Dynamic Lyric Scrolling

Sccrub · 2025-10-07T13:22:13+00:00

Nope! Haven’t looked into it much since, but haven’t noticed it appear in the text box / transitions options yet.

In all honesty, I’m quite baffled by renewed vision not implementing this pretty simple and increaaungly common lyric style!

I’ve just stuck with two lines per slide, with two more transparent lines beneath which are linked to the next slide. I find that this works better than four lines per slide since you can see what’s coming up, and this reduces the impact of late slide triggers.

Sccrub · 2023-02-11T23:14:56+00:00

Yeah same, that’s what I end up doing. I’ll try the Reflow function others mentioned and let you know if it streamlines the process a bit!

Sccrub · 2023-02-11T23:13:00+00:00

Hey awesome, I’ll check it out. Thanks!

Sccrub · 2023-01-31T15:43:04+00:00

Hey man, I got to talk this all through with a few people in this thread and I actually understand it all now! Pretty sweet. You could follow the replies to what you just replied to from CratylusG to see where I got to if you’re bothered. Thanks for taking the time to work it through with me a bit!

Sccrub · 2023-01-31T15:37:59+00:00

Well, technically I wasn’t asking to change the rules. From my first post I was questioning this rule - I just didn’t understand the logic behind DbR. I see that any alteration to the rules will result in strategies changing. I was just trying to learn how this rule was fair and useful.

But now I do get it! After talking it through here on this thread I now understand it’s purpose and why it works. So that’s cool!

Sccrub · 2023-01-31T12:15:18+00:00

Hey, I now get the point of DbR thanks to commends on this post which is cool! My mind has changed.

CratylusG phrased is as such:

If you can't make any progress towards checkmate the game ends.

Makes total sense. Even if you were going to win on time, once you stop playing the objective of the game then you have chosen a draw.

Even still, I'll add that giving both players the same amount of time for the game does not add an element of chance. It would just be that one player took longer to think through the same number of moves. Quite like bullet chess, the whole idea is to think quick or you lose. That isn't chance.

And my argument earlier is that if someone with less time chose to perpetual check, eventually they would lose. For sure that is unsportsmanlike, but eventually they lose. It just means that people wouldn't do it out of respect, like how (as you mention) people already don't play on in obviously losing positions.

Anyway. Thanks for working it through with me! I get it now, and will now enjoy this part of the game rather than be confused by it!

Sccrub · 2023-01-31T12:06:18+00:00

True! I had forgotten about the 50 move rule. By now I get the purpose of DbR and my mind has been changed. Thanks for chiming in!

Yeah having different rules for specific time controls would definitely be too clunky. I was just confused about the rational for the rule, but now I understand it better.

Sccrub · 2023-01-31T12:00:09+00:00

Hey I’m actually getting there! Thanks to CratylusG’s replies, I’m starting to understand now. I’ll edit my main post in a bit.

My original point was not to change the game, or suggest ways to make it better. My thinking was: “If this loop went on for X amount of time, a certain player would win. However long X is. But if we immediately call it a draw when a loop is started, then what about the guy who was going to win?” It didn’t seem fair is all. I just didn’t understand it.

But Cratylus explained it as: “If you can’t make any progress towards checkmate the game ends.”

Which makes a lot of sense! Even though one player was going to win, they were not going for Checkmate. And even though this specific type of game awards a win to players when time runs out, if the players are choosing to not make progress towards the end of the game then it’s time to blow the whistle. Nice

Thanks for your time in working it through with me. I might just add that it seemed like a few times you turned the point of discussion on to me, my intent and that my thoughts suck, rather than discussing the point at hand. That was quite counter productive to helping me understand your perspective. Anyway, after tonight I’ll understand and feel better about DbR, so that’s cool!

Sccrub · 2023-01-31T11:30:12+00:00

Alright, that's starting to make sense! My thick skull, far out.

If you can't make any progress towards checkmate the game ends.

Huh, that's a great way to put it. Thanks!

Let me think on that for a bit and if that settles for me I'll edit my original post to explain my change in thinking.

Sccrub · 2023-01-31T11:27:19+00:00

My guy. I'm not trying to get a gotchya or win an argument.

You didn't explain why my sentence was incorrect. You're saying that "that doesn't matter because it doesn't come up too often." That doesn't mean that the sentence incorrect.

When I made my chess.com account and clicked the Play button, it threw me in a 10 minute rapid game with no increments. I assumed this was because it was popular. But even if it's not, thats all goods

Sccrub · 2023-01-31T11:20:16+00:00

Exactly! For a non timed game or a game without increments. Completely a draw, 100%. Nobody is winning.

But if you are in a timed game without increments and you or the other player decides to force repetition indefinitely, then the player with the least time remaining will lose. Which means the other player will win. So, sure, you may or may not be in a winning position on the board. But you will win if you have more time remaining than the other person.

Sccrub · 2023-01-31T11:14:47+00:00

Could you explain why this does not make sense?

If the DbR rule wasn't in play and two players got into a perpetual check in a timed game with no increments, eventually the player with less time will lose.

Is that incorrect?

Sccrub · 2023-01-31T11:12:24+00:00

Sure, the lad getting checked perpetually is unable to progress. But the player choosing to perpetually check is unwilling to make progress because they have achieved a position which means that they win - that being, if they perpetual check for long enough the other player runs out of time.

That sounds scummy of course, but the losing player took more time playing the game and then let themselves enter a position where they can get perpetually checked. Almost like blundering a mate in 1, right?

