Last time I flew Delta they no longer had this bot, which made me sad. One of my favorite parts of flying was getting absolutely crushed into a tiny cube by the airplane seat's easy chess bot, and then again by the airplane seat itself when the person in front of me reclines their seat.
> then again by the airplane seat itself when the person in front of me reclines their seat.
This reminds me of the time I had my laptop open on the tilt-down tray and the very large man in the seat in front just repositioned his girth (not even reclining the seat) but it flexed the seat back enough that my laptop screen was momentarily caught between the tray below and recessed lip above and was almost crushed.
That happened to me when I had an ipad in a standing case and the seat in front cranked back - trapping then pinging the tablet across me and by neighbour's lap.
Though the ipad itself wasn't damaged, a couple of glasses didn't make it, and required the steward to try to brush up whatever fragments of glass they could.
I feel that airlines are a microcosm of "Do you care about who you actions might affect?" - similar to the "Do you return the cart to the corral" test at supermarkets - are you willing to put even the smallest bit of effort to significantly improve other people's experiences?
Airlines shouldn't have reclining seats, it's bad design. Blaming people for the bad design is stupid. I never recline and still blame it on the design. Stupid people exist, you should design for that.
Sorry for an empty response but this, 100% this. As a person who is WELL over 6' tall, the very idea that the person in front of me might recline is enough to give me significant anxiety throughout a flight. I once saw a design for seats where the base slides forward if you want to recline - the idea being, if you're going to recline you're going to do so into your own space, not the person behind you. I'd be a big advocate of that change in seat design...
If I put my knees together and sit up straight (back hard against my seat), my knees are hard against the seat in front. They can’t recline. It doesn’t even hurt, the seat just won’t move. Last flight someone turned around and complained then complained to the stewardess. I’m not sticking my legs into my neighbours space, am the time I extended into the aisle I fell asleep and got knee capped by a trolley.
‘Where would you like me to put my legs?’
I’m writing this from a plane seat, having paid for extra room and having been bumped by the airline. That’s nz$1000 gone and 17 hours of misery.
Qatar. Never again.
Aside: I also don’t recline without any empty seat or sleeping person behind.
I'm also over 6' and I don't understand the problem? The seats only recline a few degrees, it's not like they're laying on my lap! Even fully reclined there's plenty of space in front of my face, and leg room is barely impacted at all. (Like probably an inch max?)
Granted, I've only flown American and Delta, maybe other airlines are worse in this respect?
I'm 6'4" with a lot of my height in my legs. Sitting comfortably (not slouching, mind you), my knees already barely rub against the seat in front of me. As soon as that seat is reclined, my knees get crushed and I have to either sit up even straighter or twist to the side, neither of which are comfortable. Or, I have to pay to be in a higher fare class with more space.
Have you tried the exit row instead? Sure, you might have to agree to help others, but if you aren't willing to do that regardless of the row, then that just says a lot about you.
Yepp, I generally will try for the exit row or the first row in a section (sacrificing no under seat storage), but they tend to be the first seats booked. Since I'm usually traveling with multiple other people and we prefer sitting together, it makes it pretty difficult to reliably select those seats with extra leg room. I haven't seen any airlines that charge "+$25 for the extra leg room" on 12+ hour international flights, but if they exist I'd love to know which ones they are!
It's been awhile 2017ish, but I used to book flights for a team of photographers that traveled a lot. They all had their individual preferences for aisle/window, exit row. Maybe it was because they all had lots of butt-in-chair miles, but their upgrades were typically $25 for domestic US travel. Maybe I'm conflating that as the price for everyone when it was the price for their status only???
The physical requirements are an issue for a lot of people. E.g. a tall senior citizen, anyone flying with a small child, anyone with a visible disability (temporary or otherwise).
I know American at least has some rows with extra leg room that aren't the exit row. (Though obviously if you want more space you have to pay for it.) Not sure about others.
Yes, it's usually called "premium economy" or something like that. I was resistant for a long time, but eventually decided that being able to walk the next day without pain was worth the extra cost. That said, they tend to fill up quickly -- so not always an option.
Many airlines don't let you choose your seat without paying extra. But yeah, maybe if you're that tall that's just an unfortunate extra cost you have to bear.
At some point you have to do the math. Is +$25 for the extra leg room worth it for a 3 hour flight? 6 hour flight?
I flew from DFW to Sydney on a flight that was not fully booked. They made an announcement for a $150 upgrade to have an entire row to yourself. Once in the air, all of the armrests could be raised to allow you to lay flat. $150/17hours ~= $9/hour for a comfortable-ish sleep on a long haul flight. That's better math than the app subscription model threads have.
Those few degrees matter if your knees are already brushing the back of the seat in front of you. It matters how tall you are, how much of that is in your legs, how big your feet are (the more you need to bend your knees, the higher they will be), and it also varies depending on seat design and layout.
For others like me, one trick is to at most minimally use the under seat storage: small handbags only. No backpacks, briefcases, or anything else big enough to hold a laptop. Then, you can put your feet in that space. This lowers my knees by 1-2 inches depending on the plane, which really matters. It's the only thing that helps significantly, aside from paying for premium economy. Doesn't help with the claustrophobia, but there's not much to be done about that.
The other things I've tried (that don't reliably work) are leaning forward from the seat back (to pull my knees back) and slouching slightly (so that the inevitable recline compresses the seat back into my knees rather than bashing them). The former saves my knees, but sacrifices my back. The latter kind of helps during the flight, but walking will still hurt the next day.
> one trick is to at most minimally use the under seat storage [...] Then, you can put your feet in that space
Oh, interesting. I've always done that, it never really occurred to me that others might not. Even if you have a bigger bag you can always take it out during the flight to make space for your feet. That, plus crossing my legs allows me to have my legs flat against the chair (and therefore my knees well below the level where the person in front reclining would make much difference).
Well, it can be annoying to limit oneself to a smaller under-seat bag. Taking the bigger bag out during the flight uses up even more of the available space. I've generally got nowhere to put it except behind my legs (which cramps things a lot): on my lap doesn't work if I want to actually use anything in that bag.
It's easier to just pack my laptop (plus anything I might use during the flight) in my overhead bin carry-on. It's a real pain to actually get anything out of there, but a paperback book or ebook reader will fit in a coat pocket or small handbag -- and that's all I truly need on the plane. Plus, the airline won't be able to force you to check your overhead carry-on that way since the laptop has lithium batteries in it.
Why does leg length matter? Reclining doesn't impact leg room much since only the upper part of the seat is moving backwards any significant distance, and the space under the seat where my feet go is completely unaffected.
Are your legs so long you have to sit with your knees pressed against the back of the seat in front of you or something? If so I suppose that's understandable.
"Are your legs so long you have to sit with your knees pressed against the back of the seat in front of you or something? If so I suppose that's understandable."
Yes and also for people with long legs, seated in a typical airline seat, their knees will be significantly higher than the top of the seat cushion. So, they get caught up in the sweep of a reclining seatback ahead.
My legs are long enough there isn't room for them to press against the back of the seat. I'm either manspreading into the crevases between seats or in foetal position with my knees halfway up the seat in front of me. A person reclining is excruciating in the former, but in the latter position at least the person in front can't recline as there's no physical space for my body to become more compact. Flying is hell.
Yes, my knees often/always bump into the seat in front of me, even without it being reclined. If/when it is reclined it means my knees are pressed harder backwards.
When I can, I pay for extra leg room or get an aisle seat.
My opinion is strongly that seats should not be reclined. It is inconsiderate.
> I agree that sounds frustrating. Respectfully though, it sounds like you're a special case
It would be interesting to know the numbers on this. Height is not going to tell the answer though, you as people of the same height have wildly variably limb length.
I know half a dozen people who have the same issue and they vary from 1.9-2.1m tall.
I think once you get past the 95th percentile in any metric like that things start to get more difficult. I'm not even that tall and I sometimes have trouble finding pants that fit me. I imagine there are probably similar difficulties on the other end of the spectrum being below the 5th percentile.
I used to have so much trouble with pants (I need 30-34 in inches, 86.4cm long and about 76cm waist). No store had that size. I once got to the point where I considered leaning into my Scottish heritage and just wearing a kilt.
The internet has alleviated that for me, but if it hasn't for you -- look for pants with a large hem, and learn some basic sewing skills. It's occasionally possible to add an inch or more of length with the right pair.
Sure, my femurs are longer than most peoples, but they are with me on _every_ flight I take.
So it is kind of frustrating to me with people like in this thread explicitly saying "I do not care, I will recline my seat, it is not my problem if someone else suffers, they are just being entitled".
That's exactly how it usually happens in my experience. I think a lot of people are OK if everyones upright on short haul flights (here most budget airlines don't have a recline facility and it's not missed) but once someone reclines into your space you then recline to gain a little space back and the domino effect takes place even if you're not sleeping.
And then the person in the last row is screwed because they are in a seat that doesn't recline but the seat in front of them does, so they have to sit like a canned sardine for the entire flight(ask me how I know).
> Flights from sfo to Frankfurt bolt upright sound unpleasant
Same flight with someone's seat resting on your knees is downright painful.
> when my wife was pregnant
Imagine if she was a bit taller and someone reclined the seat all the way over her.
> The recline button is there for your use
You're right, like any shared resource, "space" is there for you to use. It doesn't mean you have to use it, you could try to be aware of your surroundings and assess whether your small comfort should come at the cost of someone else's extreme discomfort. And if you use the button others are also free, and probably correct, to call you a dick. Like a guy who empties the bowl of complimentary candy someone offers to all customers.
You shouldn't need physical blocks or laws to define your own common sense and decency.
I'm 185cm and I couldn't imagine having to endure a long haul flight without reclining.
I never get these discussions. It's only ever online that I see complaints. Almost everyone reclines on long flights. It's normal. It's expected. If it makes you uncomfortable that's a you problem, everyone else seems fine with it. If it makes you physically uncomfortable, pay for extra leg room. Don't make your problem the problem of another passenger.
> I never get these discussions. It's only ever online that I see complaints. everyone else seems fine with it
That's a skewed conclusion you're drawing. Are you really surprised that people aren't willing to risk escalating the situation on a plane, arguing with what's likely the very inconsiderate person in front of them? Most people have an aversion to conflict. It doesn't mean "they're fine with it". You probably don’t advertise in real life how much you lean back and not care who’s behind you out of fear that people will change your opinion of you. Real life is a harsh mistress.
I've bumped into people and they said "sorry", do you think they wanted me to bump into them, liked it, and actually believed it was their mistake? No, I just tower at close to 2m so they didn't want to escalate the situation.
P.S. I always look at who sits behind me, if they're "space constrained" or not, and almost always ask if I can recline. Sometimes I don't bother, clearly the person will suffer. Sometimes they said "I'd rather not, thank you". Many times they said "fine". I used to fly a lot and my experience was very clearly not that "everyone is fine". I was never fine even if I didn't start arguing. So how would you have known?
I've literally never been on a 5+ hour flight where anyone in the row in front of me didn't recline at some point.
I've discussed this with various people IRL. No one, including taller people than me, ever complained about people being inconsiderate for reclining. Every tall person complains about leg room.
The vast majority of people do not think it's inconsiderate to recline. They think it's normal and that the function is there for a reason.
I actually think it's inconsiderate to complain to the person in front if they want to recline. The only time that is acceptable is when meals are served.
Anecdotal, but I'm 193cm, take a few 12+ hour flights per year, and have no problem not reclining. For what it's worth, I feel like I've experienced people on my shorter, domestic flights reclining their seats more often than on my longer, international flights.
You're tall so you can't sit upright? :P Do you need to lean backwards when you work too? I think you are wrong and a lot of people are not fine with it. I don't need a closeup view of someone's bald spot while trying to eat shitty airplane food.
Mainly because they were introduced when the seats were set farther apart. Now companies squeeze more rows and keep the same seats.
But also because with any shared resource there's an expectation of decency involved. Some people just betray that expectation. They're the ones with the mentality that "they shouldn't have served alcohol if they didn't want me to get insufferably drunk", "they shouldn't have put the candy out if they didn't want me to take all of it", "why is the swing there in the park if not for my kids to use them continuously to the disappointment of other kids".
When your wife was pregnant someone probably let her go ahead in a queue, have her some priority for something, etc. That was a person with common sense and decency, not asking "why do queues exist", who doesn't do something only if there's a law about it.
I’m several inches over 6’ and if I don’t get a fire exit seat I’m highly likely to get seated behind someone who will call me “extremely rude” for wrangling uncomfortably and bumping their seat uncontrollably when they inevitably decide that extra 6 degrees of recline is worth more than my knee cartilage.
People generally didn’t even offer her a seat on the metro. And letting other people decide whether you should be permitted to use the functionality the airline has given you is dysfunctional people pleasing.
Your "dysfunctional people pleasing" is someone else's "not being a total dick". As I said, there's no law against it. It's all about character and education (or lack thereof). Some people even think they must brag about it because why else would they have a mouth and keyboard.
I still see ashtrays on older plans, trains, and boats. Sometimes older stuff is left there because it's not financially advantageous to replace it. You can use the recline button to your liking, but it can be inconsiderate to do it. Traveler discretion is advised.
A question you can always ask yourself is "should I do it just because I can do it?". It will stop you from being needlessly inconsiderate many times, and maybe even make you a better person.
It's the 21st century. Blowhards of the world united with the miracle of technology are moaning at any attempt of common sense regulation. This will become culture wars material right away.
I think the secret of Ryanair is that their goal is actually to make their turnarounds as fast and efficient as possible, not explicitly to make money by adding a fee for every little aspect of the service.
If anything can possibly slow down flight boarding, disembarking or cleanup, they'll first try to remove it completely, and only if people object too much will they reluctantly offer it with a fee.
Pocket on the seat back -> most people don't use on short flights -> get rid of them.
Luggage -> most people need this, but not everyone -> charge a fee.
Reclining seat -> most people don't use on short flights -> get rid of them.
They do sell drinks and duty free; that's an interesting one. I guess once the flight is airborne, the flight attendants aren't really doing anything else (from management's perspective) so they might as well sell stuff. Plus the trolley blocking the aisle stops passengers from moving around, which they probably see as a big advantage.
I think this even applies to the ridiculous penalty fees they charge for e.g. trying to check in at the airport rather than doing it beforehand on the app. It feels like they're just trying to rip you off, but I suspect they see it more as a "nudge" to make people check in online, because that streamlines their airport process.
I got a little bit less annoyed by them when I realised this. Sure, it's still uncomfortable and sometimes infuriating, but it's all with the aim of an efficient and reliable service, and they're way better than average at that.
> It feels like they're just trying to rip you off, but I suspect they see it more as a "nudge" to make people check in online, because that streamlines their airport process.
I believe the airline pays the airport for every check in and luggage handling transaction. They are just cutting costs.
Ryanair makes little to no money from passengers, nowadays it's mainly from selling airplanes.
