Sandbagging and Collusion

Originally posted by shortcircuit
No Dave, what I readily admitted was that once the outcome for the challenges were
decided, we didn't see the need to play out the string.

A 5.5-4.5 win yielded the same points as a 10-0 did.
That is a strategy that I employed as clan leader.
If everyone has their panties in a knot over the timing of wins and losses,
then maybe they should make ...[text shortened]... ever thought about that.
But, it isn't my job to educate them, just to beat them to the title.

Ok Fred.I didn't mean any offence.
I didn't know other clans employed the same tactic,just trying to clear the waters a bit.
It's obvious the problem isn't going to be solved easily despite Russ's efforts.
Comments from me are'nt going to solve anything.
What is needed is a compromise between the warring clans as I suggested a while ago.
Can I suggest yourself and Robbie exchange a series of Pm's and try and sort out your differences ?

Originally posted by venda
Ok Fred.I didn't mean any offence.
I didn't know other clans employed the same tactic,just trying to clear the waters a bit.
It's obvious the problem isn't going to be solved easily despite Russ's efforts.
Comments from me are'nt going to solve anything.
What is needed is a compromise between the warring clans as I suggested a while ago.
Can I suggest yourself and Robbie exchange a series of Pm's and try and sort out your differences ?

Make a deal with the Devil, I'd rather give my soul up first! Ok I'll meet him at the crossroads at midnight.

You see the problem for Shirty is that now he doesn't know how the system works he is at a loss on how to manipulate it, that is why they are seeking to ascertain from Russ how the calculations are made so that they can try to find a way to exploit it. As for me I don't care, I just want a level playing field that rewards good chess rather than good skulduggery.

This is a good start on list of problem areas to be addressed.

"1 - problem with the scoring system. Meaning the way net points are awarded.

2 - perceived problems with player rating manipulation commonly called sandbagging.

3 - putting clan goals ahead of personal goals. In other words, players resigning clan games where the outcome has been decided.

4 - collusion amongst amongst several clans to generate points towards one clan."


I would add to the above list: untimely timeouts.

What would anyone think if a player repeatedly ended playable games by timing out? For example (chosen at random):

Game 11523406

Game 11531856 (time out with a bishop pair and a connected passer)

Game 11523407

Game 11531855

Game 11524624

Game 11780024 (timeout on move 7)

Game 11723590 (timeout on move 13)

Maybe there is a perfectly harmless explanation for each of those time outs. Maybe the player was ill, in which case I wish him a speedy recovery. Maybe all those games were lost anyway; he's a stronger player than I am and sees things I don't. But timing out on move seven?! It begins to look like deliberate rating manipulation. Or maybe it's 'clan management.'

So, to no. 3 "resigning clan games where the outcome has been decided" should be added: "untimely timeouts" as another prima facie suspicious means of manipulating ratings (either individual or clan).


"I find it amusing that some waste all their breath wanting to talk about "tossing" games that don't affect the outcome of a challenge… What's wrong with this picture?"

It is not about the result of that one challenge. It is about the effect that tossed game has on the individual's rating, especially if done repeatedly: it artificially lowers his rating and therefore puts him at an unfair advantage against some future player whose rating has not been artificially lowered. Calling it 'clan management' is subterfuge; it's still sandbagging, whatever the rationalization for it may be.



Regarding a possible solution:

"Change the net points scoring to be the sum of all rating changes for every clan game. For example if you win a clan game against your opponent and your rating goes up 6 points, your clan is awarded 6 points. Every game will contribute to the clan score. So resigning a game will cost the clan."

I've been suggesting something similar to this for a long time. The way standings have been calculated until now (not collusion) is the fundamental flaw in the clan system. It was flawed from inception, but it became clear only recently, when some clans started blatantly leveraging that flaw.

Getting away from net points is essential to creating a level playing field. The clans who were disrupting the system last year had a grievance which was never until now addressed. Whether that grievance was justified is another matter; but it must at least be heard and addressed. Otherwise there will continue to be guerrilla warfare here instead of chess.

Whether a revised clan rating system is to be ELO-based or some other is open to discussion, but in any case, a system in which every thrown game decreases clan standing is essential to undo the damage caused by a) collusion and b) sandbagging in all its forms including 'clan management' and untimely timeouts. There was a lot of resistance to the suggestion of an ELO-based clan rating system, partly because some people did not understand it and therefore did not understand how it would render sandbagging irrelevant. I emphasize "irrelevant," because some posters here are stuck on the idea that sandbagging must be prevented and punished. It cannot be prevented; but it can be rendered ineffective as a means of manipulating clan standings, and that is sufficient for our purposes of getting on with playing chess here.

The proposal Russ has offered (clan ratings but not based on individual ratings) is not clear on what exactly is being measured. If it is just another way to calculate net points, then it will not solve any of the problems noted above.

A win-ratio-based system would achieve the desired result and is much easier to implement, understand, and explain, than an ELO-based system.

