2024 Completed

@moonbus said
@shortcircuit

I would just like to point out here that resigning playable games not only artificially deflates the rating of the player who resigned, but also artificially inflates the other player's rating--regardless of intent.

@Very-Rusty

I can think of an example right off the bat. McT’s clan was feeding Robbie’s clan game after game, challenge after challenge. It was so blatant that the rules were changed to prevent more than three challenges to the same clan (or at any rate, not to count more than three challenges towards the final standings).

I am bumping this post for those who didn't get to read it by @shortcircuit:

@A-Unique-Nickname
Trevor, I don't enjoy the forums and actually do not read them anymore because, for the most part they are too argumentative and do not resolve anything, and these days my time is needed elsewhere in the real life tending to family issues. I was requested to have a look and respond here, and as a courtesy I will. I could not care less about the slings and arrows my post will probably cause, but enjoy the fodder.

I read the various posts and many of the people are falsely alluding to things that are simply not true. Possibly because they have not been doing this as long as I have or because there memories are short. For many years I was public enemy number 1. Maybe I still am to some. But let me fill you in on a few facts that everyone is missing regarding this term "snadbagging". It is misused by many, including you here Trevor.

When I first started at RHP, there were no limitations on challenges, games, or anything else. There has always been a common "rating" for all players. This "rating has been crap for many years I personally have never paid much attention to it. It has always been easy to manipulate and we have spoken to Russ for years about developing separate clan ratings from site ratings. It won't ever happen. The answer "Costs too much time and too much money to do it and this is a form of commerce for Russ.

In the beginning many players were entering tournaments specifically to lose all of the games and lower their "rating" in order to get better match ups. The sad part of this is that clan leaders were either ignorant or didn't care to do any work to make up challenges. That was their problem. THAT was sandbagging. That is STILL sandbagging.

When I took over as clan leader of Metallica, I made myself familiar with every rule. In all of my time here, I have never broken a rule, although we were charged many times, and every single time the verdict came gown that we had broken no rule. This is a fact that Russ will bear out. Everyone had to find a reason why we succeeded where others failed or couldn't keep up. Human nature I suppose.

When there was no limit on challenges, Metallica won because we played more challenges, were were a capable clan, and we won the lion's share of those challenges. At that time "gross points" determined the victor. So you can see where volume would win out over all.

The naysayers against us said we "cheated" because we "played too much". It was simply quantity over quality. Mind you we still won the overwhelming majority of our challenges, but that didn't matter we were labeled as cheaters.
So several complained that they needed to change the rules to make things fair.
Then came the first rule change to thwart Metallica....we would now convert to "net points" as the barometer to determine the champion. You would be penalized for the lost challenges that didn't bother anyone before. I said it then and still say it today....change any rule you like, modify them until your heart is content, but only start a rule change at the beginning of a year and make it equivalent to all. And so it was done.

Now this made the move to be continue to play a lot of challenges, because volume would still win out in the long run, but don't take any more silly challenges because they could now effect your "net point" scores. I modified the approach, and we started winning on "net points". They said we were cheating because no one else was winning. Mind you, were didn't win every year, we finished second a few times, but the whining still continued.

They said the sandbagging must be the reason. I laughed at that notion because I asked them what in the hell were your worried about, the ratings are so flawed they cannot be believed and I had not relied on them for years anyway. This fell on deaf ears, but it had to be the culprit. There are many clan leaders to this day that still put stock in some forms of these ratings but they are ridiculous. But here came rule change number 2 to thwart Metallica. In all challenges, ratings differences greater than 200 points would not be legal. I shook my head because you have a flawed rating system, so now this is going to make it less flawed??
Okay, we'll play....and we did....and we still won. Again, we MUST be cheating. Again, all allegations proved wrong.