They were still profitable during COVID without even carrying passengers at some point, only thanks to their flying school, which thanks to social dumping and the UE, allow them to charge 40k€ per wannabe pilot without even guaranteeing them a hire.
They booked 2000 737max, with their own special version during COVID+MCAS disaster, they paid it dirt cheap.
Then they operate them marginally, and now that the traffic has gone up again and the delay between buying and receiving a Max is about 8 years, they sell them back for a huge profit.
Do you have a link for that? It sounds interesting but a bit unlikely. It's hard to see how charging for pilot training, even at 40K a pop, would be a sustainable business.
The thing about buying planes is also interesting, but sounds like a sneaky business move rather than the actual foundation of the business.
I've always heard that nobody really makes money from passengers, which is why airlines are always going bankrupt, and I'm sure Ryanair's margins are super skinny. But even so, it does seem like moving passengers around is the core of their business, rather than it just being a front for something else.
Reclining seats are more expensive and heavier. The target customer for a low cost flight is cost sensitive and more resistant to "punishment". The expense would be hard to recuperate.
This one surprises me every time I fly. When I have the aisle seat I can be up and out in 10 seconds. It seems to make like everyone else will plop down , place down 3 different liquids on the tray and then take a nap. When I ask to use the bathroom I end up feeling like a nuisance
> When I ask to use the bathroom I end up feeling like a nuisance
It's your right to ask to use the bathroom whenever you need. And others have the right to use that little tray for their stuff when they want. (while allowed by the airline, of course)
Yup, it's their right, as it's their right to crank their seat back. Both are available, and expected. I see some take issue with people doing them at all, but I don't really mind much. Might be related to being 180cm or so - about 5"11, when most complaining seem to be larger.
My issue on my original post isn't really them moving the seat, but the lack of notice. It would have taken barely a second to lean over the seat and let me know. But I suspect they didn't even think about how that might affect anyone else.
It would be kinda crazy if someone didn't say they wanted to get out to the aisle and just started trying to climb over you with no warning.
I actually quite liek yanair's no frills no recline design. For some reason it feels less clusterphobic to me. it just feels more spacious and roomy, despite the absence of space.
(I get the joke) Not even gorillas even, the seats on most US carriers are too small and narrow for a lot of adult men even if they're in good shape. I had to sit shoulder to shoulder with one poor guy an entire flight to New Zealand because both of our shoulder widths are wider than the seats and I wanted to make sure my girlfriend had room enough to sleep. We were both good sports about it and were joking about needing a smoke afterwards, but it was not fun unless he wanted to lean halfway out into the aisle. I'm taller than average but not a giant.
Lost an Apple iBook screen this way. Guy in front slammed his chair back while I was working on a presentation and the screen got caught at the perfect angle to flex it and it died.
Didn't blame him, lesson learned, and I move my own seat back very slowly now.
Even when travelling for work I could never bring myself to get a laptop out on an aircraft. I only do it on the train occasionally if I've got something I'm deep into and a table to myself.
This is fair on shorter flights ~1-4 hours, but I am reasonably tall too and I am not suffering through a 14 hour overnight flight without reclining. I don't think there is anything wrong with it in this case, and flight attendants will force people to de-recline their chair in meal times etc.
Surely you should blame the airlines, rather than the individuals. They cram more people on, giving you less space - but charge the same - and you get mad at other customers, rather than them for cramming you in.
> They cram more people on, giving you less space - but charge the same - and you get mad at other customers, rather than them for cramming you in.
Airline fares are very cheap. Just the other day they compared the cost of flying from London to Calcutta decades ago vs now - much cheaper now. You'll see the same when you compare domestic flights.
Yes, it's true that you had more leg room back then. Now you have the option to pay the same high fares and get similar leg room, or be cheap and get less leg room.
Classic example of "more choice leads to more dissatisfaction".
> You have the agency to let the person in front of you have a more enjoyable flight without judging them for it.
No, being doormat that never judges assholes is not necessary in order to be a decent person.
In fact, there is special category of decent person heroes who do the uncomfortable thing, judge assholes and even protect and help others when assholery becomes too much. Both when talking about recliners and like, terrorizing thugs in streets.
> Are you talking about agency and not being an asshole, or are you just being selfish about your space?
It is not being selfish to not want to give your space to an asshole who decided to take it. That person is still an asshole. And again, both when we are talking about recliner and when certain government sends violent thugs.
And yet I'd prefer both myself and the person in front of me lean back. The upright posture is painful for me. Is your preference more valid then mine? The fact that the chairs are configured that way suggests the cultural norm.
For me, it's the knees. When everyone is leaned back you can't even comfortably use a tablet to read, while I can comfortably sit upright for a few hours (of course taking a walk from time to time). The person in front reclining their seat forces me to either manspread into the seat on the left or right (if I'm not on the aisle) or stick my feet in the aisle and getting in the cabin crew's way as they move back and forth.
I did this once and one time was forced into doing it and it was a horrific nightmare. The lack of contra for my legs meant I was constantly slipping forward, it was tiring. The fact that this is an emergency seat made it worse - there was no handle for the hand because of some bullshit. The flight attendant policed every action I did from putting my jacket on to eating with the attachable tray. I will never do it again even if it means I fly for free.
One of the most relaxed flights I ever had I was window seat in the back row with a pleasant elderly couple. When everyone else was busy queuing to get off the plane they were sat knitting. I'd got into my novel and just sat enjoying it until they moved. Far less stressful than the usual madness.
They're absolutely not assholes. People who expect the world to revolve around them and cater for their every whim are probably more deserving of that title.
Tall people don't choose their height, fat people (mostly) choose their weight.
Edit: also, if the airline can't deal with a certain percentile of the population under their normal product, they should figure out how to make it happen. It's discrimination to not account for tall people
I'm about 6' tall, even. In some cattlejets, my knees physically touch the seat in front of me. A lady on a recent flight flung her seat back and I cried out involuntarily in sudden pain.
I understand why she wanted to lean back. And yet, when she did, it freaking hurt. I'm around the 80th percentile in height in the US, and while my doctor says I could lose a few pounds, I wear a men's large shirt so I'm not exactly enormous. Even though they seat can technically recline, you cannot convince me that they're actually meant to.
I get significant pain when I sit fully upright. If I must fly I need to recline. I've been to a doctor (and had surgery...) but the pain is there and reclining is required for minimal comfort. Deal with it, the seats are small, but my seat is going to affect you, you are just a jerk for thinking you need that extra space.
Seats have gotten smaller. It wasn’t a big deal 30 years ago because you could reclining without mashing the person behind you.
It’s kind of like a yoga studio with mats 3 feet apart when they use to be 6. You’re allowed, and encouraged, to spread your arms out wide, but now if you do you’re going to have a hand in your neighbor’s face. The yoga studio laughs at the visitors arguing about whether one’s an asshole for using their arm space, or for telling others to stop slapping them in the face, when the whole thing is their fault.
I mean, do whatever you want that doesn’t hurt people around you. But when it hurts them, it’s time to ask whether our own convenience is worth the pain we’re causing.
Why is the airplane that chooses to place seats so close together not on the hook for all of the blame in this scenario? We could just offer a decent traveling experience for everyone.
Isn't it the passenger's fault for failing to purchase a seat that meets their needs? The airline isn't to blame for offering a cheaper alternative for those who find it sufficient. And other passengers certainly aren't to blame for using the product that they purchased.
Oh, it’s definitely their fault. They brought this about to cram extra seats on a flight, customers be damned. No doubt about it, they’re certainly the root cause.
But when you find yourself in an uncomfortable group situation, it’s good to ask how you can make it better for everyone, or at least not worsen it. “I paid so I’m doing whatever it takes to not inconvenience myself in the slightest” is the origin of “this is why we can’t have nice things”.
It’s different when there’s a compelling physical need here. If the person in front of me has a hurt back and can’t bear sitting upright, and I knew about it, I’d put up with it as best I can in the interest of we’ve all got to get along. But in the scheme of things, not that many people are unable to sit up and not crush their neighbors.
> It’s different when there’s a compelling physical need here. If the person in front of me has a hurt back and can’t bear sitting upright, and I knew about it, I’d put up with it as best I can in the interest of we’ve all got to get along. But in the scheme of things, not that many people are unable to sit up and not crush their neighbors.
How would you know whether or not the person in front of you has a compelling physical need? Are they supposed to explain their health concerns to you in the hope that you deem it sufficiently acceptable for them to do what they can to be comfortable? It’s unreasonable to expect someone in physical pain to suffer the indignity of explaining themselves to someone they don’t know.
Fair point! So when I scream in their ear for causing me pain, your contention is that I’m free to do that and I don’t owe them an explanation. I’m sure that logic will make everyone around us smile and nod their heads in approval.
That seems like quite the leap and will more than likely result in you being escorted off the plane when you reach your destination.
It may well be an inconvenience to you if someone chooses to recline their seat but nobody owes you an explanation. Expecting them to justify themselves to you isn’t a reasonable stance. And given that you don’t know what someone is going through, whether they have a hidden disability, whether they’re in chronic pain, I really wouldn’t advise asking, let alone shouting at them.
The Puget Sound ferries often have a partially-done jigsaw puzzle on one of the tables. You can't finish it in 30m, so people come and do their part and move on. Eventually someone will put in the last piece, I guess, I've never seen it happen.
I love those. I have finished one (well it was missing a couple of pieces), between West-Seattle and Vashon, and what was better was that I contributed to the puzzle earlier on the way from Vashon.
My last visit to Seattle was in 1998 so I can't confirm this firsthand, but I would bet that when someone finishes the jigsaw, ferry staff bring out a new one.
Usually somebody just scrambles it again, but they are regularly rotated. I don’t have a precise measure, but I would guess every couple of weeks or so.
Let’s be realistic. I love long distance train journeys, but mainly for recreation. Being on a train for 3-5 days is pretty exhausting no matter how comfortable. I’ve done the 30 day Amtrak pass before and it was fantastic but I wouldn’t be looking forward to that if it was a work trip where I want to fly in and then get back to my family as fast as possible. There’s no way that can compare to a 5-6 hour flight+2 hours at the airport.
Amtrak is decent on very specific routes and still an absolute joke to anyone who has used trains in Europe, Japan, Taiwan, etc, and no personal experience but I'd imagine China too. My friend takes the Amtrak route up and down the Pacific coast precisely because she's stuck on a train for days and can't be disturbed while doing boring paperwork as an anti-procrastination strategy. Although the observation cars do have great views.
People who have used trains in Japan or Taiwan - islands have never used a train that is anything like Amtrak does and so have no comparison. Even in Europe long distance cross border rail is in most cases pretty bad as well.
However if you only compare the shorter distance rail in those places to what the US has some of the other trains are actually pretty good. Even then though Chicago's trains are a better comparison than anything Amtrak offers
I mean what do you consider long-distance? Inter-railing is a time honoured tradition for European Youth, and many of my generation alone would be very familiar with economy sleepers from e.g. Krakow to Prague or Budapest.
The ICE trains in particular are magnificent, and a worthy alternative to air travel.
Yes people do it all the time in Europe. It mostly works. However if you follow the space at all you will see a lot of stories about things going wrong - far more than there should be. Amtrak is mostly fine in the US, but there are still far more problems than there should be.
I mean, maybe you had a different experience. In my experience in the northeast , the internet service is about as reliable and consistent as the trains themselves (ie not consistent, garbage fire)
I was rather disappointed by the internet connection on the Cascades line (going Seattle --> Portland and back). As far as I could tell, they use T-Mobile for backhaul. Who are headquartered in Seattle. Yet the connection barely seemed to work for about half of the journey
boo, it's in the middle of no where along part of the route. Tmobile coverage is mainly in urban areas and along free ways no matter what slingblade tells you on the tv commercial. I don't know if you'd get any coverage on parts of that route other than wired.
Just like how sometimes when you're flying over the rockies or into canada you just don't get internets. There's still middles of no where out there. Often not very far from the freeway.
This wouldn’t bother me as much but it’s really like 5-7 days depending on freight use of the lines and they can’t tell you ahead of time what it’s going to be somehow?
Some low cost airlines no longer have anything. A small fold-out tray to hold your tablet. There is Wi-Fi to access an intranet with flight information and maybe some entertainment. If you have that, you just load it up with games from your play store.
I prefer the Airbus 31x and 32x models without the entertainment systems so much more. On United the Boeing had fucking ads playing NON STOP THE ENTIRE FLIGHT and because I boarded early I'd try to turn off as many around me as possible because somehow the flying public does not mind bright flashing annoying lights in their faces for HOURS.
This is increasingly common in domestic US full-price airlines. It makes sense, in a way - most folks have their own devices, and the airlines save money and weight and don't have to worry about future tech obsolescence - but still makes me a bit sad.
Right? That's why I don't want a car with any system for entertainment, beyond generics like speakers. The car is ideally going to last 25+ years, by which time that shit will be obsolete. The software won't be upgradable, etc.
Same. I most recently flew Frontier and despite looking really spartan, it was actually super comfortable. And no reclining to fret over the whole flight.
Indeed - I don't generally fly on US low cost carriers, but regularly used to fly on EasyJet in Europe, and the non-reclining seats were just more pleasant for everyone.
There's a bug in the Delta Air Lines chess program. After cxd6 en passant, the captured pawn isn't removed [0]. White's bishop is then able to check the black king through the pawn (the pawn that should have been removed) [1].
I guess it's just a display bug, then? Though it's hard to imagine what kind of bug would lead the game state and the visual representation to get out of sync in that particular way.
They're probably using an OSS chess engine in something like C++, but using HTML/CSS/JS for the interface. 90% moves could be represented by a chess board as a 2D array, checking the engine accepts it as a valid move, and then replacing what's on that square be it empty space or a now captured piece. Castling, pawn promotion, and en passant are the edge cases with en passant being the most obscure.
My guess is they only remove captured pieces on the moved-to square (maybe relying on an implicit capture by overwriting an array entry). This is probably easier than actually tracking pieces that get captured.
The game is likely in javascript but because of this bug we know it's not using React because with React the programmer doesn't update the view, React does.
I wonder if they gave the chess bot X seconds of thinking time in an era when computers were slower?
The way you set difficulty for turn based game ai is that you limit how far ahead the algorithm searches. If you set the lookahead based on compute time your difficulties will be way out of line if someone upgrades the CPU.
Something similar happened to the macOS chess game, which has always been bundled with OSX/macOS. Once upon a time it was easy to beat in easy mode, which restricted how long it could thing in advance.
When Big Sur rolled out around 2020, Apple introduced a bug which disabled the difficulty slider: no matter what it was set to, it was hard or impossible to beat. In macOS Sequoia, the Chess app got updated again, and supposedly they fixed the difficulty slider, but in the interval silicon improved so much that the old restraints (like think for only a second) mean little. The lowest levels play like a grand master.
is there some reason to implement it as a time limit instead of iterations or something else deterministic? it being affected by CPU speed or machine load seems obvious.
or whatever makes sense if “iterations” isn’t a thing, I know nothing about chess algorithms
It’s simpler. Chess is a search through the space of possible moves, looking for a move that’s estimated to be better than the best move you’ve seen so far.
