I have suggested elsewhere that it might save a lot of problems if the
resultant ratings adjustment when a game is completed were to be
based on the ratings that the two players have at the START of the
game. Chismo has also asked you for your views on this but I guess
his post has been overlooked because it is buried within another
thread. So what do you all think?
The plus factors to this change would be:
1. You wouldn't feel quite so pressured to claim time-outs
immediately against better players before their ratings dropped due to
other players claiming time-outs first... the Tim Robinson situation is
a prime example - he could come back with a sub 1200 rating and do
real damage to those who didn't claim.
2. It would solve a lot of the delaying tactics that are obviously
employed because it wouldn't help putting off a defeat until your
opponent's rating has improved etc.
3. We would all know where we were from the start of a game and it
should even be possible for us to have displayed somewhere against
each game what the result would be for a win/loss/draw - something
like: win: +28 draw: +8 lose: -10.
The only dowside that I can see is the situation where a really good
player joins and gets the benefit of his/her low rating and gains a lot
of easy points at the 'average' players' expense. However, If the
better players refrained from playing the newbies until they have at
least a couple of games under their belt this should be less of a
problem. (A challenge filter would sort this one out).
It's your turn now......
Rhymester
I am becoming very much in favour of the system you suggest,
Rhymester. I don't play very much on the site in comparison with
some of the more active players (and you have made more than twice
as many moves than any other player!). Therefore I have not noticed
some of the tactics and side-effects that you have noticed in your own
games.
And I like the idea of knowing in advance what you rating adjustment
would be in each of the win/loss/draw situations.
I feel sure that I will go ahead and make this change either in the
next update or the one following that. Of course, if there are any
strong objections or reasons that would make this less desirable,
please reply!
Cheers,
Chris
I like the idea of a system based on starting rating. It'll give a more
accurate account of your personal rating.
The only downside that I can think of is that it will alter players
ranking within RHP with respect to each other. RHP is a closed
environment meaning that everyone starts with a 1200 rating and
loses and gains points as they win and lose games. Essentially, the
total number of rating points does not change from 1200 * X where X
is the total number of players on RHP. Once you start basing the
outcome on pre-game ratings instead of actual ratings, this system
goes out the window and you may start seeing some wierd things
happening to the overall ratings.
Or it may all just average out and I'm rambling on for no good reason.
Can anyone see fault in my reasoning or understand what the heck
I'm trying to say?
I quite agree with the suggested amendments to the site. I am a new
player with just the 6 games under the belt, and I would have thought
the pre-game score ratings amendment should be made with
immediate effect. It would spice things up for sure.
Perhaps another idea would be where, you could play a double points
game, so that two players could agree to the 'super-challenge' of
having your ratings hit hard if you lose... increase the tension.
Having travelled the chess-sites in my formulative years, I would like
to say that this is the best site that I have come across, and would
recommend it to anyone, as I have in the past.
I have to say that REDHOTPAWN is my favourite late night activity! :-)