Now the factions who wanted to stop Metallica came up with a different tack to stop the juggernaut. They were going to "limit the number of challenges you could have concurrently to three". This would slow down the volume so certainly that would even the playing field, right? You would think so and everyone was singing "ding dong the witch is dead". This change was going to prove to be the one that bit them in the butt, even though they could see it. Once again, we didn't care what rules we played by, as long as everyone had to play by the same rules. And so we played.....and we still won.....and they couldn't understand how were did it....we must be cheating. Nope, still no cheating, but we did have toi re-think the script to make things work. This is where many of you are making your mistake and calling it sandbagging. Since you were limited to 3 concurrent challenges, it makes zero sense to continue a challenge where the outcome is already decided, won or lost. NOTHING changes. But, it allows the start of a new challenge it is place. Now the argument ensues the reason is sandbagging....but that is not even close. Remember, we already decried paragraphs ago that the rating system was flawed and the ratings are useless in the format we are forced to use them, so what is getting changed??? NOTHING. Now there was also gamesmanship from the backside. Teams with a losing challenge would stall moving or draw out the challenges to block the inevitable from happening. You call that fair? Rubbish, we chose to remove that option from them by resigning games that did not matter, thereby ending the challenge, and moving on. Very legal and within the rules that the naysayers created anyway.

So you see, all of these changes were designed to stop what we were doing. However, the limitations were equal across the board and they couldn't close the gap. You want to know why? Because they were not willing to put in the work required to beat us. Michael speaks of my blueprint, which is high praise, but to his credit, he didn't try to re-invent the wheel, he tried to build a better automobile. If you want to win you have to do the work, you have to be able to negotiate, and you have to perform. It is that simple. If you are too lazy to do the work...you will not win. If you are not able to negotiate, you will not win. If you don't perform and win challenges, you will not win. It is that simple.

There are a few other "tactics" or "strategies" that I employ in my approach that are more calculating, but those are less obvious than the ones Michael alludes to in the "blueprint".

Now, there are clan leaders to this day that blinding follow the ratings. There are some that contrive their own ideas for laying out a challenge. There are some, like me, that place no stock in the ratings, but have knowledge of the relative strength of players and just realize that sometimes you just have to wait to the 200 point range to be in line before you can challenge them. There are a few clan leaders who won't even entertain a challenge from us. So be it. There are many that do and I have to work with each clan leader in within parameters they have established they want to use, and I have to see where they coincide with a challenge that is workable. We still get a fair amount of challenges. Many are issued to us and many we initiate. There is back and forth in all.

Now as I am getting older and closer to stepping away from this (you may recall, I was retired as clan leader when Mghrn55 took over the reigns. When he became ill and ultimately passed away, I picked up the clan lead once again.
Over the years I grew weary and bored of all of the cheating accusations and the BS of having to defend our position all the time. Now some choose to ignore the accomplishments altogether, which is fine. They are still history, but we have been there and done that. We are still around, still playing the game, for a while longer anyway.

So, that is the real story of what happened and why it happened and why we are where we are. You can blame me, you can ignore me, you can believe me or not. Your choice, In the grand scheme of things, it really doesn't matter. Family matters and I have several more important things to deal with these days. But I will leave you with this one thought "I would rather work by butt off, try as hard as I could to win, within the rules, and leave it on the table...win or lose, than to sit back like a coward and run from a challenge and then gripe because they are unwilling to work or were afraid to even try".

I offer my congratulations to Breaking Bad for winning last season. Unfortunately, I was unable to devote much time to this last season to make it more interesting for them. I am not saying we would have won or not, but it would have been a bit tougher on them.

Life is short guys.....and getting shorter every day. Enjoy life while you can and pay attention to what matters. This is a game, nothing more. One I have enjoyed playing for years, but that interest is waning, especially when it comes to sniping and finger pointing.

Not sure how many will read this diatribe, but it is a factual report of what really happened, and why we are here today.

@moonbus said
@Very-Rusty

I can think of an example right off the bat. McT’s clan was feeding Robbie’s clan game after game, challenge after challenge. It was so blatant that the rules were changed to prevent more than three challenges to the same clan (or at any rate, not to count more than three challenges towards the final standings).