The search is by depth of further moves, and “better” is a function of heuristics (explicit or learned) on the resulting board positions, because most of the time you can’t be sure a move will inevitably result in a win or a loss.
So any particular move evaluation might take more or less time before the algorithm gives up on it—or chooses it as the new winner. To throw a consistent amount of compute at each move, the simple thing to do is give the engine consistent amounts of time per move.
> To throw a consistent amount of compute at each move, the simple thing to do is give the engine consistent amounts of time per move.
The simple thing to do is give it a limit on the total number of states it can explore in its search.
If your goal is consistency, wall-clock time makes no sense. If I run 'make -j20', should the chess computer become vastly easier because the CPU is being used to compile, not search? Should 'nice -n 20 <chess app pid>' make the chess computer worse?
Should my computer thermal-throttling because it's a hot day make the chess computer worse, so chess is harder in winter?
If the goal is consistency, then wall-clock isn't the simple way to do it.
> It’s simpler than doing a limit on number of states
According to who?
A counter that you ++ each move sounds a lot easier to me than throwing off a separate thread/callback to handle a timer.
> Doing a time limit also enforces bot moving in a reasonable time.
It's designed for specific hardware, and will never have to run on anything significantly slower, but might have to run on things significantly faster. It doesn't need a time cutoff that would only matter in weird circumstances and make it do a weirdly bad move. It needs to be ready for the future.
> It puts a nice limit to set up a compromise between speed and difficulty.
Both methods have that compromise, but using time is way more volatile.
A time limit is also deterministic in some sense. Level settings used to be mainly time based, because computers at lower settings were no serious competition to decent players, but you don't necessarily want to wait for 30 seconds each move, so there were more casual and more serious levels.
Limiting the search depth is much more deterministic. At lower levels, it has hilarious results, and is pretty good at emulating beginning players (who know the rules, but have a limited skill of calculating moves ahead).
One problem with fixed search depth is that I think most good engines prefer to use dynamic search depth (where they sense that some positions need to be searched a bit deeper to reach a quiescent point), so they will be handicapped with a fix depth.
> One problem with fixed search depth is that I think most good engines prefer to use dynamic search depth (where they sense that some positions need to be searched a bit deeper to reach a quiescent point), so they will be handicapped with a fix depth.
Okay, but I want to point out nobody was suggesting a depth limit.
For a time-limited algorithm to work properly, it has to have some kind of sensible ordering of how it evaluates moves, looking deeper as time passes in a dynamic way.
Switch to an iteration limit, and the algorithm will still have those features.
Getting more thinking time tends to give surprisingly small improvements to playing strength. For a classical alpha-beta search based engine, for a given ply (turn) you might have ~20 moves to consider each depth of the search tree. If you're trying to brute force search deeper, a 10x increase in compute time or power doesn't even let you search an extra ply.
Elo gains for engines tend to come from better evaluation, better pruning, and better search heuristics. That's not to say that longer search time or a stronger CPU doesn't help, it just doesn't magically make a weak engine into a strong engine.
There is a strategy called alpha beta pruning meaning you can discard a lot of move options quickly based on the results of similar branches. That and caching similar board states means 20x options does not mean 20x CPU time.
True, although better pruning can massively lower the effective branching ratio compared to pure alpha-beta, making the algorithm benefit more from longer search time again (which is why pruning is so important).
Naming it the "Turbo" button rather than making "turbo mode" the default and then pressing a button for "slow" mode, IMO, was marketing genius, even though the results are the same.
Blizzard did a similar thing in World of Warcraft during the beta. After playing for a while, your character would get "exhausted" and start earning half experience for killing mobs. The only way to stop being exhausted would be to log off or spend a LONG time in an inn. At some point, they flipped the script. They made the "exhausted" state the default, and while offline or in an inn, you would gain a "rested" experience buffer, where you would earn double experience.
The mechanic worked exactly the same, but by giving it different terms, players felt rewarded for stepping away from the game occasionally, rather than punished for playing too long. They also marketed it as a way of giving players a way to "catch up" after spending a day or two offline.
The original intention behind the turbo button was to give a way to set the clock speed something closer to a 4.77 MHz Intel 8088 for the benefit of games that relied on CPU cycle timing. Therefore turbo was the default and slow mode the exception.
For some reason this feature persisted in PC compatibles long past having any useful purpose, e.g. toggling a 386 between 33 MHz and 25 MHz. Perhaps manufacturers feared any PC without such a button would be perceived as slower, even though as you say, it's really a slow-down button not a turbo button.
Yes of course you'll keep it on the fast speed as much as you can, not the slow speed. But it's still presented as fast being a bonus rather than slow being a malus.
Alternatively, since there's only one difficulty provided ("easy"), I wondered if the programmer have selected say, DifficultyLevels array index 0 meaning the easiest, but it was actually sorted hardest first.
In short: it plays far too well (~2500 ELO.) People think it originally played at a reasonable level and accidentally got more powerful as the seatback computers got more powerful; the same thing happened to the Mac chess app with the release of the M1.
That would be exceptionally sloppy development. Phones have had more than enough power for long enough. 4 core Skylake (Mac 2016) would be well beyond human capabilities, if it's just raw power.
The "thinking" (difficult) limit should be considered moves ahead, both depth and count. With a possible limit to time, if there is any time control.
> 4 core Skylake (Mac 2016) would be well beyond human capabilities
Not if the computer's time limit is set at 15 microseconds. It's not a question of whether the computers have "enough power"; just whether they are more powerful now than they were previously.
And yes, obviously that's a very sloppy and error-prone way to implement a difficulty control.
Even a computer from 20+ years ago will comfortably crush Carlsen, it really goes down to the specific engine used, chess engines have evolved a lot during the years.
Carlsen knows how to play anti-bot chess where some engines may struggle, but that only applies to amateurish engines.
> the same thing happened to the Mac chess app with the release of the M1
I fired up Chess shortly after getting an M1 and got destroyed a bunch of times. I thought that I was just extremely out of practice and quit playing for years. I guess it's better to find out late rather than never.
Precisely a Core Duo and a custom build with -O3 -ffast-math (a Chess engine doesn't requiere anything further from integers) and -march=$YOUR_CPU_THERE can yield crazy performance speeds without needing an m4 and a great match even for masters.
Is this really true? I played a few games with it in August. It's not very good.
It's one of those old programs where 95% of the moves are pretty strong. But if you just do nothing and sit back it will occasionally make a random blunder and then you grind it out. I figured it's how they were able to weaken a chess engine back in the day; can't adjust the overall strength, so add random blunders.
I'm only about 2000 on lichess but I beat it pretty much every time, especially once I realized there is no reason to try anything sharp.
My suspicion is that the bot was a fairly standard chess bot, but the difficulties were set based on computation time. As airplane computers got better, it turned into a beast.
As a result, if you tried this on older planes, it might have been “easier”
One of my first paid iOS dev jobs was porting a Go game from iPad to iPhone, don't even think the 4 was out yet. It also used computation time based difficulties. By the time I was done writing it, I knew a few tricks I could eke a win out with on 19x19.
When the iPhone 5S came out, I tried it on a whim to check the UI scaling etc... the beginner difficulty on a 9x9 board deleted me. It was grabbing something like 64x more samples per go, the lowest difficulty on the 5S (instant responses) never lost a single game vs the highest difficulty 3GS (15 second turns)
iPhones had a lot of moments like that. Silly bullshit like "what if every pixel was a cell in a collection view" would go from "oh it can barely do 128" to "more responsive than that was, with 2 million" in a few gens.
One of the minor weird things about iOS development early on was just how fast the transition was from the simulator being dramatically faster than actual devices to the simulator being slower than devices. When I started out you’d get things working nicely in the simulator and then discover it’s an order of magnitude too slow on a phone. Just a few years later and my phone was faster than my laptop until thermal throttling kicked in.
I was maintainer of the Chess app from the early 2000s to about 2015. We first noticed in 2004 that level 1 (which was then "Computer thinks for 1 second per move) was getting stronger with each hardware generation (and in fact stronger than myself).
So we introduced 3 new levels, with the Computer thinking 1, 2, or 3 moves ahead. This solved the problem of the engine getting stronger (though the jump from "3 moves ahead" to "1 second" got worse and worse).
A few years after I had handed off the project, somebody decided to meddle with the level setting code (I was not privy to that decision). The time based levels were entirely replaced with depth based levels (which eliminates the strength inflation problem, but unfortunately was not accompanied by UI changes). But for some reason, parsing of the depth setting was broken as well, so the engine now always plays at depth 40 (stronger than ever).
This should be an easy fix, if Apple gets around to make it (Chess was always a side project for the maintainers). I filed feedback report 21609379.
I found a used copy of Warcraft 3 at the store about ten years after it came out, proudly brought it home, fired it up and didn’t recall the graphics being quite that awful, but the first time I tried to scroll the map sideways it shot to the far end because they didn’t build a timing loop onto the animation and I shut it down, disappointed.
Unfortunately they never released a remastered version of it. They seem to have made some clone of it called “reforged” whatever the fuck that means.
Reforged was received poorly because it was a lazy half assed job that was a blatant cash grab. Not because culturally we have moved on and the game has aged beyond being fun
You probably knew this, but wanted to make sure others knew that the reason they ended the franchise is not because there was no market, but instead it was pure unadulterated greed that led to that situation. In an alternate reality they would have actually done the remake justice and there would be a lively competitive scene
There are various hacks and tools for games (especially DOS games, but for W3 there may exist the same) which delayloop various calls to slow things down enough "to work".
The Dolphin emulator has run into similar things; usually doing things "too fast" just gets you more FPS but sometimes it causes the game to go insane.
This is pretty much the experience of trying to play any game from the '90s on modern hardware. It always requires a bit of tinkering and usually a patch from the modding community. Funniest one I've found is Fallout Tactics. The random encounter frequency is somehow tied to clock speed so you'll basically get hit with random encounters during map travel about once every half second.
I've been enjoying Total Annihilation since 1997. Still works fine on fairly modern hardware with Windows 11. No modifications other than some additional maps that I downloaded decades ago.
Sorry if this is a dumb question but did you patch it to the latest version? I don't know if the in-game updater still works but from memory you could download some sort of patch exe file and update it that way.
The original Wing Commander was like that. Playable on 286s/386s, then Pentiums and beyond showed up and it was unplayable. The game started in the "simulator" to show you the controls, and you'd get blown out of space in about 0.5 seconds.
The original Wing Commander brings back memories! I remember being amazed by the graphics and the story.
These days I cannot stand games with cliched storyline and tend to skip the cutscenes, but back then it all seemed so amazing... like a cross between a movie and a game.
I remember playing it later and running into speed issues too, but usually there was a way to tweak the emulator in order to fix this.
> they didn’t build a timing loop onto the animation
Wow.
1984 (!!!) IBM PC (DOS) port of the game Alley Cat had timings built it. They actually used the system clock if I remember correctly, so it would always run at the correct pace no matter how fast the computer. Last I checked it, decades later, it still ran at the correct speed!
AFAIK the only reason Chess even ships at all anymore is as a burn utility. They'll set it to AI vs AI at max difficulty to stress the system and make sure the cooling/power management works.
Never heard that one (it may indeed be used that way, but if it were the only reason Apple would probably keep it in the Apple internal parts of their OS installs).
It would also be of limited use, as the engine is purely CPU based; it is single threaded and does not even use SIMD AFAIK, let alone GPU features or the neural engines.
They aren't talking about the site, they're talking about their strength (as measured by that site) so it can be compared to the numbers in the article.
> I figured it's how they were able to weaken a chess engine back in the day; can't adjust the overall strength, so add random blunders.
In tom7’s Elo World, he does this (“dilutes” strong Chess AIs with a certain percentage of random moves) to smooth the gradient since otherwise it would be impossible to evaluate his terrible chess bots against something like Stockfish since they’d just lose every time. https://youtu.be/DpXy041BIlA?si=z7g1a_TX_QoPYN9b
2. I played a chess bot on Delta on easy and it was really bad, felt like random moves. I beat it trivially and I am actually bad at chess, ~1000 on chess.com. I wonder if this one is different?
That's true, I'm 2050-2100 lichess, around 1800 on chess.com. Never played a rated tournament but played some rated players who were 1400-1500 rated USCF, and they were roughly my strength, maybe a bit better. Still the Delta bot, easy mode, was much, much better than me.
I think it depends on the pool to which you're comparing. Being top 2% of all programmers is not so impressive if you include everyone who's ever taken an Intro class. Top 2% of people who do it for a living is much more significant.
I'm in a similar boat as the other posters (2050-2100 lichess, 1400 USCF). The median active rating for USCF is around 1200 and likely much higher if you don't include scholastic players, so if we compare against the OTB pool, "2000 lichess" is probably closer to top 50% than 2%
I mean, if you’re in the top 3 percent of anything, yes that’s pretty good, but not unbelievably so, especially in the field of chess. If for instance you randomly put together a classroom full of chess players, there’s decent odds one of them is better than top 3%. Two classrooms and it’s almost a certainty.
Put another way, looking at chess.com users, there are ~6 million people who would count as the top 3 percent. Difficult to achieve, yes, but if 6 million people can achieve it, it’s not really a “humble brag,” it’s just a statement.
It made me smile to hear “I’m only 97th percentile” isn’t a humblebrag. You may be employing an old saw of mine, you can make people* react however you want by leaning on either percentages or whole numbers when you shouldn’t.
* who don’t have strong numeracy and time to think
I heard it's never intended to be the same since initial rating for Lichess and chess.com respectively is 1500 and 1200. So they should have 300 rating difference on average. Quite fitting with what the other commenter claims actually.
I don’t think it would average out to a 300 elo difference simply based on the starting rating being 300 apart.
If everything else was the same, and people play enough games they will average out to the same elo.
The difference is caused by many factors. People don’t play enough games to sink to their real elo, the player pool is different, and you gain/lose fewer points per game with Lichess’s elo algorithm.
ELO is relative. There's no reason why a GM ELO should be 2800 or 280 or 28000. So it's all decided by ELO of every other person. So if the ELO gain/loss calculation and audience of Lichess and chess.com are exactly the same, because of different starting position, I don't think they'd converge to the same ELO but instead will differ by starting position difference.
Also I can't really prove it mathematically but I guess average ELO would also hover on the starting ELO. Because I can't see why it would hover anywhere else and any ELO gained would be lost by someone else.
When I started playing I believe chess.com let you select whether you’re beginner, intermediate or advanced and your start elo was based on that. Could be wrong, and it could’ve changed since.
