #4 won:

http://wgcenter.com/chess.htm

19

Thanks, Patty. I checked them out and will register.

20

Jeez, just go downtown and play with the old men in the park. Fresh air’ll do ya good.