@Very-Rusty said
@moonbus,

Which he was banned for! We all complained about that one.

-VR

@moonbus said
Rightly so, the outrage was palpable; people threatened to leave the clan system en masse. It skewed the ratings of other players in the other clans which played either of the two feeder clans, not only those of the clans directly involved in the mutual-feeder racket. It makes a mockery of the entire rating system and that is the real issue here.

BTW, when exactly does "in ...[text shortened]... layer stops playing or leaves the clan feature? Ratings are an on-going process, not a steady state.

@Very-Rusty

Of course something could be done about it: exercise otb sportsmanship and don’t throw playable games. In any FIDE-organized tournament, the throwing of games is punished by expulsion from the tournament.

@moonbus
IF the ratings meant something, sure they would. These ratings are so far off kelter it is ridiculous. I see 2000 level players at 1650 I see 1500 players at 1200. I know what the capabilities are, these ratings are rubbish and have been for many years. Time outs are indicative of players whose ratings should not be trusted.

Secondarily, regarding your comment about time limits controlling the games, we sir, if you have an opponent who has just a King against an opponent who has ample pieces to finish the match, the player who has zero chance to win the game and can only hope for a stalemate can drag these games out for a couple of weeks by just playing a 3/7. It is much worse if it has a 7 or 14 day Time out . And when you factor in time bank and the vacation days, it becomes ludicrous. This is not sportsmanship to play it out, it is lunacy. If the game means nothing because the team match result outcome cannot be changed, throw him a bone and give him a win instead of a potential stalemate. Hell that is much better sportsmanship. And, as I had re-iterated on several occasions, pick your sport, they never play games that are unnecessary. If it is best 2 out of 3 and one team wins the first two, match is over...period. They don't play the 3rd game because it is sporting to do so, or to save face or any other reason. Likewise, If a clan challenge has 10 possible point and one side as secured 6 points, the challenge is already decided. The remaining games are unnecessary. If they want to go play skittles games, they have plenty of avenues for that on this site. Clan chess is a team endeavor and the team is the only thing that matters, not individual stats of games. Facts are facts and these are irrefutable.

If you want to change the rules AGAIN to make all games meaningful, fine, do it.
Wait for the beginning of a year and do that. Strategies will be altered to accommodate whatever changes are made. But as the rules are now, you are attempting to impose your will where the rules do not. Sorry.

@moonbus said
@Very-Rusty

Of course something could be done about it: exercise otb sportsmanship and don’t throw playable games. In any FIDE-organized tournament, the throwing of games is punished by expulsion from the tournament.

@shortcircuit said

IF the ratings meant something, sure they would. These ratings are so far off kelter it is ridiculous. I see 2000 level players at 1650 I see 1500 players at 1200. I know what the capabilities are, these ratings are rubbish and have been for many years. Time outs are indicative of players whose ratings should not be trusted.

@Very-Rusty said
@shortcircuit

That was a very well put statement coming from one of the most successful Clan Leaders in the History of the Site, all true as I was around for most of the ride from 2006 to June21/21. What ever New Rule was made it didn't matter you adjusted. We had a very hard working group, unfortunately two have passed on, may they R.I.P.. Others have decided to move ...[text shortened]... 5, which I mean sincerely. We are looking for a hard challenge from several clans this year.

-VR

@Michael-Martin said
Brilliantly put. I don't think there can be any dispute he is the best leader in history.

@Ghost-of-a-Duke said
Pretty sure sir that was Churchill.

@Michael-Martin said
Brilliantly put. I don't think there can be any dispute he is the best leader in history. And the team you were on at that time.
And of course although I do use a page out of Metallica's play book, we have plays of our own we use. We have to. And my lord do the players work their butt off to win. They do everything they can, and carry a huge game load. Credit goes to the players.

Well said my friend.

@Ghost-of-a-Duke said
So, to clarify, Rusty is wrong in your opinion when he stated this about ratings:

"I would like to point out it all evens itself out in the end, the player always gets back to his/her playing strength."