I wonder if it's different on different planes? I can easily beat my friend and he won a few games on a flight, I played on a different flight and got crushed for two hours straight. I'm probably 1400-ish
This was my experience on a long Delta flight, I don't remember if I picked easy or not but it was laughably bad. I took its lunch money for a game and then turned the screen off. I was mostly irritated by the horrible touch interface, it felt so laggy among other issues. (I don't have a ranking, I barely play these days and usually just in person, but my memory says around 1400 back in the yahoo chess days as a teen but it's probably closer to 1000 now.)
Not only is the delta chessbot bad (My low 1600s lichess-elo self can win handily every single time against any difficulty, white or black), but there's also a sequence of moves I found which deterministically causes the game to crash. I should probably record it next time I'm on a flight.
I'm 2100 rapid on lichess, 2050 blitz and bullet. I got destroyed every single time I played the easy mode version on Delta. It knew opening theory. It did not blunder a single time in the middle game. I never made it to an end game.
I think you must be talking about something else, the Delta bot in discussion here has about 2500 ELO and basically crushes anyone who isn't a professional chess player.
There used to be a chess program in windows 3.1 that would destroy me every time. Not that I was very good, of course! But I think if you just code the known opening books it's not too hard to make a bot that requires a skilled player to beat.
Sometimes the airlines chess app gives you the option to play another passenger, but even after waiting for half an hour I've never been hooked up with another player. Has anyone else been able to?
Yes, as someone who is usually flying with my GF, I love this feature! Unfortunately air canada's implementation is abysmal and anytime there is a pilot announcement it interrupts the game long enough to break the network connection and cause it to end the game.
It only works with passengers on your same flight. In practice, it's good for kids in the same family or school group who are sitting across the aisle from each other. I've used it for some of their other games
I know I'm getting old when I read comments like this. It wouldn't have occurred to me in a million years that it might pair me with passengers on another flight. I'm conditioned by having first experienced this feature probably 30 years or so ago when pairing to passengers on other flights would have been science fiction.
That's how the system was originally designed, before in flight WiFi was common. If they're gonna hook it up to the broader internet and allow playing games cross-flight, they might as well just hook it up to an existing service like chess.com and have a significantly larger user base imo
one flight I was on had trivia which allowed multiplayer. We ended up with about 10 playing the game. I thought it was a good idea for a networked computer and captive audience.
On the other hand, the poker apps encourage me to consider a career change. I regularly crush the "opposition" with my card-counting skills. World Series of Poker, I am all-in!!! ;-)
I don't understand why this post is getting so much attention. What's so special about this specific chess bot? Developing a 2500 chess.com rating level chess bot is by no means a hard task.
I see some chess players so I want to plug the chess coaching app [0] I'm building. I don't know many chess players and could use feedback, but I had been paying for chess.com premium and tried some others and it's always game-level feedback which is insane to me because it's really not that helpful (as evidenced by my abysmal rating.)
I'm running games through stockfish/lc0/Maia and doing some analysis of patterns across multiple games, then feeding that to an agent who can replay through positions and some other fun stuff. Really keen to find out if it's helpful for anyone else!
I'm going to check this out, as it's legitimately attempting to solve the gap in online chess coaches. As said on the home page, I don't want to know what to play, I want to know why I'm not seeing it or how to think about the move differently. This is the gap and I hope you find success. I'm definitely going to check it out.
But to ask, did you consider "chessfriend" instead of "chessfiend" for branding? "fiend" can carry a negative connotation, which I'm not particularly lining up with in your product.
I hadn't considered that name specifically but I'm not married to the branding! I appreciate that feedback and your other comment validating I'm not the only person with this problem. Happy to chat more via email (in bio)
I wanted to check it out.
After login I am immediately redirected to a page asking for $80/year without me even understanding what the service does.
Unrealistic expectation. Show me value first, ask for money later
I played the bot (probably early 2025) and wasn't that impressed. I won 5-1 or something like it. I did win one or two local chess tournaments in the past but I'm really not an impressive chess player.
I don't think I've played this bot. I guess the few times I flew in America wasn't with Delta as I would definitely try chess if available.
From what I've seen in the video I'd give the bot around 2100 FIDE equivalent. Granted you don't play bots like you play people. This bot essentially plays top engine moves and every now and then it introduces suboptimal moves. This technique can be played against choosing appropriate openings and being patient with calculation.
Icelandair’s chess engine was equally brutal (well maybe only slightly less brutal). I played a couple of rounds on medium difficulty only to realize I didn’t stand a chance. I played a few more on beginner, and still lost all my game by blundering some tactics to the engine. Just before landing in Iceland I manage to get one game to the endgame, where the bot finally starts feeling like a beginner (well an advanced beginner) and I got one victory in.
Don't be surprised when you learn their so-called "chess bots" are actually people, lying hidden below the floor of the passenger cabin, moving pieces with the help of levers and magnets.
Your problem is that you have only one comment's worth of context and can't be bothered to read up the thread. The comment was "Don't be surprised when you learn their so-called "chess bots" are actually people, lying hidden below the floor of the passenger cabin, moving pieces with the help of levers and magnets."
That was a joke about the Mechanical Turk (as a response to "I used to fly a lot of Turkish, and their one's laughably bad. If anyone here works for Turkish Airlines, get yourself a better Chess bot"), which is why I said that's what it sounds like and provided the link. "Amazon Mechanical Turk" does not involve hidden people moving the pieces with the help of levers and magnets and has nothing to do with chess bots on Turkish airlines. I posted the link because most people aren't familiar with the Mechanical Turk and would not know what @tomjakubowski's joke referred to.
I'm sorry if you still can't follow, but your failure to comprehend isn't my fault and I'd rather not be insulted for simply posting an informative link because of someone else's misunderstanding so I'm not going to comment further.
You are making unwarranted assumptions here. I read the comments in order.
tomjakubowski joked about the mechanical turk. anematode recognized the reference, you recognized the reference, and I recognized the reference.
But you didn't reply to tomjakubowski as a general explainer to the audience. You replied to anematode. You replied to anematode in a way that suggested they needed the joke explained, even though they not only understood it, they expanded on it.
That's what I didn't comprehend. Why did you reply there and phrase it like that. And you still haven't explained.
Your claim that [["Amazon Mechanical Turk" does not involve hidden people moving the pieces with the help of levers and magnets and has nothing to do with chess bots on Turkish airlines.]] makes it sound like you still don't understand anematode's joke. Amazon's mechanical turk is named after the original mechanical turk. It has very much to do with turkish chess bots.
I know you responded to "sounds like", I'm asking why.
When they said "sounds like", they were acknowledging the mechanical turk joke, and extending it. Your response looks like you're calling them wrong, like why are they talking about amazon, it's actually about mechanical turk! Which would be a deep misunderstanding of their comment.
Could you just say yes or no: When you first replied, did you realize they understood the mechanical turk joke?
You never asked anything, rude boy. All the misunderstanding is yours. I said I wouldn't respond again to your sealioning ... I'll stick to it this time. Over and out.
Someday a delta engineer will go fix the UI bug where the labels for the difficulty levels were inverted in order compared to the enums used by the chess engine.
Last time I flew Delta they no longer had this bot, which made me sad. One of my favorite parts of flying was getting absolutely crushed into a tiny cube by the airplane seat's easy chess bot, and then again by the airplane seat itself when the person in front of me reclines their seat.
> then again by the airplane seat itself when the person in front of me reclines their seat.
This reminds me of the time I had my laptop open on the tilt-down tray and the very large man in the seat in front just repositioned his girth (not even reclining the seat) but it flexed the seat back enough that my laptop screen was momentarily caught between the tray below and recessed lip above and was almost crushed.
That happened to me when I had an ipad in a standing case and the seat in front cranked back - trapping then pinging the tablet across me and by neighbour's lap.
Though the ipad itself wasn't damaged, a couple of glasses didn't make it, and required the steward to try to brush up whatever fragments of glass they could.
I feel that airlines are a microcosm of "Do you care about who you actions might affect?" - similar to the "Do you return the cart to the corral" test at supermarkets - are you willing to put even the smallest bit of effort to significantly improve other people's experiences?
Airlines shouldn't have reclining seats, it's bad design. Blaming people for the bad design is stupid. I never recline and still blame it on the design. Stupid people exist, you should design for that.
Sorry for an empty response but this, 100% this. As a person who is WELL over 6' tall, the very idea that the person in front of me might recline is enough to give me significant anxiety throughout a flight. I once saw a design for seats where the base slides forward if you want to recline - the idea being, if you're going to recline you're going to do so into your own space, not the person behind you. I'd be a big advocate of that change in seat design...
I’m a shade under 2m tall.
If I put my knees together and sit up straight (back hard against my seat), my knees are hard against the seat in front. They can’t recline. It doesn’t even hurt, the seat just won’t move. Last flight someone turned around and complained then complained to the stewardess. I’m not sticking my legs into my neighbours space, am the time I extended into the aisle I fell asleep and got knee capped by a trolley.
‘Where would you like me to put my legs?’
I’m writing this from a plane seat, having paid for extra room and having been bumped by the airline. That’s nz$1000 gone and 17 hours of misery.
Qatar. Never again.
Aside: I also don’t recline without any empty seat or sleeping person behind.
I'm also over 6' and I don't understand the problem? The seats only recline a few degrees, it's not like they're laying on my lap! Even fully reclined there's plenty of space in front of my face, and leg room is barely impacted at all. (Like probably an inch max?)
Granted, I've only flown American and Delta, maybe other airlines are worse in this respect?
I'm 6'4" with a lot of my height in my legs. Sitting comfortably (not slouching, mind you), my knees already barely rub against the seat in front of me. As soon as that seat is reclined, my knees get crushed and I have to either sit up even straighter or twist to the side, neither of which are comfortable. Or, I have to pay to be in a higher fare class with more space.
Have you tried the exit row instead? Sure, you might have to agree to help others, but if you aren't willing to do that regardless of the row, then that just says a lot about you.
Yepp, I generally will try for the exit row or the first row in a section (sacrificing no under seat storage), but they tend to be the first seats booked. Since I'm usually traveling with multiple other people and we prefer sitting together, it makes it pretty difficult to reliably select those seats with extra leg room. I haven't seen any airlines that charge "+$25 for the extra leg room" on 12+ hour international flights, but if they exist I'd love to know which ones they are!
I’m doing a 17 hour flight right now and paid NZ$1000 extra of the seat you are describing. Booked and paid in March, 9-10 months ago.
Three other people also booked it and I didn’t get it. Qatar airways.
It's been awhile 2017ish, but I used to book flights for a team of photographers that traveled a lot. They all had their individual preferences for aisle/window, exit row. Maybe it was because they all had lots of butt-in-chair miles, but their upgrades were typically $25 for domestic US travel. Maybe I'm conflating that as the price for everyone when it was the price for their status only???
The physical requirements are an issue for a lot of people. E.g. a tall senior citizen, anyone flying with a small child, anyone with a visible disability (temporary or otherwise).
I know American at least has some rows with extra leg room that aren't the exit row. (Though obviously if you want more space you have to pay for it.) Not sure about others.
Yes, it's usually called "premium economy" or something like that. I was resistant for a long time, but eventually decided that being able to walk the next day without pain was worth the extra cost. That said, they tend to fill up quickly -- so not always an option.
Many airlines don't let you choose your seat without paying extra. But yeah, maybe if you're that tall that's just an unfortunate extra cost you have to bear.
At some point you have to do the math. Is +$25 for the extra leg room worth it for a 3 hour flight? 6 hour flight?
I flew from DFW to Sydney on a flight that was not fully booked. They made an announcement for a $150 upgrade to have an entire row to yourself. Once in the air, all of the armrests could be raised to allow you to lay flat. $150/17hours ~= $9/hour for a comfortable-ish sleep on a long haul flight. That's better math than the app subscription model threads have.
They charge do these seats.
And if anyone is finding they have to help out in emergency seats on the regular, please tell us which airline.
* they do charge for.
Those few degrees matter if your knees are already brushing the back of the seat in front of you. It matters how tall you are, how much of that is in your legs, how big your feet are (the more you need to bend your knees, the higher they will be), and it also varies depending on seat design and layout.
For others like me, one trick is to at most minimally use the under seat storage: small handbags only. No backpacks, briefcases, or anything else big enough to hold a laptop. Then, you can put your feet in that space. This lowers my knees by 1-2 inches depending on the plane, which really matters. It's the only thing that helps significantly, aside from paying for premium economy. Doesn't help with the claustrophobia, but there's not much to be done about that.
The other things I've tried (that don't reliably work) are leaning forward from the seat back (to pull my knees back) and slouching slightly (so that the inevitable recline compresses the seat back into my knees rather than bashing them). The former saves my knees, but sacrifices my back. The latter kind of helps during the flight, but walking will still hurt the next day.
> one trick is to at most minimally use the under seat storage [...] Then, you can put your feet in that space
Oh, interesting. I've always done that, it never really occurred to me that others might not. Even if you have a bigger bag you can always take it out during the flight to make space for your feet. That, plus crossing my legs allows me to have my legs flat against the chair (and therefore my knees well below the level where the person in front reclining would make much difference).
Well, it can be annoying to limit oneself to a smaller under-seat bag. Taking the bigger bag out during the flight uses up even more of the available space. I've generally got nowhere to put it except behind my legs (which cramps things a lot): on my lap doesn't work if I want to actually use anything in that bag.
It's easier to just pack my laptop (plus anything I might use during the flight) in my overhead bin carry-on. It's a real pain to actually get anything out of there, but a paperback book or ebook reader will fit in a coat pocket or small handbag -- and that's all I truly need on the plane. Plus, the airline won't be able to force you to check your overhead carry-on that way since the laptop has lithium batteries in it.
6ft plus too, I agree with GP, definitely a problem for me when the seat in front reclines.
My legs are proportionately longer than my upper body which increases the negative effect.
Why does leg length matter? Reclining doesn't impact leg room much since only the upper part of the seat is moving backwards any significant distance, and the space under the seat where my feet go is completely unaffected.
Are your legs so long you have to sit with your knees pressed against the back of the seat in front of you or something? If so I suppose that's understandable.
"Are your legs so long you have to sit with your knees pressed against the back of the seat in front of you or something? If so I suppose that's understandable."
Yes and also for people with long legs, seated in a typical airline seat, their knees will be significantly higher than the top of the seat cushion. So, they get caught up in the sweep of a reclining seatback ahead.
My legs are long enough there isn't room for them to press against the back of the seat. I'm either manspreading into the crevases between seats or in foetal position with my knees halfway up the seat in front of me. A person reclining is excruciating in the former, but in the latter position at least the person in front can't recline as there's no physical space for my body to become more compact. Flying is hell.
Yes, my knees often/always bump into the seat in front of me, even without it being reclined. If/when it is reclined it means my knees are pressed harder backwards.
When I can, I pay for extra leg room or get an aisle seat.
My opinion is strongly that seats should not be reclined. It is inconsiderate.
I agree that sounds frustrating. Respectfully though, it sounds like you're a special case and that's not a problem which would apply to most people.