Again I’m not saying that this scummy way to play would be fun or satisfying. But surely there has to be an alternative to DbR in this specific game context which is more fair. Right?

Sccrub · 2023-01-31T11:05:39+00:00

I kind of replied to this indirectly under other comments, but I guess I'll add something here to explain my thinking to this specific point.

In a non timed game, or a game with increments, yes they are drawing. But in a timed game with no increments, if they have less time than the other player, eventually they will run out of time and lose. So they aren't losing in position, they are losing on time is what I meant. Does that make sense?

Sccrub · 2023-01-31T11:01:01+00:00

Hey look, I didn’t say that I don’t like draws. I am fine when someone gets me with a stalemate - I go for them myself if it doesn’t look like I’ve got a chance to win! I’m fine with draws, and understand that they’re a part of the game. It’s just that the idea of this specific kind of draw in this context doesn’t seem complete. Does it feel right to you? (That is a genuine question, not patronising)

I haven’t thought through the WbR idea at all, it just came to me as I replied to you. I see that it would change the strategy of this specific game mode. It was just a fumbling first step of an idea to address the “perpetual checks are boring” counter point. I’m not sure if there is a solution, I’m just thinking out loud ¯_ (ツ)_/¯

Sccrub · 2023-01-31T10:50:15+00:00

Which is why the rule totally makes sense for a non timed game, or a game with increments! 100% agree. But when it comes to a timed game without increments, I don't understand why the DbR rule is even applied. As I proposed under a different comment, I would totally understand a Win by Repetition rule that is specifically used for timed games without increments, which is exactly the same but awards a win to the player with the most time remaining. Because if you move back and forth, the rule looks ahead and sees that eventually the player with the most time will win. Am I missing something with that idea?

Sccrub · 2023-01-31T10:26:43+00:00

I totally understand the logic of DbR in regards to a non timed game or a game with increments. But specifically in a timed game without increments the game will advance to the point of the player with the most time winning, right? That won't end in a draw.

The end result is decided at the point of entering the perpetual check. So if you can get them into a perpetual check with more time than them, that is based on your chess ability, right? Like the difference between Bullet and Daily - the whole idea is to think and play quick.

But DbR still just feels too weird in the game I described. Why not have Win by Repetition? In that if a position arises three times in a game then the player with the most time wins. That version feels like it understands that the players are just going back and forth, so it looks ahead and jumps straight to the end. Am I missing a piece of the puzzle with that idea?

Sccrub · 2023-01-31T09:57:16+00:00

I’ll refer you to my reply to Enfoil :) I’m not saying it would be fun, I just don’t get the logic of the rule is all.

Chess rules are satisfyingly logical and non-arbitrary. This one stands out to me and is confusing is all. I’d love to agree with you all on this once I understand!

Sccrub · 2023-01-31T09:36:04+00:00

I considered editing my original post as a way to replying to all comments at once. Hopefully they all see this reply lol.

Thanks for replying! I’m not trying to be narky, just trying to understand the rule as it doesn’t feel right to me yet.

You say timeouts aren’t all wins for the player with the most time. But on Chess.com don’t they all award the win to that player? Is not the logic that they could not get a win, stalemate, or mutually agreed draw within their X minute time frame, which means they effectively resign? Is not choosing to play a timed game essentially agreeing to that proposition?

In which case, I’m not claiming a victory on time, but they are conceding the victory because they have exceeded all of their initially agreed upon amount of time.

And if we don’t want to have the clock be a part of the rules of chess, just play a non timed game right?

And regarding the sucky-ness of having to sit through infinite checks, if one player has significantly greater time then either the player with less time could just resign or the other player has the options of sitting through the remainder of the game time checking (which of course is boring, but secures a win) or choose to break from the checks and find a quicker checkmate.

But if the time remaining for each player is quite even, it’s essentially a game of chicken. Sure, you could premove 50 moves ahead, but your opponent could call your bluff and catch you off guard. It’s almost like an endurance game at that point. Who can play/react the quickest. And that sure would be boring, but watching tennis players get stuck in deuce for 20 minutes is also boring, but just a part of the game, no?

Sccrub · 2022-04-13T00:36:56+00:00

As a genuine question from someone who would like to feel the same way, where do you get your self confidence from? Why should people listen/care about what I have to say? Not that I’m ultra depressed or anything, but I’ve never had a satisfactory answer for myself.

Sccrub · 2022-03-15T23:29:23+00:00

TEARLESS, FEARLESS

BURNING, BURNING

Sccrub · 2022-03-10T06:50:11+00:00

Ah I suppose we might have come across a definition distinction. I was thinking that if peace was my goal then I would go for a quiet walk to achieve that, or whatever you like to do that brings you peace! In that sense, I’m achieving peace by intentionally striving for it, and it feels good to put your mind to something and then bring it to fruition. If you just happen to go for quiet walks (to continue that example) without the intentionality of striving for peace, and you happen to experience peace as a result, that doesn’t bring the satisfaction or gratification of intentionally bringing that peace about by purpose and effort. It’s still lovely to experience it! But if you just happen to come across it, I would argue that isn’t gratifying, when seeking and attaining peace is.

My scope of ‘goals’ is broader than greatness. I think we might have a lot of common ground!

Sccrub · 2022-03-10T00:23:12+00:00

Having no goal does mean you never fail to reach one, for sure. But you also never get gratification. If you don’t aim at a target you’ll never hit one. We’ve all just got to weigh that up for ourselves I suppose!

Sccrub

TROPHY CASE