Regarding collusion:

I see no means of preventing it. I do, however, believe that setting the rankings on a fairer system will remove the motivation which originally led to it.

We can nonetheless envision a multi-stage response to it, if it continues after a fairer clan rating system has been implemented and given a fair chance to work.

Stage 1.: set a low limit to the number of same-clan-same-player challenges which will count towards the clan standings. A limit of, say, two challenges in any 12-month period. Any number of same-clan-same-player challenges may be played (some clans just like each other), but only 2 would count towards the standings.

That does not address the issue of multiple feeder clans gifting points to some one clan. So, stage 2.: there should an ad hoc roll-back of ill-gotten points, to be implemented either by Russ (who probably does not want to police the clans) or some sort of adjudication committee (with authority to rule on suspicious cases). This has been suggested before and I have never objected to it; what I objected to was the idea that some people here seem to have that this alone would be sufficient to solve the problems here without addressing the other issues.

If that still does not resolve the issue of gift points, then stage 3.: disqualification of offending clans and removal of all their results (including legitimate ones) from the clan table. This too has been suggested before and I have never objected to it; what I objected to was the idea that some people here seem to have that this alone would be sufficient to solve the problems here without addressing the other issues.

Cheers,
moonbus

Originally posted by venda
Ok Fred.I didn't mean any offence.
I didn't know other clans employed the same tactic,just trying to clear the waters a bit.
It's obvious the problem isn't going to be solved easily despite Russ's efforts.
Comments from me are'nt going to solve anything.
What is needed is a compromise between the warring clans as I suggested a while ago.
Can I suggest yourself and Robbie exchange a series of Pm's and try and sort out your differences ?

Yet another example of being brow beaten by the blight of the site.
Stick to your guns and don't be fooled by their assertion s that others follow their cheating ways.

How about making clan games unrated?

Originally posted by venda
Ok Fred.I didn't mean any offence.
I didn't know other clans employed the same tactic,just trying to clear the waters a bit.
It's obvious the problem isn't going to be solved easily despite Russ's efforts.
Comments from me are'nt going to solve anything.
What is needed is a compromise between the warring clans as I suggested a while ago.
Can I suggest yourself and Robbie exchange a series of Pm's and try and sort out your differences ?

What about as a compromise to shut carrobie and his band of cheats up by instituting the following.

1. Each player has a separate clan rating. Stops sandbaggers like McTayo throwing tournament and private games to sandbag their clan rating

2. Once a clan tie has been decided e.g. in a 5 player (10 game) tie when one clan establishes a winning lead e.g. 5.5 games or higher, the remaining games whether played out or not will not affect the players involved clan rating. The players involved in the dead rubbers can play out their games but their clan rating will stay the same. This will mean that games can be ditched but the players who do so will not lower their clan ratings. This should shut carrobie and co up about sandbagging ratings.

Personally I feel that this should appease both parties.

Suspected collusion should be judged by a small panel of volunteer players maybe either respected clan leaders or respected players not associated with the clan system.

Lets find a solution and get on with it. If something isn't done soon carrobie and his goons will destroy another year !!!

Originally posted by moonbus
This is a good start on list of problem areas to be addressed.

"1 - problem with the scoring system. Meaning the way net points are awarded.

2 - perceived problems with player rating manipulation commonly called sandbagging.

3 - putting clan goals ahead of personal goals. In other words, players resigning clan games where the outcome has been deci ...[text shortened]... e sufficient to solve the problems here without addressing the other issues.

Cheers,
moonbus

We are just about on the same page.

Actually my proposal for using individual rating change came from some of your ideas.
Using individual player ratings change to add to a net point system allows other issues to be dealt with.
That would work off a clan rating separate from the general site rating.

Examples:
- any games that don't reach a certain number of moves, say 5 moves, would be flagged as unrated.
And therefore not contribute to the net points.
- games that time out could be flagged as unrated
And not contribute to net point scoring.

That would take care of inactive players and players that decide to let their games lapse ( Vespin for example 😀 ).

I still believe in some kind of points reward for the challenge itself.
Not the 2 points per player that is in place for net scoring today.
I agree with Russ that we need to encourage larger challenges.

So there would be some sort if hybrid system.

We would not be entirely eliminating the net scoring system.
But rather improving it.

"Change the net points scoring to be the sum of all rating changes for every clan game. For example if you win a clan game against your opponent and your rating goes up 6 points, your clan is awarded 6 points. Every game will contribute to the clan score. So resigning a game will cost the clan."
I like this idea much better than a points system or a clan (ELO ) rating system
I assume that everyone would have two ratings one for clan challenges and one for everything else

Originally posted by moonbus
This is a good start on list of problem areas to be addressed.

"1 - problem with the scoring system. Meaning the way net points are awarded.

2 - perceived problems with player rating manipulation commonly called sandbagging.

3 - putting clan goals ahead of personal goals. In other words, players resigning clan games where the outcome has been deci ...[text shortened]... e sufficient to solve the problems here without addressing the other issues.