But maybe in the future I'll make a point of checking whether the person behind me is in the 95th percentile of adult male heights before reclining.
> I agree that sounds frustrating. Respectfully though, it sounds like you're a special case
It would be interesting to know the numbers on this. Height is not going to tell the answer though, you as people of the same height have wildly variably limb length.
I know half a dozen people who have the same issue and they vary from 1.9-2.1m tall.
I don't work in a circus.
1.9m is 6' 3", already in the 93rd percentile of US adult males according to this chart. https://preview.redd.it/oruqlgczepp91.png?auto=webp&s=cb797f... 2.1m is in the 99th percentile. Maybe you just have a lot of very tall friends.
Maybe. I used to like being tall, but seeing a colleague use a fixed height desk as a standing desk has made me reconsider.
Short people would seem likely to be comfortable in more places.
I think once you get past the 95th percentile in any metric like that things start to get more difficult. I'm not even that tall and I sometimes have trouble finding pants that fit me. I imagine there are probably similar difficulties on the other end of the spectrum being below the 5th percentile.
Pants get a large waist as they get longer. I’m not sure I’ve ever had a pair that fit.
Shoe get destroyed very fast, I’m not sure what it is and my feet aren’t that large (UK 12 or 13) but 6 months tops, and they are in pieces.
I used to have so much trouble with pants (I need 30-34 in inches, 86.4cm long and about 76cm waist). No store had that size. I once got to the point where I considered leaning into my Scottish heritage and just wearing a kilt.
The internet has alleviated that for me, but if it hasn't for you -- look for pants with a large hem, and learn some basic sewing skills. It's occasionally possible to add an inch or more of length with the right pair.
This is true, above 190 cm in height some things become issues. Above 2 m must be inconvenient pretty often.
Sure, my femurs are longer than most peoples, but they are with me on _every_ flight I take.
So it is kind of frustrating to me with people like in this thread explicitly saying "I do not care, I will recline my seat, it is not my problem if someone else suffers, they are just being entitled".
> Are your legs so long you have to sit with your knees pressed against the back of the seat in front of you or something?
Not OP. Yes.
good news: that seat design is available and some airlines use it.
> some airlines use it.
and there lies the rub.
Flights from sfo to Frankfurt bolt upright sound unpleasant…
Not to mention that when my wife was pregnant she could barely manage her back pain -with- the recline, never mind without.
The recline button is there for your use. You are welcome to avail of it yourself.
> You are welcome to avail of it yourself.
Ah, the exact opposite of the "pay it forward" principle...
That's exactly how it usually happens in my experience. I think a lot of people are OK if everyones upright on short haul flights (here most budget airlines don't have a recline facility and it's not missed) but once someone reclines into your space you then recline to gain a little space back and the domino effect takes place even if you're not sleeping.
And then the person in the last row is screwed because they are in a seat that doesn't recline but the seat in front of them does, so they have to sit like a canned sardine for the entire flight(ask me how I know).
> Flights from sfo to Frankfurt bolt upright sound unpleasant
Medium haul flights sound like a dream to us slumming down the bottom of the planet.
At least we have Elon giving us decent wifi now. Doha > Auckland at the moment.
> Flights from sfo to Frankfurt bolt upright sound unpleasant
Same flight with someone's seat resting on your knees is downright painful.
> when my wife was pregnant
Imagine if she was a bit taller and someone reclined the seat all the way over her.
> The recline button is there for your use
You're right, like any shared resource, "space" is there for you to use. It doesn't mean you have to use it, you could try to be aware of your surroundings and assess whether your small comfort should come at the cost of someone else's extreme discomfort. And if you use the button others are also free, and probably correct, to call you a dick. Like a guy who empties the bowl of complimentary candy someone offers to all customers.
You shouldn't need physical blocks or laws to define your own common sense and decency.
I'm 185cm and I couldn't imagine having to endure a long haul flight without reclining.
I never get these discussions. It's only ever online that I see complaints. Almost everyone reclines on long flights. It's normal. It's expected. If it makes you uncomfortable that's a you problem, everyone else seems fine with it. If it makes you physically uncomfortable, pay for extra leg room. Don't make your problem the problem of another passenger.
> I never get these discussions. It's only ever online that I see complaints. everyone else seems fine with it
That's a skewed conclusion you're drawing. Are you really surprised that people aren't willing to risk escalating the situation on a plane, arguing with what's likely the very inconsiderate person in front of them? Most people have an aversion to conflict. It doesn't mean "they're fine with it". You probably don’t advertise in real life how much you lean back and not care who’s behind you out of fear that people will change your opinion of you. Real life is a harsh mistress.
I've bumped into people and they said "sorry", do you think they wanted me to bump into them, liked it, and actually believed it was their mistake? No, I just tower at close to 2m so they didn't want to escalate the situation.
P.S. I always look at who sits behind me, if they're "space constrained" or not, and almost always ask if I can recline. Sometimes I don't bother, clearly the person will suffer. Sometimes they said "I'd rather not, thank you". Many times they said "fine". I used to fly a lot and my experience was very clearly not that "everyone is fine". I was never fine even if I didn't start arguing. So how would you have known?
I've literally never been on a 5+ hour flight where anyone in the row in front of me didn't recline at some point.
I've discussed this with various people IRL. No one, including taller people than me, ever complained about people being inconsiderate for reclining. Every tall person complains about leg room.
The vast majority of people do not think it's inconsiderate to recline. They think it's normal and that the function is there for a reason.
I actually think it's inconsiderate to complain to the person in front if they want to recline. The only time that is acceptable is when meals are served.
Anecdotal, but I'm 193cm, take a few 12+ hour flights per year, and have no problem not reclining. For what it's worth, I feel like I've experienced people on my shorter, domestic flights reclining their seats more often than on my longer, international flights.
> I never get these discussions.
Nor I. TFA is about a chess bot, yet here we are discussing seat reclining etiquette.
You’ve been here before right?
At least we aren’t discussing ad blockers for the 18th time this week.
Still does not negate that they do not make sense when they occur.
You're tall so you can't sit upright? :P Do you need to lean backwards when you work too? I think you are wrong and a lot of people are not fine with it. I don't need a closeup view of someone's bald spot while trying to eat shitty airplane food.
So why is the recline button there?
Mainly because they were introduced when the seats were set farther apart. Now companies squeeze more rows and keep the same seats.
But also because with any shared resource there's an expectation of decency involved. Some people just betray that expectation. They're the ones with the mentality that "they shouldn't have served alcohol if they didn't want me to get insufferably drunk", "they shouldn't have put the candy out if they didn't want me to take all of it", "why is the swing there in the park if not for my kids to use them continuously to the disappointment of other kids".
When your wife was pregnant someone probably let her go ahead in a queue, have her some priority for something, etc. That was a person with common sense and decency, not asking "why do queues exist", who doesn't do something only if there's a law about it.
I’m several inches over 6’ and if I don’t get a fire exit seat I’m highly likely to get seated behind someone who will call me “extremely rude” for wrangling uncomfortably and bumping their seat uncontrollably when they inevitably decide that extra 6 degrees of recline is worth more than my knee cartilage.
People generally didn’t even offer her a seat on the metro. And letting other people decide whether you should be permitted to use the functionality the airline has given you is dysfunctional people pleasing.
> dysfunctional people pleasing
Your "dysfunctional people pleasing" is someone else's "not being a total dick". As I said, there's no law against it. It's all about character and education (or lack thereof). Some people even think they must brag about it because why else would they have a mouth and keyboard.
"Reclining one's airline seat = being a total dick" is the Godwin's-lawification of airline travel.
>the functionality you have paid for
Good for me but not for thee.
I still see ashtrays on older plans, trains, and boats. Sometimes older stuff is left there because it's not financially advantageous to replace it. You can use the recline button to your liking, but it can be inconsiderate to do it. Traveler discretion is advised.
A question you can always ask yourself is "should I do it just because I can do it?". It will stop you from being needlessly inconsiderate many times, and maybe even make you a better person.
in reality there should be a legal minimum leg room that's based on the distance of the flight
the recline feature should be baked in to this as well
It's the 21st century. Blowhards of the world united with the miracle of technology are moaning at any attempt of common sense regulation. This will become culture wars material right away.
They would argue that the market would solve the issue.
I think reclining is appropriate at night only. If it were up to me, they would be locked upright during the day.
Night or day is a vague concept on an 11 hour flight
It wouldn't surprise me if Ryanair had reclining seats that reclined only if you paid for it.
I think the secret of Ryanair is that their goal is actually to make their turnarounds as fast and efficient as possible, not explicitly to make money by adding a fee for every little aspect of the service.
If anything can possibly slow down flight boarding, disembarking or cleanup, they'll first try to remove it completely, and only if people object too much will they reluctantly offer it with a fee.
Pocket on the seat back -> most people don't use on short flights -> get rid of them.
Luggage -> most people need this, but not everyone -> charge a fee.
Reclining seat -> most people don't use on short flights -> get rid of them.
They do sell drinks and duty free; that's an interesting one. I guess once the flight is airborne, the flight attendants aren't really doing anything else (from management's perspective) so they might as well sell stuff. Plus the trolley blocking the aisle stops passengers from moving around, which they probably see as a big advantage.
I think this even applies to the ridiculous penalty fees they charge for e.g. trying to check in at the airport rather than doing it beforehand on the app. It feels like they're just trying to rip you off, but I suspect they see it more as a "nudge" to make people check in online, because that streamlines their airport process.
I got a little bit less annoyed by them when I realised this. Sure, it's still uncomfortable and sometimes infuriating, but it's all with the aim of an efficient and reliable service, and they're way better than average at that.
> It feels like they're just trying to rip you off, but I suspect they see it more as a "nudge" to make people check in online, because that streamlines their airport process.
I believe the airline pays the airport for every check in and luggage handling transaction. They are just cutting costs.
That's not (really) it.
Ryanair makes little to no money from passengers, nowadays it's mainly from selling airplanes. They were still profitable during COVID without even carrying passengers at some point, only thanks to their flying school, which thanks to social dumping and the UE, allow them to charge 40k€ per wannabe pilot without even guaranteeing them a hire.
They booked 2000 737max, with their own special version during COVID+MCAS disaster, they paid it dirt cheap.
Then they operate them marginally, and now that the traffic has gone up again and the delay between buying and receiving a Max is about 8 years, they sell them back for a huge profit.
It's been known for ages in the industry.
Do you have a link for that? It sounds interesting but a bit unlikely. It's hard to see how charging for pilot training, even at 40K a pop, would be a sustainable business.
The thing about buying planes is also interesting, but sounds like a sneaky business move rather than the actual foundation of the business.
I've always heard that nobody really makes money from passengers, which is why airlines are always going bankrupt, and I'm sure Ryanair's margins are super skinny. But even so, it does seem like moving passengers around is the core of their business, rather than it just being a front for something else.
I never thought of it this way, but now it's clear.
I found that once I tack on luggage, a seat with more space, etc.. they become more expensive than traditional airlines with the same package.
In other words, their business model really seems to be to cater to the "least hassle" passengers who travel light and don't need any extras.
Great analysis and insight! Thanks for sharing
"Your neighbor is trying to recline, outbid them to stop them..."
One verification can to you, sir, for this chuckle.
Thank you sir for the one shiny object.
Don't give them ideas!
Shhh. BMW might hear.
Ryanair doesn't have reclining seats at all.
Which means they haven’t found a way to monetize the feature yet!
Reclining seats are more expensive and heavier. The target customer for a low cost flight is cost sensitive and more resistant to "punishment". The expense would be hard to recuperate.
This is one thing I like about Ryanair; they don't.
I think that they should just make reclining mandatory
> do you care about who your actions might affect
This one surprises me every time I fly. When I have the aisle seat I can be up and out in 10 seconds. It seems to make like everyone else will plop down , place down 3 different liquids on the tray and then take a nap. When I ask to use the bathroom I end up feeling like a nuisance
> When I ask to use the bathroom I end up feeling like a nuisance
It's your right to ask to use the bathroom whenever you need. And others have the right to use that little tray for their stuff when they want. (while allowed by the airline, of course)
You are describing exactly that phenomenon. Of course it's your "right" to do that technically, but is it a nuisance to others? Yes.
Just like smoking next to others (when allowed), or reclining your seat 100% in economy. Technically it's your right to just that.
People asserting their rights is a significant portion of the reason half the population seems angry.
The old problem of "just because you can, doesn't mean you should".
Tactfully ambiguous as to which half you think is asserting their rights and which half you think is angry.
Ha! Wasn’t intentional but also, I’m not sure.
Yup, it's their right, as it's their right to crank their seat back. Both are available, and expected. I see some take issue with people doing them at all, but I don't really mind much. Might be related to being 180cm or so - about 5"11, when most complaining seem to be larger.
My issue on my original post isn't really them moving the seat, but the lack of notice. It would have taken barely a second to lean over the seat and let me know. But I suspect they didn't even think about how that might affect anyone else.
It would be kinda crazy if someone didn't say they wanted to get out to the aisle and just started trying to climb over you with no warning.
Selecting the aisle seat is consenting to be asked to get up, so don't feel bad for asking.
That said, 10 seconds is not a realistic expectation. Ask before it's an emergency.
I actually quite liek yanair's no frills no recline design. For some reason it feels less clusterphobic to me. it just feels more spacious and roomy, despite the absence of space.
And if you are the airline the answer is a resounding "no"
The airline is not a human being. It is an imaginary construct.
And yet it still gets to participate and answer the question in the worst way.
Only in some messed up parts of the world.
Airlines pick out what seats they want and how to space them in most of the world, don't they?
That's the root cause of the suffering here. The actions with the strongest ill effects.
Gorilla glass vs gorilla
(I get the joke) Not even gorillas even, the seats on most US carriers are too small and narrow for a lot of adult men even if they're in good shape. I had to sit shoulder to shoulder with one poor guy an entire flight to New Zealand because both of our shoulder widths are wider than the seats and I wanted to make sure my girlfriend had room enough to sleep. We were both good sports about it and were joking about needing a smoke afterwards, but it was not fun unless he wanted to lean halfway out into the aisle. I'm taller than average but not a giant.
I flew Scoot airlines recently and my 13” MacBook Air was too big to have on my lap even though the seat in front was not reclined.
There's also something about those seats where you get back pain when you try to sleep with your own seat reclined.
Comfort is an up charge.
Lost an Apple iBook screen this way. Guy in front slammed his chair back while I was working on a presentation and the screen got caught at the perfect angle to flex it and it died.
Didn't blame him, lesson learned, and I move my own seat back very slowly now.
Scary.. Did the airline comp you for that?
Of course not!
I swear this happens to me almost every time I fly.
now you know to check who's sitting in front of you. rookie mistake
Opened a laptop on my last flight and this was my immediate and persistent fear
Even when travelling for work I could never bring myself to get a laptop out on an aircraft. I only do it on the train occasionally if I've got something I'm deep into and a table to myself.
