Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Help Forum

Help Forum

  1. 25 Jul '08 04:22
    I was playing someone who got banned. Now, I'm unable to delete/archive the game, and am stuck with a limited number of games - 5 instead of 6. Is there a certain point in time in which I'll be able to delete that game?
  2. 25 Jul '08 04:35
    Originally posted by waywreth
    I was playing someone who got banned. Now, I'm unable to delete/archive the game, and am stuck with a limited number of games - 5 instead of 6. Is there a certain point in time in which I'll be able to delete that game?
    The game will soon be resigned, and I think you'll be awarded the points, but I'm not sure.
  3. 25 Jul '08 07:48
    Originally posted by waywreth
    I was playing someone who got banned. Now, I'm unable to delete/archive the game, and am stuck with a limited number of games - 5 instead of 6. Is there a certain point in time in which I'll be able to delete that game?
    The guy's obviously been kicked for rating manipulation, and the games will be resigned by admin within a few days of the banning. If it's longer than that, suggest you send feedback (see bottom of page for link) in case it's been overlooked. And you should get the points as if it was a win for you.
  4. 25 Jul '08 12:41
    Ok, thank you both.
  5. 25 Jul '08 22:54
    I don't think you'll get the points - I didn't when it happened to me.
  6. 02 Aug '08 17:24
    Originally posted by Dance Master MC
    The game will soon be resigned, and I think you'll be awarded the points, but I'm not sure.
    According to a RHP admin, the banned player's games in progress
    are considered unrated when they are terminated by RHP, so there
    are no ratings changes consequently.

    Would you consider this policy always fair?

    You could have had a forced mate-in-two when your opponent
    was banned, and you would not gain any rating points from it.

    I had a probably drawn endgame against one of the highest
    rated players when he was recently banned at RHP.
    A RHP admin has informed me that I shall gain no rating points.
  7. Subscriber AudioRapture
    Skull Disco, Jr.
    02 Aug '08 18:36
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    I had a probably drawn endgame against one of the highest
    rated players when he was recently banned at RHP.
    A RHP admin has informed me that I shall gain no rating points.
    Keyword: "probably"

    As your opponent was banned (presumably for engine use), it is plausible that his engine would have found the even slightest inaccuracy in your end game.

    Overall, I do think the procedure of changing all banned players' "in progress" games to non-rated fairer than all alternatives I heard.
    Yes, it may suck for some. Not as hard as for the ones who have already lost and/or got kicked out of a tournament because of it.
  8. 02 Aug '08 19:06 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by AudioRapture
    Keyword: "probably"

    As your opponent was banned (presumably for engine use), it is plausible that his engine would have found the even slightest inaccuracy in your end game.

    Overall, I do think the procedure of changing all banned players' "in progress" games to non-rated fairer than all alternatives I heard.
    Yes, it may suck for some. Not as ha ...[text shortened]... as for the ones who have already lost and/or got kicked out of a tournament because of it.
    Traditionally, the endgame has been a comparative weakness for
    chess engines. I have not lost every endgame that I have ever
    played against a chess engine. Indeed, in the endgame sometimes
    I have outplayed a chess engine on account of the 'horizon effect'.
    Also, I would have been permitted to consult endgame books.

    If you had a forced mate-in-two against a much higher rated player
    who suddenly was banned, then would you consider it perfectly fair
    and be happy to gain no rating points from it?
  9. Subscriber AudioRapture
    Skull Disco, Jr.
    02 Aug '08 20:27
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    If you had a forced mate-in-two against a much higher rated player
    who suddenly was banned, then would you consider it perfectly fair
    and be happy to gain no rating points from it?
    This is just as likely a scenario as the dreaded "is it right to torture a terrorist who knows the location of a bomb going off in x minutes, killing y people" scenario.

    You have to apply a solution that is fairest to the most amount of people on the site, as individual adjustment based on each game are impractical due to volume.
    Again, what are the solutions? Giving every opponent a win? Based on how the site calculates ratings, the ratings adjustment vary wildly based on where in the queue your game is. I'd consider a ratings boost for much lower rated opponents just as unfair.

    Also, this is a "just for fun" site. We are not talking about official FIDE ratings that would make or break a world cup tournament entry for you. While they do give you a rough gauge of the playing strength of your opponent, they seem to be little more than bragging right. Something to really lose sleep over.

    But to answer your question directly: Yes, i would consider it fair. It wasn't a fair setup under the terms of service, and as such should indeed be null and void.
  10. 02 Aug '08 23:13 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by AudioRapture
    This is just as likely a scenario as the dreaded "is it right to torture a terrorist who knows the location of a bomb going off in x minutes, killing y people" scenario.

    You have to apply a solution that is fairest to the most amount of people on the site, as individual adjustment based on each game are impractical due to volume.
    Again, what are the asn't a fair setup under the terms of service, and as such should indeed be null and void.
    AudioRapture seems to object to the phrasing of my question
    (which I had put in that form for dramatic effect), which I shall
    revise as follows:

    If you had a clearly winning position against a higher rated player
    who suddenly was banned, then would you consider it perfectly fair
    and be happy that you would gain no rating points from your game?

    In my view, AudioRapture's hyperbole about terrorism and torture
    is out of place here. The upsets of much higher rated players are
    more common than AudioRapture seems to believe. Indeed,
    in an open tournament with many games, one can practically
    predict that there will be some upsets of higher rated players.
    For example, a friend of mine (who has no FIDE title) defeated
    a GM in a slow OTB rated game as part of a team match.

