Originally posted by Gatecrasheryeah... or a 2000 player starting 400 games and losing every one, a lot of people would get a big rating boost.
There is a technical problem with taking the ratings at the commencement of the games. It is theoretically possible for a player to get a negative rating. It is also theoretically possible for a mediocre player with a very low rating, taking on hundreds of games (at that low rating) to end up with a rating greater than ironman31 or even Kramnik!
The ...[text shortened]... d quite easily break the delicate mechanism that prevents the rating system imploding/exploding.
It would completely throw off the rating system. I'm going to have to vote for the obvious.
Originally posted by GatecrasherOr the opposite could happen, which means the same thing.
There is a technical problem with taking the ratings at the commencement of the games. It is theoretically possible for a player to get a negative rating. It is also theoretically possible for a mediocre player with a very low rating, taking on hundreds of games (at that low rating) to end up with a rating greater than ironman31 or even Kramnik!
The ...[text shortened]... anism that prevents the rating system imploding/exploding.
Vote to retain the current system.
Our current rating system needs a complete overhaul.
Originally posted by GatecrasherWhat about the case where you take on a player who is playing hundreds of games and he has a brain meltdown and gets timed out a lot?
There is a technical problem with taking the ratings at the commencement of the games. It is theoretically possible for a player to get a negative rating. It is also theoretically possible for a mediocre player with a very low rating, taking on hundreds of games (at that low rating) to end up with a rating greater than ironman31 or even Kramnik!
The ...[text shortened]... anism that prevents the rating system imploding/exploding.
Vote to retain the current system.
His rating could be 1500 at the start of your game and 700 at the end.
I would say the 1500 is a more accurate reflection of his true playing strength and if you win your game, you should be credited with winning against a player of that strength.
Originally posted by KneverKnightI think that his point was that it is very easy to maliciously manipulate the ratings system if you use the rating at the start of the game. The scenario that you describe is just unfortunate, and won't completely throw off the entire rating system.
What about the case where you take on a player who is playing hundreds of games and he has a brain meltdown and gets timed out a lot?
His rating could be 1500 at the start of your game and 700 at the end.
I would say the 1500 is a more accurate reflection of his true playing strength and if you win your game, you should be credited with winning against a player of that strength.
D
Originally posted by KneverKnightI think the question here should be if there is a way two players can manipulate their ratings so that they both gain points.
What about the case where you take on a player who is playing hundreds of games and he has a brain meltdown and gets timed out a lot?
His rating could be 1500 at the start of your game and 700 at the end.
I would say the 1500 is a more accurate reflection of his true playing strength and if you win your game, you should be credited with winning against a player of that strength.
Is it possible to create a non-sub account, play a few games and then start a lot of ones with your sub account that you win all 100 at against a decent rated opponent?
It just sounds more open to manipulation...
Originally posted by Ragnorakhmmmm
I think that his point was that it is very easy to maliciously manipulate the ratings system if you use the rating at the start of the game. The scenario that you describe is just unfortunate, and won't completely throw off the entire rating system.
D
Maybe I should re-vote ...
I'm not a total @-hole, just close.
Yes, I think I will, what you say makes sense, they can't have as much control against other games so rating manipulation is harder using the present system.
I guess the issue is that over-time games will always have problems with the rating system. Using the start rating though will give inaccurate bonuses and losses more often than the problems we have with strong players losing rating during the game.
There are countless threads on suggestions for fixing that, so I won't go into it, but using the rating at the start of the game is not a good one.
Originally posted by KneverKnightdo not look at it only from the angle of protection against manipulation. There may be other/better means to fight that. The real question is: which (of the two options offered) is the fairest rating system for the (vast majority of) honest players? If you look at a game with TO/Timebank and ratings as a contract, then it looks more fair to agree to play when the impact on both players' rating is known in advance.
hmmmm
Maybe I should re-vote ...
I'm not a total @-hole, just close.
Yes, I think I will, what you say makes sense, they can't have as much control against other games so rating manipulation is harder using the present system.
- Joined
- 26 May 02
- Moves
- 72546
2 edits
A change to ratings calculated at the start of the game would be a unmitigated disaster. The main reason is because it would be incredibly easy for someone to manipulate the rating system to their own advantage.
For instance, imagine there were 2 friends, who have both recently joined the site and have 1200 ratings, decide to play a marathon 100 game match against each other. One is much stronger than the other, so easily wins all 100 games. He will gain 16 points for each win. Multiply that by 100 = 1600. Therefore his new rating will be 2800.
There wouldn't even have to be situations like this to create absurdities. As an example, someone like Helden, who on average completes 422 games every month could easily have a good run and win a higher percentage of games than usual (he averages about 80 per cent). In the space of a few weeks he could end up with a rating over 4000! Or he could have a bad month, lose more games than usual and see his rating go down to zero!
And I haven't even mentioned the damage that could be done by cheats....
Dave
Originally posted by Mephisto2yeah, but it just won't work. We'll have to adopt a "Rating Mod" team to make sure nobody is winning too much off the skewed rating system.
do not look at it only from the angle of protection against manipulation. There may be other/better means to fight that. The real question is: which (of the two options offered) is the fairest rating system for the (vast majority of) honest players? If you look at a game with TO/Timebank and ratings as a contract, then it looks more fair to agree to play when the impact on both players' rating is known in advance.
The thing is, if you have 100 people, each at rating 1500 to begin(100 * 1500 = 150,000), as they play games together, the total of all their ratings shouldn't vary much from that 150,000. So losing or gaining points during a game will in-turn affect how your rating is affected by the next completed game. Using the start rating, you mess up the whole rating pool with artificial ratings that are just used for calculation because it was like that when they started.
Follow?
1 edit
Originally posted by Mephisto2OK if there was a way to prevent rating manipulation, then yes, you agree to play against a player with a certain rating and should expect your own rating to go up or down according to the result of the game played at those ratings (yours and your opponent's at the start of the game.)
do not look at it only from the angle of protection against manipulation. There may be other/better means to fight that. The real question is: which (of the two options offered) is the fairest rating system for the (vast majority of) honest players? If you look at a game with TO/Timebank and ratings as a contract, then it looks more fair to agree to play when the impact on both players' rating is known in advance.
But, I fear the cheats ...
Originally posted by CoconutNo, I hope others do understand what you are saying.
Follow?
Whatever choice is made, I still believe it is not the main purpose of a rating system to fight abuse, but instead to create fair expectations of win/loss chances before the start of a game. Both systems, especially in a stable environment, can do that. I find it a little paranoic to make the choice purely based on defensive reasoning.
1 edit
Originally posted by Mephisto2Please read Tebb's post if you haven't already. It really explains it all well. It doesn't take abuse for the system to seriously mess up.
Whatever choice is made, I still believe it is not the main purpose of a rating system to fight abuse, but instead to create fair expectations of win/loss chances before the start of a game. Both systems, especially in a stable environment, can do that. I find it a little paranoic to make the choice purely based on defensive reasoning.
edit: Yes I saw the XFL. How's that sleeping thing going?