> when the person in front of me reclines their seat.
As a reasonably tall person I have never reclined my seat and will forever consider anyone who does an asshole.
The very fact that you can but don’t do something is the precise space where assholeness is defined.
This is fair on shorter flights ~1-4 hours, but I am reasonably tall too and I am not suffering through a 14 hour overnight flight without reclining. I don't think there is anything wrong with it in this case, and flight attendants will force people to de-recline their chair in meal times etc.
Surely you should blame the airlines, rather than the individuals. They cram more people on, giving you less space - but charge the same - and you get mad at other customers, rather than them for cramming you in.
> They cram more people on, giving you less space - but charge the same - and you get mad at other customers, rather than them for cramming you in.
Airline fares are very cheap. Just the other day they compared the cost of flying from London to Calcutta decades ago vs now - much cheaper now. You'll see the same when you compare domestic flights.
Yes, it's true that you had more leg room back then. Now you have the option to pay the same high fares and get similar leg room, or be cheap and get less leg room.
Classic example of "more choice leads to more dissatisfaction".
I pointed out exactly the opposite: surely moral action is only possible when one has agency.
If an airline needs to force you to be a decent person, then you have no right to claim decency in the first place.
People who lean their seats back are assholes. Claiming “but this is permitted!” proves my point.
I can’t imagine what a nightmare world it would be if decency were only possible through the exercise of external authority.
You have the agency to let the person in front of you have a more enjoyable flight without judging them for it.
That is also a decent and unselfish thing to do.
I don't lean back on flights, but I don't consider the person in front of me an asshole for doing it.
Are you talking about agency and not being an asshole, or are you just being selfish about your space?
> You have the agency to let the person in front of you have a more enjoyable flight without judging them for it.
No, being doormat that never judges assholes is not necessary in order to be a decent person.
In fact, there is special category of decent person heroes who do the uncomfortable thing, judge assholes and even protect and help others when assholery becomes too much. Both when talking about recliners and like, terrorizing thugs in streets.
> Are you talking about agency and not being an asshole, or are you just being selfish about your space?
It is not being selfish to not want to give your space to an asshole who decided to take it. That person is still an asshole. And again, both when we are talking about recliner and when certain government sends violent thugs.
> People who lean their seats back are assholes.
Clearly, many HN users, as well as much of the population, disagree with you.
You may want to re-evaluate your moral values.
And yet I'd prefer both myself and the person in front of me lean back. The upright posture is painful for me. Is your preference more valid then mine? The fact that the chairs are configured that way suggests the cultural norm.
Leaning back doesn't help knee room, the person in front leaning back actually reduces it by the seat back leaning against a tall person's knees.
Even though I'm tall it's about the back, not the knees.
For me, it's the knees. When everyone is leaned back you can't even comfortably use a tablet to read, while I can comfortably sit upright for a few hours (of course taking a walk from time to time). The person in front reclining their seat forces me to either manspread into the seat on the left or right (if I'm not on the aisle) or stick my feet in the aisle and getting in the cabin crew's way as they move back and forth.
so I guess you pay to choose seats in the last row of the plane...
I did this once and one time was forced into doing it and it was a horrific nightmare. The lack of contra for my legs meant I was constantly slipping forward, it was tiring. The fact that this is an emergency seat made it worse - there was no handle for the hand because of some bullshit. The flight attendant policed every action I did from putting my jacket on to eating with the attachable tray. I will never do it again even if it means I fly for free.
One of the most relaxed flights I ever had I was window seat in the back row with a pleasant elderly couple. When everyone else was busy queuing to get off the plane they were sat knitting. I'd got into my novel and just sat enjoying it until they moved. Far less stressful than the usual madness.
They're absolutely not assholes. People who expect the world to revolve around them and cater for their every whim are probably more deserving of that title.
If you don't fit in the smallest seat then buy a bigger seat. Someone using the space they paid for is not being an asshole.
Tall people don't choose their height, fat people (mostly) choose their weight.
Edit: also, if the airline can't deal with a certain percentile of the population under their normal product, they should figure out how to make it happen. It's discrimination to not account for tall people
Could a down voter chime in?
I just did that. And having paid an extra $1000 per seat for 3 seats, the airline (Qatar) gave them to someone else.
Neat. Now what do I do?
Typed from a 17 hour flight to New Zealand.
I personally believe that the ideal situation is in fact everyone reclining their seat
I'm about 6' tall, even. In some cattlejets, my knees physically touch the seat in front of me. A lady on a recent flight flung her seat back and I cried out involuntarily in sudden pain.
I understand why she wanted to lean back. And yet, when she did, it freaking hurt. I'm around the 80th percentile in height in the US, and while my doctor says I could lose a few pounds, I wear a men's large shirt so I'm not exactly enormous. Even though they seat can technically recline, you cannot convince me that they're actually meant to.
Can I have the 5th element padded roller beds that are disinfected between every use?
My ideal airline would be one where you show up to the airport with your luggage, check it in, and then they knock you out and load you on the plane.
You get woken up at your destination after they've taken you off the plane. It would be the closest thing you can get to teleportation.
Then the airline wouldn't have to fuss with preparing shitty food and coffee or deal with annoying passengers. A win for everyone!
https://youtu.be/lTO5vhRFCv0
Basically this but they won't even have to trick me to knock me out.
they had this in "the 5th element"
Not every seat reclines: the one in front of the exit row is a key example.
I get significant pain when I sit fully upright. If I must fly I need to recline. I've been to a doctor (and had surgery...) but the pain is there and reclining is required for minimal comfort. Deal with it, the seats are small, but my seat is going to affect you, you are just a jerk for thinking you need that extra space.
I have never come across this opinion until it seemed to have blown up on the internet in the last few years.
Seats have gotten smaller. It wasn’t a big deal 30 years ago because you could reclining without mashing the person behind you.
It’s kind of like a yoga studio with mats 3 feet apart when they use to be 6. You’re allowed, and encouraged, to spread your arms out wide, but now if you do you’re going to have a hand in your neighbor’s face. The yoga studio laughs at the visitors arguing about whether one’s an asshole for using their arm space, or for telling others to stop slapping them in the face, when the whole thing is their fault.
If I have the option to recline my seat, and doing so is going to make me more comfortable, that’s what I’m going to do.
I can live with the person behind me thinking I’m an asshole.
The airline offers the facility and I won’t sacrifice my own needs for fear of upsetting a stranger.
“It’s all about me!”
I suspect they’re not the only person around you who thinks you’re an asshole.
“It’s all about me!” Says the person that demands everyone conform to their preference.
I mean, do whatever you want that doesn’t hurt people around you. But when it hurts them, it’s time to ask whether our own convenience is worth the pain we’re causing.
Why is the airplane that chooses to place seats so close together not on the hook for all of the blame in this scenario? We could just offer a decent traveling experience for everyone.
Isn't it the passenger's fault for failing to purchase a seat that meets their needs? The airline isn't to blame for offering a cheaper alternative for those who find it sufficient. And other passengers certainly aren't to blame for using the product that they purchased.
Oh, it’s definitely their fault. They brought this about to cram extra seats on a flight, customers be damned. No doubt about it, they’re certainly the root cause.
But when you find yourself in an uncomfortable group situation, it’s good to ask how you can make it better for everyone, or at least not worsen it. “I paid so I’m doing whatever it takes to not inconvenience myself in the slightest” is the origin of “this is why we can’t have nice things”.
It’s different when there’s a compelling physical need here. If the person in front of me has a hurt back and can’t bear sitting upright, and I knew about it, I’d put up with it as best I can in the interest of we’ve all got to get along. But in the scheme of things, not that many people are unable to sit up and not crush their neighbors.
> It’s different when there’s a compelling physical need here. If the person in front of me has a hurt back and can’t bear sitting upright, and I knew about it, I’d put up with it as best I can in the interest of we’ve all got to get along. But in the scheme of things, not that many people are unable to sit up and not crush their neighbors.
How would you know whether or not the person in front of you has a compelling physical need? Are they supposed to explain their health concerns to you in the hope that you deem it sufficiently acceptable for them to do what they can to be comfortable? It’s unreasonable to expect someone in physical pain to suffer the indignity of explaining themselves to someone they don’t know.
Fair point! So when I scream in their ear for causing me pain, your contention is that I’m free to do that and I don’t owe them an explanation. I’m sure that logic will make everyone around us smile and nod their heads in approval.
That seems like quite the leap and will more than likely result in you being escorted off the plane when you reach your destination.
It may well be an inconvenience to you if someone chooses to recline their seat but nobody owes you an explanation. Expecting them to justify themselves to you isn’t a reasonable stance. And given that you don’t know what someone is going through, whether they have a hidden disability, whether they’re in chronic pain, I really wouldn’t advise asking, let alone shouting at them.
[dead]
The only winning move is not to play.
How about a nice trip on a train?
Depends. How’s the Amtrak chess bot?
Underfunded and constantly side-tracked by cargo bots.
...and the Murderbots that have disabled their governor modules.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Murderbot_Diaries
I think the Amtrak way is to bring a physical chess board and challenge human strangers over a nice cup of coffee in the observation car.
The Puget Sound ferries often have a partially-done jigsaw puzzle on one of the tables. You can't finish it in 30m, so people come and do their part and move on. Eventually someone will put in the last piece, I guess, I've never seen it happen.
I love those. I have finished one (well it was missing a couple of pieces), between West-Seattle and Vashon, and what was better was that I contributed to the puzzle earlier on the way from Vashon.
My last visit to Seattle was in 1998 so I can't confirm this firsthand, but I would bet that when someone finishes the jigsaw, ferry staff bring out a new one.
Usually somebody just scrambles it again, but they are regularly rotated. I don’t have a precise measure, but I would guess every couple of weeks or so.
Then stop for 56 hours to allow freight to go by.
I don’t have 5 days to travel across the country.
- it’s 3 days not 5 (e.g leaving NYC Wednesday morning arriving SF Saturday evening)
- the internet connection is excellent (even in most tunnels) so you can work, have video meetings, etc, not to mention play chess online
That's 4 days traveling. Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday. Arriving in the evening doesn't mean you didn't spend that day traveling.
Let’s be realistic. I love long distance train journeys, but mainly for recreation. Being on a train for 3-5 days is pretty exhausting no matter how comfortable. I’ve done the 30 day Amtrak pass before and it was fantastic but I wouldn’t be looking forward to that if it was a work trip where I want to fly in and then get back to my family as fast as possible. There’s no way that can compare to a 5-6 hour flight+2 hours at the airport.
I did this once from Seattle. It was a good experience, but the internet connection was nonexistent along large parts of the route.
Also one way cost like $1,200.
If you're not traveling between those specific destinations it can take far, far longer. Amtrak is a joke.
Amtrak is decent on very specific routes and still an absolute joke to anyone who has used trains in Europe, Japan, Taiwan, etc, and no personal experience but I'd imagine China too. My friend takes the Amtrak route up and down the Pacific coast precisely because she's stuck on a train for days and can't be disturbed while doing boring paperwork as an anti-procrastination strategy. Although the observation cars do have great views.
People who have used trains in Japan or Taiwan - islands have never used a train that is anything like Amtrak does and so have no comparison. Even in Europe long distance cross border rail is in most cases pretty bad as well.
However if you only compare the shorter distance rail in those places to what the US has some of the other trains are actually pretty good. Even then though Chicago's trains are a better comparison than anything Amtrak offers
I mean what do you consider long-distance? Inter-railing is a time honoured tradition for European Youth, and many of my generation alone would be very familiar with economy sleepers from e.g. Krakow to Prague or Budapest.
The ICE trains in particular are magnificent, and a worthy alternative to air travel.
https://int.bahn.de/en/trains/long-distance-trains
In Europe you need to cross a country line.
Yes people do it all the time in Europe. It mostly works. However if you follow the space at all you will see a lot of stories about things going wrong - far more than there should be. Amtrak is mostly fine in the US, but there are still far more problems than there should be.
- the internet connection is excellent
I mean, maybe you had a different experience. In my experience in the northeast , the internet service is about as reliable and consistent as the trains themselves (ie not consistent, garbage fire)
I was rather disappointed by the internet connection on the Cascades line (going Seattle --> Portland and back). As far as I could tell, they use T-Mobile for backhaul. Who are headquartered in Seattle. Yet the connection barely seemed to work for about half of the journey
boo, it's in the middle of no where along part of the route. Tmobile coverage is mainly in urban areas and along free ways no matter what slingblade tells you on the tv commercial. I don't know if you'd get any coverage on parts of that route other than wired.
Just like how sometimes when you're flying over the rockies or into canada you just don't get internets. There's still middles of no where out there. Often not very far from the freeway.
Railroads are a great place to run fiber lines, so it wouldn't be hard to set up some towers.
Also starlink.
Even tooling through places like Olympia it seemed to fizzle out
Why not trei a holiday in Sweden this yër? See the loveli lakes.
This wouldn’t bother me as much but it’s really like 5-7 days depending on freight use of the lines and they can’t tell you ahead of time what it’s going to be somehow?
Can’t bring your work with you?
That sucks.
[flagged]
Some low cost airlines no longer have anything. A small fold-out tray to hold your tablet. There is Wi-Fi to access an intranet with flight information and maybe some entertainment. If you have that, you just load it up with games from your play store.
I prefer the Airbus 31x and 32x models without the entertainment systems so much more. On United the Boeing had fucking ads playing NON STOP THE ENTIRE FLIGHT and because I boarded early I'd try to turn off as many around me as possible because somehow the flying public does not mind bright flashing annoying lights in their faces for HOURS.
This is a United thing, not a Boeing/Airbus thing.
> because somehow the flying public does not mind bright flashing annoying lights in their faces for HOURS
We do. United has just positioned their economy products a hair below Delta by, in part, pulling off crap like this.
"somehow does not mind" wasn't about airline choice, it was about people not hitting the off button.
This is increasingly common in domestic US full-price airlines. It makes sense, in a way - most folks have their own devices, and the airlines save money and weight and don't have to worry about future tech obsolescence - but still makes me a bit sad.
Right? That's why I don't want a car with any system for entertainment, beyond generics like speakers. The car is ideally going to last 25+ years, by which time that shit will be obsolete. The software won't be upgradable, etc.
> but still makes me a bit sad.
I'm still sad the movie projectors are gone from the planes, also the little curtains for the windows, and the carve at your seat prime rib service.
The thing I really wish domestic airlines would take away is reclining seats in economy. Nothing good comes from having them.
Same. I most recently flew Frontier and despite looking really spartan, it was actually super comfortable. And no reclining to fret over the whole flight.
Most budget carriers are going this way.
Indeed - I don't generally fly on US low cost carriers, but regularly used to fly on EasyJet in Europe, and the non-reclining seats were just more pleasant for everyone.
I've long enjoyed both Alaska's and Southwest's version of this.
Last I flew AA inside the US, I could watch the entertainment content on my own device via the on board wifi. This was great.