Cheers,
moonbus

Proposals are good but limiting two challenges in a twelve month period is not good. There is a limited pool as it stands and some clans simply refuse to give you a gig. I cannot get a challenge with IVV or with Danger Mouse or The Hollies because of their allegiance to a certain clan so I play those clans that will give me a gig.

As Russ pointed out playing lower rated players is of little benefit in an ELO based system because you will gain hardly any points from doing so, there is simply therefore no incentive to set up lopsided challenges. Why this should be difficult to grasp I cannot say, it seems rather self evident to me. Instead of the drivel about punishing clans and setting up some kind of imaginary committee of foaming at the mouth puritans simply make the incentives for playing similarly or higher rated players more and decrease the incentive for playing lower rated players. Panic over problem solved.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Proposals are good but limiting two challenges in a twelve month period is not good. There is a limited pool as it stands and some clans simply refuse to give you a gig. I cannot get a challenge with IVV or with Danger Mouse or The Hollies because of their allegiance to a certain clan so I play those clans that will give me a gig.

As Russ poin ...[text shortened]... ers more and decrease the incentive for playing lower rated players. Panic over problem solved.

there has to be a likit on how many times clans clan play each other, that will stop your collusion cheating forever
as i said before the clan table should follow the ladder system no clan should have the right to refuse a challenge from a clan below them.again a limit put in place.

rather than a number of challenges allowed go by the points, clans cant play each other once a 50 point net rating has been reached in favour of one clan that way honest clans could play each other lots of times, but for example easy riders would play breaking bad three times all year,

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Proposals are good but limiting two challenges in a twelve month period is not good. There is a limited pool as it stands and some clans simply refuse to give you a gig. I cannot get a challenge with IVV or with Danger Mouse or The Hollies because of their allegiance to a certain clan so I play those clans that will give me a gig.

As Russ poin ...[text shortened]... ers more and decrease the incentive for playing lower rated players. Panic over problem solved.

There are at least 140 Clans on site at the moment
If you cannot get challenges from some of them can you wonder after last year
I wouldn't take one from you that 's for sure

The post that was quoted here has been removed

bwahaha its freedom fighters like me that have brought about a change to the system that has seen the last days of your nefarious sandbagging ways hopefully gone forever.

Back of da net! nom!nom!nom!

Originally posted by roma45
there has to be a likit on how many times clans clan play each other, that will stop your collusion cheating forever
as i said before the clan table should follow the ladder system no clan should have the right to refuse a challenge from a clan below them.again a limit put in place.

rather than a number of challenges allowed go by the points, clans cant p ...[text shortened]... h other lots of times, but for example easy riders would play breaking bad three times all year,

Clearly you are too dim to understand why an ELO system would do away with the advantages of collusion. Russ has explained it, I have explained it, moonbus has explained it, please be reasonable on yourself, this is not the thread for you, you are simply too dim to grasp anything being discussed here. Its not a personal insult its, just that you are, you cannot help it.

Originally posted by moonbus
This is a good start on list of problem areas to be addressed.

"1 - problem with the scoring system. Meaning the way net points are awarded.

2 - perceived problems with player rating manipulation commonly called sandbagging.

3 - putting clan goals ahead of personal goals. In other words, players resigning clan games where the outcome has been deci ...[text shortened]... e sufficient to solve the problems here without addressing the other issues.

Cheers,
moonbus

OK Mr. Genius. I am going to slightly overstep my bounds here because you have your head about 4 feet up your backside on this one.

With respect to Zumdahl's "TIME OUT" losses, why don't you do some more research on the topic.
In your usual slipshod manner, you failed to notice a couple of things, and you selectively pulled his games.

First of all, did you notice that ALL of those time outs occurred during the same
10 day period? (obviously not)

Second, did you happened to notice that some of those time outs happened to cost
us the challenge (as in we LOST it instead of winning it)?

Third are you going to assess that we gained ground on the pack by LOSING a challenge?

Fourth, was I happy about the time out losses?? Hell no. There is a hard and fast rule in
our clan. It states emphatically "If you lose a game, because you screwed up or because
your opponent played better, it happens and we move on. If you lose a game by TIME OUT,
it is inexcusable!! I will kick players from the clan for that infraction, and have done so.

However, there have been 3 situations where there were extenuating circumstances.
This one was one of those three.

Zumdahl was in India getting married. He knew he would be out of pocket for two weeks.
He screwed up and failed to get his vacation flag up. Every single player who had a game
with him timed him out. I was not happy about it at all. But, we sucked it up and moved on.
I am sure some of the mental midgets like robbie assumed it was sandbagging. LOL
Now I see that you are the judge and jury once again, and you have failed to consider
the reality in your fantasy.

I am sick to death of all of you whiners complaining about crap you "think" happens,
when you don't have a clue about it. You are so sure the only way anyone could be
consistently well performing is to cheat. The fact is, you are dead wrong and we are
the living proof.

Go employ your analysis elsewhere, because you suck at this!!