    AudioRapture claims that 'individual adjustment based on each
    game are impractical due to volume'. I did not assert that RHP
    should automatically adjudicate the games of all players who have
    been banned. But under the 'Fair Play' ticket system, RHP is ready,
    at least in theory, to examine individual games for evidence of
    cheating when a player has made the effort to submit such evidence.

    Likewise, I would submit that RHP should be ready to examine
    the individual games of banned players for evidence of clearly
    winning or drawn positions (perhaps my game with Stephane
    would not yet qualify as a 'clearly drawn' position) when a player
    has made the effort to submit such evidence. When referring
    to such 'clearly winning' or 'clearly drawing' positions, I am thinking
    of, for example, a position where one player has an overwhelming
    material advantage and the other player has no counterplay or of
    a position that's a routinely drawn book endgame.

    So if a player's ready to make the effort to explain in analysis
    why his or her position is clearly winning or clearly drawn, then
    RHP should be ready to consider it, just as RHP should be ready
    to consider evidence that one's opponent has been cheating.
    I suppose that some moderators should be strong enough players
    to assess that evidence, if it's really clear enough, without having
    to spend too much time on it. If the evidence's not obvious to
    the moderators after, say, five or ten minutes, then the player
    did not submit a clear enough case for a win or a draw against
    the banned opponent.

    By the way, in its ratings calculations GameKnot uses the maximum
    of a player's ratings at the beginning and the end of games.
    Therefore, if a player at GameKnot were to resign (or lose on
    time) many games on the same day, then the order of losses
    would have a much less significant influence on the opponents'
    ratings than what would be the case at RedHotPawn.

    AudioRapture writes "this is a 'just for fun' site". Judging by the
    tone of his other comments, AudioRapture seems to be implying
    that I should not be taking a concept of 'fairness' in ratings seriously
    at a 'just for fun' site. Look, if this is a purely 'just for fun' site,
    then why should it have any ratings system at all? Why should
    not everyone play 'just for fun' without caring at all about ratings?

    Given that RedHotPawn has decided to have a ratings system,
    however, RHP should attempt to uphold at least a minimal standard
    of perceived fairness in ratings. I suppose that's why RHP has
    a 'Fair Play' ticket system to report suspected cheating players.
    In my view, RHP has fallen short in fairness with regard to how
    it treats the incomplete games of banned players.

    As far as I can tell, AudioRapture disagrees with me.
    On one hand, AudioRapture likes to say that RHP's policy is fair.
    On the other hand, by making his comment about a 'just for fun'
    site, AudioRapture seems to imply that players should not be
    concerned about fairness in ratings because they should be playing
    here 'just for fun'. Either fairness in ratings is important or it's
    not--you should not be able to have it both ways and switch from
    side to side when making your arguments.

    I believe that RedHotPawn should improve how it handles the
    incomplete games of banned players. I have made what I hope
    is a constructive suggestion about how this could be done.
    I don't expect perfection at RedHotPawn. I do expect RedHotPawn
    to listen with interest to how some improvements could be made.

    As far as I can tell, AudioRapture objects to my belief that
    something about this issue could be improved at RedHotPawn.
    AudioRapture's entitled to his opinion. But I have to say that I
    have found his tone rather unpleasant, and I am discinclined to
    engage in any further discussion about this with him.
  11. 03 Aug '08 10:48
    hey Duchess64, take it easy. so you believe you had a chance of beating someone with a (lot) higher rating than you? or actually beating a chess engine, for that matter?...good for you! you don't need rating points to make you feel better, don't you? you'll have plenty more games to come..
  12. 03 Aug '08 10:52
    but given your profile lines, ratings do matter for your ego, and greatly so
  13. Subscriber AudioRapture
    Skull Disco, Jr.
    03 Aug '08 16:54
    Unlike chess pieces, the real world unfortunately isn't just black and white. There is no contradiction in having a ratings system and being a for fun site.

    And yes, duchess64, you do take this way too seriously, in my opinion. As evidenced by your flatteringly long deconstruction of my response.
  14. 03 Aug '08 21:19
    Originally posted by Renars
    hey Duchess64, take it easy. so you believe you had a chance of beating someone with a (lot) higher rating than you? or actually beating a chess engine, for that matter?...good for you! you don't need rating points to make you feel better, don't you? you'll have plenty more games to come..
    Given that you don't know me as a person or my record as a
    chess player, I believe it's inappropriate for you to make any
    disparaging speculations or implications about my ability or
    my motivations to play chess.

    Given the evident nature of some players at RedHotPawn, however,
    I don't expect that they will stop jumping to their wrong conclusions
    about who I am as a person or as a chess player.

    On account of my limited time, I don't expect that I shall be
    able to complete as many games as quickly as many players
    are doing at RedHotPawn.

    I also play at GameKnot. For whatever it's worth, my friends
    at GameKnot don't believe, in contrast to some players at
    RedHotPawn, that it's obviously fairest that I should receive
    no credit for having played rather well against Stephane, a FM
    (rated FIDE 2300+) who presumably was using a chess engine.
    They have suggested that I consider no longer playing at
    RedHotPawn after my current games here have been completed.

    I have not yet made a decision about that. Yet having noticed
    many offensive comments by many players on many issues
    (unrelated to me), I shall say that one of RedHotPawn's most
    useful features is the ignore list.
  15. 03 Aug '08 21:22
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    AudioRapture seems to object to the phrasing of my question
    (which I had put in that form for dramatic effect), which I shall
    revise as follows:

    If you had a clearly winning position against a higher rated player
    who suddenly was banned, then would you consider it perfectly fair
    and be happy that you would gain no rating points from your game?

    In ...[text shortened]...
    engage in any further discussion about this with him.
    Ahem...could you repeat that?...ph..lease