> getting absolutely crushed into a tiny cube by ... the airplane seat itself
Perhaps this is the real reason why they call themselves "Delta".
Yeah...I know some delta pilots and apparently the inflight computers were sometimes spending more time playing chess than flying the plane...
You have 30 minutes to move your cube
this is a beautiful zeugma you have here.
bravo
There's a bug in the Delta Air Lines chess program. After cxd6 en passant, the captured pawn isn't removed [0]. White's bishop is then able to check the black king through the pawn (the pawn that should have been removed) [1].
[0] https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Nyov4F7eWbT8uNoeclPY8uXVG6f...
[1] https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eEPBHqE5rpefE9gWflgS_hUwYGS...
I guess it's just a display bug, then? Though it's hard to imagine what kind of bug would lead the game state and the visual representation to get out of sync in that particular way.
They're probably using an OSS chess engine in something like C++, but using HTML/CSS/JS for the interface. 90% moves could be represented by a chess board as a 2D array, checking the engine accepts it as a valid move, and then replacing what's on that square be it empty space or a now captured piece. Castling, pawn promotion, and en passant are the edge cases with en passant being the most obscure.
My guess is they only remove captured pieces on the moved-to square (maybe relying on an implicit capture by overwriting an array entry). This is probably easier than actually tracking pieces that get captured.
The game is likely in javascript but because of this bug we know it's not using React because with React the programmer doesn't update the view, React does.
I wonder if they gave the chess bot X seconds of thinking time in an era when computers were slower?
The way you set difficulty for turn based game ai is that you limit how far ahead the algorithm searches. If you set the lookahead based on compute time your difficulties will be way out of line if someone upgrades the CPU.
Something similar happened to the macOS chess game, which has always been bundled with OSX/macOS. Once upon a time it was easy to beat in easy mode, which restricted how long it could thing in advance.
When Big Sur rolled out around 2020, Apple introduced a bug which disabled the difficulty slider: no matter what it was set to, it was hard or impossible to beat. In macOS Sequoia, the Chess app got updated again, and supposedly they fixed the difficulty slider, but in the interval silicon improved so much that the old restraints (like think for only a second) mean little. The lowest levels play like a grand master.
is there some reason to implement it as a time limit instead of iterations or something else deterministic? it being affected by CPU speed or machine load seems obvious.
or whatever makes sense if “iterations” isn’t a thing, I know nothing about chess algorithms
It’s simpler. Chess is a search through the space of possible moves, looking for a move that’s estimated to be better than the best move you’ve seen so far.
The search is by depth of further moves, and “better” is a function of heuristics (explicit or learned) on the resulting board positions, because most of the time you can’t be sure a move will inevitably result in a win or a loss.
So any particular move evaluation might take more or less time before the algorithm gives up on it—or chooses it as the new winner. To throw a consistent amount of compute at each move, the simple thing to do is give the engine consistent amounts of time per move.
> To throw a consistent amount of compute at each move, the simple thing to do is give the engine consistent amounts of time per move.
The simple thing to do is give it a limit on the total number of states it can explore in its search.
If your goal is consistency, wall-clock time makes no sense. If I run 'make -j20', should the chess computer become vastly easier because the CPU is being used to compile, not search? Should 'nice -n 20 <chess app pid>' make the chess computer worse?
Should my computer thermal-throttling because it's a hot day make the chess computer worse, so chess is harder in winter?
If the goal is consistency, then wall-clock isn't the simple way to do it.
>If the goal is consistency, then wall-clock isn't the simple way to do it.
It’s simpler than doing a limit on number of states, and for some applications consistency isn’t super important.
Doing a time limit also enforces bot moving in a reasonable time. It puts a nice limit to set up a compromise between speed and difficulty.
Doing state limit with a time limit might be better way to do it, but is harder.
> It’s simpler than doing a limit on number of states
According to who?
A counter that you ++ each move sounds a lot easier to me than throwing off a separate thread/callback to handle a timer.
> Doing a time limit also enforces bot moving in a reasonable time.
It's designed for specific hardware, and will never have to run on anything significantly slower, but might have to run on things significantly faster. It doesn't need a time cutoff that would only matter in weird circumstances and make it do a weirdly bad move. It needs to be ready for the future.
> It puts a nice limit to set up a compromise between speed and difficulty.
Both methods have that compromise, but using time is way more volatile.
A time limit is also deterministic in some sense. Level settings used to be mainly time based, because computers at lower settings were no serious competition to decent players, but you don't necessarily want to wait for 30 seconds each move, so there were more casual and more serious levels.
Limiting the search depth is much more deterministic. At lower levels, it has hilarious results, and is pretty good at emulating beginning players (who know the rules, but have a limited skill of calculating moves ahead).
One problem with fixed search depth is that I think most good engines prefer to use dynamic search depth (where they sense that some positions need to be searched a bit deeper to reach a quiescent point), so they will be handicapped with a fix depth.
> One problem with fixed search depth is that I think most good engines prefer to use dynamic search depth (where they sense that some positions need to be searched a bit deeper to reach a quiescent point), so they will be handicapped with a fix depth.
Okay, but I want to point out nobody was suggesting a depth limit.
For a time-limited algorithm to work properly, it has to have some kind of sensible ordering of how it evaluates moves, looking deeper as time passes in a dynamic way.
Switch to an iteration limit, and the algorithm will still have those features.
Heh, I was just discussing this some minutes ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46595777
Getting more thinking time tends to give surprisingly small improvements to playing strength. For a classical alpha-beta search based engine, for a given ply (turn) you might have ~20 moves to consider each depth of the search tree. If you're trying to brute force search deeper, a 10x increase in compute time or power doesn't even let you search an extra ply.
Elo gains for engines tend to come from better evaluation, better pruning, and better search heuristics. That's not to say that longer search time or a stronger CPU doesn't help, it just doesn't magically make a weak engine into a strong engine.
There is a strategy called alpha beta pruning meaning you can discard a lot of move options quickly based on the results of similar branches. That and caching similar board states means 20x options does not mean 20x CPU time.
The comment you're replying to already mentions this.
True, although better pruning can massively lower the effective branching ratio compared to pure alpha-beta, making the algorithm benefit more from longer search time again (which is why pruning is so important).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo_button
Naming it the "Turbo" button rather than making "turbo mode" the default and then pressing a button for "slow" mode, IMO, was marketing genius, even though the results are the same.
Blizzard did a similar thing in World of Warcraft during the beta. After playing for a while, your character would get "exhausted" and start earning half experience for killing mobs. The only way to stop being exhausted would be to log off or spend a LONG time in an inn. At some point, they flipped the script. They made the "exhausted" state the default, and while offline or in an inn, you would gain a "rested" experience buffer, where you would earn double experience.
The mechanic worked exactly the same, but by giving it different terms, players felt rewarded for stepping away from the game occasionally, rather than punished for playing too long. They also marketed it as a way of giving players a way to "catch up" after spending a day or two offline.
The original intention behind the turbo button was to give a way to set the clock speed something closer to a 4.77 MHz Intel 8088 for the benefit of games that relied on CPU cycle timing. Therefore turbo was the default and slow mode the exception.
For some reason this feature persisted in PC compatibles long past having any useful purpose, e.g. toggling a 386 between 33 MHz and 25 MHz. Perhaps manufacturers feared any PC without such a button would be perceived as slower, even though as you say, it's really a slow-down button not a turbo button.
Different senses of "default".
Yes of course you'll keep it on the fast speed as much as you can, not the slow speed. But it's still presented as fast being a bonus rather than slow being a malus.
Alternatively, since there's only one difficulty provided ("easy"), I wondered if the programmer have selected say, DifficultyLevels array index 0 meaning the easiest, but it was actually sorted hardest first.
In short: it plays far too well (~2500 ELO.) People think it originally played at a reasonable level and accidentally got more powerful as the seatback computers got more powerful; the same thing happened to the Mac chess app with the release of the M1.
>Mac chess app with the release of the M1.
That would be exceptionally sloppy development. Phones have had more than enough power for long enough. 4 core Skylake (Mac 2016) would be well beyond human capabilities, if it's just raw power.
The "thinking" (difficult) limit should be considered moves ahead, both depth and count. With a possible limit to time, if there is any time control.
You can code review it for yourself, it’s open source: https://github.com/apple-oss-distributions/Chess/tree/Chess-...
IIRC it does just set a time limit on thinking
> 4 core Skylake (Mac 2016) would be well beyond human capabilities
Not if the computer's time limit is set at 15 microseconds. It's not a question of whether the computers have "enough power"; just whether they are more powerful now than they were previously.
And yes, obviously that's a very sloppy and error-prone way to implement a difficulty control.
I'm guessing the app got better precisely because there was a time limit.
Even a computer from 20+ years ago will comfortably crush Carlsen, it really goes down to the specific engine used, chess engines have evolved a lot during the years.
Carlsen knows how to play anti-bot chess where some engines may struggle, but that only applies to amateurish engines.
> the same thing happened to the Mac chess app with the release of the M1
I fired up Chess shortly after getting an M1 and got destroyed a bunch of times. I thought that I was just extremely out of practice and quit playing for years. I guess it's better to find out late rather than never.
we used to stress test Macs by running the Chess app full tilt. Does it even make the fans run on AppleSi?
Eh, no. A single Core Duo would be enough to challenge most masters with GNUChess or StockFish, no Apple fanboyism it's needed.
Heck; even Nanochess was rough for a novice like me, and that on an n270 CPU.
The idea is that there is a time limit for each move, and that the faster processors can do more work in the same time and thus have higher elo.
I think the issue is that people limited compute time as a proxy for difficulty.
In that case you'll hit issues on any device that performs significantly differently from that which it was tuned in.
Though I am slightly amused by people using the apple chip as an example of "high performance" in a problem that scales very well with threading.
Precisely a Core Duo and a custom build with -O3 -ffast-math (a Chess engine doesn't requiere anything further from integers) and -march=$YOUR_CPU_THERE can yield crazy performance speeds without needing an m4 and a great match even for masters.
Is this really true? I played a few games with it in August. It's not very good.
It's one of those old programs where 95% of the moves are pretty strong. But if you just do nothing and sit back it will occasionally make a random blunder and then you grind it out. I figured it's how they were able to weaken a chess engine back in the day; can't adjust the overall strength, so add random blunders.
I'm only about 2000 on lichess but I beat it pretty much every time, especially once I realized there is no reason to try anything sharp.
My suspicion is that the bot was a fairly standard chess bot, but the difficulties were set based on computation time. As airplane computers got better, it turned into a beast.
As a result, if you tried this on older planes, it might have been “easier”
One of my first paid iOS dev jobs was porting a Go game from iPad to iPhone, don't even think the 4 was out yet. It also used computation time based difficulties. By the time I was done writing it, I knew a few tricks I could eke a win out with on 19x19.
When the iPhone 5S came out, I tried it on a whim to check the UI scaling etc... the beginner difficulty on a 9x9 board deleted me. It was grabbing something like 64x more samples per go, the lowest difficulty on the 5S (instant responses) never lost a single game vs the highest difficulty 3GS (15 second turns)
iPhones had a lot of moments like that. Silly bullshit like "what if every pixel was a cell in a collection view" would go from "oh it can barely do 128" to "more responsive than that was, with 2 million" in a few gens.
One of the minor weird things about iOS development early on was just how fast the transition was from the simulator being dramatically faster than actual devices to the simulator being slower than devices. When I started out you’d get things working nicely in the simulator and then discover it’s an order of magnitude too slow on a phone. Just a few years later and my phone was faster than my laptop until thermal throttling kicked in.
Chess on M series Macs has the same issue. Even level 1 is easily 2000+ Elo because of the same thing.
Oh, this led me down a rabbit hole…
I was maintainer of the Chess app from the early 2000s to about 2015. We first noticed in 2004 that level 1 (which was then "Computer thinks for 1 second per move) was getting stronger with each hardware generation (and in fact stronger than myself).
So we introduced 3 new levels, with the Computer thinking 1, 2, or 3 moves ahead. This solved the problem of the engine getting stronger (though the jump from "3 moves ahead" to "1 second" got worse and worse).
A few years after I had handed off the project, somebody decided to meddle with the level setting code (I was not privy to that decision). The time based levels were entirely replaced with depth based levels (which eliminates the strength inflation problem, but unfortunately was not accompanied by UI changes). But for some reason, parsing of the depth setting was broken as well, so the engine now always plays at depth 40 (stronger than ever).
This should be an easy fix, if Apple gets around to make it (Chess was always a side project for the maintainers). I filed feedback report 21609379.
It seems that somebody else had already discovered this and fixed it in a fork of the open source project: https://github.com/aglee/Chess/commit/dfb16b3f32e5a6633d2119...
I found a used copy of Warcraft 3 at the store about ten years after it came out, proudly brought it home, fired it up and didn’t recall the graphics being quite that awful, but the first time I tried to scroll the map sideways it shot to the far end because they didn’t build a timing loop onto the animation and I shut it down, disappointed.
Unfortunately they never released a remastered version of it. They seem to have made some clone of it called “reforged” whatever the fuck that means.
Yeah, Reforged was received very poorly so they basically end of life'd the franchise.
There is a thriving community with a couple different choices for servers to play on. So I'm sure there's a fix for your mouse speed issue.
Check Twitch for people streaming it: https://www.twitch.tv/directory/category/warcraft-iii
Grubby, one of the early esports stars, still streams it regularly and hosts his own for fun tournaments with other streamers.
Reforged was received poorly because it was a lazy half assed job that was a blatant cash grab. Not because culturally we have moved on and the game has aged beyond being fun
You probably knew this, but wanted to make sure others knew that the reason they ended the franchise is not because there was no market, but instead it was pure unadulterated greed that led to that situation. In an alternate reality they would have actually done the remake justice and there would be a lively competitive scene
Sorry for the aside but,
> SOLAR_FIELDS
Panoramic Greetings!
There are various hacks and tools for games (especially DOS games, but for W3 there may exist the same) which delayloop various calls to slow things down enough "to work".
The Dolphin emulator has run into similar things; usually doing things "too fast" just gets you more FPS but sometimes it causes the game to go insane.
Also, some DOS games were coded so that they ran correctly no matter the speed of the hardware, like Alley Cat :)
This is pretty much the experience of trying to play any game from the '90s on modern hardware. It always requires a bit of tinkering and usually a patch from the modding community. Funniest one I've found is Fallout Tactics. The random encounter frequency is somehow tied to clock speed so you'll basically get hit with random encounters during map travel about once every half second.
I've been enjoying Total Annihilation since 1997. Still works fine on fairly modern hardware with Windows 11. No modifications other than some additional maps that I downloaded decades ago.
Interesting. Assuming it did not use DirectDraw -- that's often a major pain point.
Sorry if this is a dumb question but did you patch it to the latest version? I don't know if the in-game updater still works but from memory you could download some sort of patch exe file and update it that way.
The original Wing Commander was like that. Playable on 286s/386s, then Pentiums and beyond showed up and it was unplayable. The game started in the "simulator" to show you the controls, and you'd get blown out of space in about 0.5 seconds.
Oh man, I remember that: on a newer computer, I'd tap the left arrow to turn and the Hornet would do a 360.
I suppose, technically, that's one way to make the Scimitar feel more responsive...
The original Wing Commander brings back memories! I remember being amazed by the graphics and the story.
These days I cannot stand games with cliched storyline and tend to skip the cutscenes, but back then it all seemed so amazing... like a cross between a movie and a game.
I remember playing it later and running into speed issues too, but usually there was a way to tweak the emulator in order to fix this.
> they didn’t build a timing loop onto the animation
Wow.
1984 (!!!) IBM PC (DOS) port of the game Alley Cat had timings built it. They actually used the system clock if I remember correctly, so it would always run at the correct pace no matter how fast the computer. Last I checked it, decades later, it still ran at the correct speed!
I guess some lessons don't get passed on?
There's an SC2 custom campaign that reimplements the wc3 campaign that is worth a look.
I think it means gcc -O0
AFAIK the only reason Chess even ships at all anymore is as a burn utility. They'll set it to AI vs AI at max difficulty to stress the system and make sure the cooling/power management works.
Never heard that one (it may indeed be used that way, but if it were the only reason Apple would probably keep it in the Apple internal parts of their OS installs).
It would also be of limited use, as the engine is purely CPU based; it is single threaded and does not even use SIMD AFAIK, let alone GPU features or the neural engines.
It can't be deleted because it's part of the system tools :)
> I'm only about 2000 on lichess
That puts you in the top 7% of players on the site. I have a hard time believing you could get to that rating without knowing that.
They aren't talking about the site, they're talking about their strength (as measured by that site) so it can be compared to the numbers in the article.
> I figured it's how they were able to weaken a chess engine back in the day; can't adjust the overall strength, so add random blunders.
In tom7’s Elo World, he does this (“dilutes” strong Chess AIs with a certain percentage of random moves) to smooth the gradient since otherwise it would be impossible to evaluate his terrible chess bots against something like Stockfish since they’d just lose every time. https://youtu.be/DpXy041BIlA?si=z7g1a_TX_QoPYN9b
Such a great video.
1. Uh, isn't 2000 like extremely fucking good?
2. I played a chess bot on Delta on easy and it was really bad, felt like random moves. I beat it trivially and I am actually bad at chess, ~1000 on chess.com. I wonder if this one is different?
Yeah, he just casually said he had an elo that high, as if that doesn't blow 90% of people out of the water.
Note that 2000 on lichess is probably weaker than 2000 on chess.com (or USCF or FIDE)
That's true, I'm 2050-2100 lichess, around 1800 on chess.com. Never played a rated tournament but played some rated players who were 1400-1500 rated USCF, and they were roughly my strength, maybe a bit better. Still the Delta bot, easy mode, was much, much better than me.
Casually just in the top 2-3 percent of chess players globally world wide humble brag. I'm not that good at it, just a little bit!
I think it depends on the pool to which you're comparing. Being top 2% of all programmers is not so impressive if you include everyone who's ever taken an Intro class. Top 2% of people who do it for a living is much more significant.
I'm in a similar boat as the other posters (2050-2100 lichess, 1400 USCF). The median active rating for USCF is around 1200 and likely much higher if you don't include scholastic players, so if we compare against the OTB pool, "2000 lichess" is probably closer to top 50% than 2%
I mean, if you’re in the top 3 percent of anything, yes that’s pretty good, but not unbelievably so, especially in the field of chess. If for instance you randomly put together a classroom full of chess players, there’s decent odds one of them is better than top 3%. Two classrooms and it’s almost a certainty.
Put another way, looking at chess.com users, there are ~6 million people who would count as the top 3 percent. Difficult to achieve, yes, but if 6 million people can achieve it, it’s not really a “humble brag,” it’s just a statement.
It made me smile to hear “I’m only 97th percentile” isn’t a humblebrag. You may be employing an old saw of mine, you can make people* react however you want by leaning on either percentages or whole numbers when you shouldn’t.
* who don’t have strong numeracy and time to think
It's still significantly stronger than the average online chess player
I heard it's never intended to be the same since initial rating for Lichess and chess.com respectively is 1500 and 1200. So they should have 300 rating difference on average. Quite fitting with what the other commenter claims actually.
I don’t think it would average out to a 300 elo difference simply based on the starting rating being 300 apart.
If everything else was the same, and people play enough games they will average out to the same elo.
The difference is caused by many factors. People don’t play enough games to sink to their real elo, the player pool is different, and you gain/lose fewer points per game with Lichess’s elo algorithm.
ELO is relative. There's no reason why a GM ELO should be 2800 or 280 or 28000. So it's all decided by ELO of every other person. So if the ELO gain/loss calculation and audience of Lichess and chess.com are exactly the same, because of different starting position, I don't think they'd converge to the same ELO but instead will differ by starting position difference.
Also I can't really prove it mathematically but I guess average ELO would also hover on the starting ELO. Because I can't see why it would hover anywhere else and any ELO gained would be lost by someone else.
On further thought yes, I think you're correct.
When I started playing I believe chess.com let you select whether you’re beginner, intermediate or advanced and your start elo was based on that. Could be wrong, and it could’ve changed since.
I wonder if it's different on different planes? I can easily beat my friend and he won a few games on a flight, I played on a different flight and got crushed for two hours straight. I'm probably 1400-ish
This was my experience on a long Delta flight, I don't remember if I picked easy or not but it was laughably bad. I took its lunch money for a game and then turned the screen off. I was mostly irritated by the horrible touch interface, it felt so laggy among other issues. (I don't have a ranking, I barely play these days and usually just in person, but my memory says around 1400 back in the yahoo chess days as a teen but it's probably closer to 1000 now.)
What's your name on lichess? Wanna play me?
Not only is the delta chessbot bad (My low 1600s lichess-elo self can win handily every single time against any difficulty, white or black), but there's also a sequence of moves I found which deterministically causes the game to crash. I should probably record it next time I'm on a flight.
I'm 2100 rapid on lichess, 2050 blitz and bullet. I got destroyed every single time I played the easy mode version on Delta. It knew opening theory. It did not blunder a single time in the middle game. I never made it to an end game.
Sounds likely it had an opening book dataset. You just needed a weird opening
If, as people suggest, the difficulty is time based, it would be easier on older planes.
There's only one difficulty setting
I think you must be talking about something else, the Delta bot in discussion here has about 2500 ELO and basically crushes anyone who isn't a professional chess player.
There used to be a chess program in windows 3.1 that would destroy me every time. Not that I was very good, of course! But I think if you just code the known opening books it's not too hard to make a bot that requires a skilled player to beat.
I am so glad this made first page news on HN!!
Years ago I remember flying with Delta and wondering why the delta bot could beat me in a handful of moves on EASY. Absolutely insane.
Sometimes the airlines chess app gives you the option to play another passenger, but even after waiting for half an hour I've never been hooked up with another player. Has anyone else been able to?
Yes, as someone who is usually flying with my GF, I love this feature! Unfortunately air canada's implementation is abysmal and anytime there is a pilot announcement it interrupts the game long enough to break the network connection and cause it to end the game.
The best part about this is sneaking a look at your opponents screen if you are lucky enough to sit behind them.
Does this... help with chess?
I think that might have been the joke.
you can see the possible moves they're thinking of making
You can look into their minds? Don't think drawing arrows is a thing on the air line chess apps.
Super fun
Ah, the Zap Brannigan school.
Being one Seat behind instead of one step ahead
It only works with passengers on your same flight. In practice, it's good for kids in the same family or school group who are sitting across the aisle from each other. I've used it for some of their other games
I know I'm getting old when I read comments like this. It wouldn't have occurred to me in a million years that it might pair me with passengers on another flight. I'm conditioned by having first experienced this feature probably 30 years or so ago when pairing to passengers on other flights would have been science fiction.
Aren't they all hooked up to Wi-Fi now? Why the restriction on same flight?
That's how the system was originally designed, before in flight WiFi was common. If they're gonna hook it up to the broader internet and allow playing games cross-flight, they might as well just hook it up to an existing service like chess.com and have a significantly larger user base imo
one flight I was on had trivia which allowed multiplayer. We ended up with about 10 playing the game. I thought it was a good idea for a networked computer and captive audience.
Yeah, that's my experience as well. I only did once, and it was against my father...
We should coordinate flights
Some day we might fly on the same airplane!
This reminds me of a bug I reported in 2007 Ubuntu where the default "easy" chess difficulty was too hard. It was eventually fixed in 2014 by using different chess engines. https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-chess/+bug/1...
What a world where we have to put significant extra work into making the computer bad enough that a human can compete.
United sadly removed games from its in-flight entertainment so I can no longer trounce 6 year old Magnus.
On the other hand, the poker apps encourage me to consider a career change. I regularly crush the "opposition" with my card-counting skills. World Series of Poker, I am all-in!!! ;-)
Card counting in poker?
Gotta keep track of how many more cards you get in seven card stud.
Do you mean Blackjack?
I don't understand why this post is getting so much attention. What's so special about this specific chess bot? Developing a 2500 chess.com rating level chess bot is by no means a hard task.
I see some chess players so I want to plug the chess coaching app [0] I'm building. I don't know many chess players and could use feedback, but I had been paying for chess.com premium and tried some others and it's always game-level feedback which is insane to me because it's really not that helpful (as evidenced by my abysmal rating.)
I'm running games through stockfish/lc0/Maia and doing some analysis of patterns across multiple games, then feeding that to an agent who can replay through positions and some other fun stuff. Really keen to find out if it's helpful for anyone else!
[0]https://chessfiend.com
I'm going to check this out, as it's legitimately attempting to solve the gap in online chess coaches. As said on the home page, I don't want to know what to play, I want to know why I'm not seeing it or how to think about the move differently. This is the gap and I hope you find success. I'm definitely going to check it out.
But to ask, did you consider "chessfriend" instead of "chessfiend" for branding? "fiend" can carry a negative connotation, which I'm not particularly lining up with in your product.
I hadn't considered that name specifically but I'm not married to the branding! I appreciate that feedback and your other comment validating I'm not the only person with this problem. Happy to chat more via email (in bio)
I wanted to check it out. After login I am immediately redirected to a page asking for $80/year without me even understanding what the service does. Unrealistic expectation. Show me value first, ask for money later
I played the bot (probably early 2025) and wasn't that impressed. I won 5-1 or something like it. I did win one or two local chess tournaments in the past but I'm really not an impressive chess player.
Same. I just played it and rocked it and I am a 500 on chess.com. I think this is older version
I don't think I've played this bot. I guess the few times I flew in America wasn't with Delta as I would definitely try chess if available.
From what I've seen in the video I'd give the bot around 2100 FIDE equivalent. Granted you don't play bots like you play people. This bot essentially plays top engine moves and every now and then it introduces suboptimal moves. This technique can be played against choosing appropriate openings and being patient with calculation.
Icelandair’s chess engine was equally brutal (well maybe only slightly less brutal). I played a couple of rounds on medium difficulty only to realize I didn’t stand a chance. I played a few more on beginner, and still lost all my game by blundering some tactics to the engine. Just before landing in Iceland I manage to get one game to the endgame, where the bot finally starts feeling like a beginner (well an advanced beginner) and I got one victory in.
I used to fly a lot of Turkish, and their one's laughably bad. If anyone here works for Turkish Airlines, get yourself a better Chess bot.
Don't be surprised when you learn their so-called "chess bots" are actually people, lying hidden below the floor of the passenger cabin, moving pieces with the help of levers and magnets.
Sounds like a potential Amazon product.
Sounds like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_Turk (because that's the joke).
Either you're playing around by extending a joke to the point that I can't follow it, or you forgot to read the first sentence of your own article.
Your problem is that you have only one comment's worth of context and can't be bothered to read up the thread. The comment was "Don't be surprised when you learn their so-called "chess bots" are actually people, lying hidden below the floor of the passenger cabin, moving pieces with the help of levers and magnets."
That was a joke about the Mechanical Turk (as a response to "I used to fly a lot of Turkish, and their one's laughably bad. If anyone here works for Turkish Airlines, get yourself a better Chess bot"), which is why I said that's what it sounds like and provided the link. "Amazon Mechanical Turk" does not involve hidden people moving the pieces with the help of levers and magnets and has nothing to do with chess bots on Turkish airlines. I posted the link because most people aren't familiar with the Mechanical Turk and would not know what @tomjakubowski's joke referred to.
I'm sorry if you still can't follow, but your failure to comprehend isn't my fault and I'd rather not be insulted for simply posting an informative link because of someone else's misunderstanding so I'm not going to comment further.
You are making unwarranted assumptions here. I read the comments in order.
tomjakubowski joked about the mechanical turk. anematode recognized the reference, you recognized the reference, and I recognized the reference.
But you didn't reply to tomjakubowski as a general explainer to the audience. You replied to anematode. You replied to anematode in a way that suggested they needed the joke explained, even though they not only understood it, they expanded on it.
That's what I didn't comprehend. Why did you reply there and phrase it like that. And you still haven't explained.
Your claim that [["Amazon Mechanical Turk" does not involve hidden people moving the pieces with the help of levers and magnets and has nothing to do with chess bots on Turkish airlines.]] makes it sound like you still don't understand anematode's joke. Amazon's mechanical turk is named after the original mechanical turk. It has very much to do with turkish chess bots.
> That's what I didn't comprehend. Why did you reply there and phrase it like that.
This is so dumb ... I responded to "sounds like" ... duh.
I know you responded to "sounds like", I'm asking why.
When they said "sounds like", they were acknowledging the mechanical turk joke, and extending it. Your response looks like you're calling them wrong, like why are they talking about amazon, it's actually about mechanical turk! Which would be a deep misunderstanding of their comment.
Could you just say yes or no: When you first replied, did you realize they understood the mechanical turk joke?
> I'm asking why.
You never asked anything, rude boy. All the misunderstanding is yours. I said I wouldn't respond again to your sealioning ... I'll stick to it this time. Over and out.
It's true that I technically didn't ask. I said "you did x or y" and thought "Could you clarify?" was implied if you wanted to reply.
And then you wrote so many words without ever making it clear if you understood anematode's comment.
Weird for you to call me rude after the insults you sprinkled around...
Turkish Airlines likes their passengers to feel smart.
I had similar experiences playing the computer in Tzar: Burden of the Crown. It’s not chess but it is a strategy game.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzar%3A_The_Burden_of_the_Crow...
Inside entertainment systems it would be nice if you could select an ELO score to play against, with a slider and persona's (like chess.com has?).
Someday a delta engineer will go fix the UI bug where the labels for the difficulty levels were inverted in order compared to the enums used by the chess engine.
The Air Canada bot is too easy on medium but hard is unplayable because the computer is too slow at making each move.
This is great