I think too many people are obsessed with ratings. Does anyone ever play for
fun anymore? Everyone is so obsessed with wether or not people are cheating.
If you think someone is a cheater, just don't play them. If they need to see
their name in the number 1 spot, let em. I'm not going to cry about it. I'm
here to have fun playing chess. That must be a ridiculous idea to many people
on this site. LET IT GO PEOPLE!! The people I like playing on this site I know
aren't cheaters. And I have better things to do with my time than monitoring
wether or not someone is playing themselves in order to boost ratings. And
there is absolutely no way to tell if someone is using a program to make moves
for them, so if someone is going to cheat, they're going to cheat. So if you
think someone's cheating, post your opinion. But all these demands for removing
nicks and for reseting ratings seem a little petty to me. Anyway, here's a list
of really cool people to play chess with that I KNOW aren't cheaters (most are
close personal friends):
lawnguy
jonster
xenophile (alternative jonster nick)
martins
vaknso
Lord_Byron
Sister_Golden_Hair
pharoah
twist ND
fuehrer
nightsong72
STRYDER
tapza
thorn
(sorry if I've forgotten anybody)
Look PEOPLE!!! There is nothing wrong with a little competitive spirit. It
is the net equivalent of the "real-world" j'adoube when
you "accidentally" touch a piece. I mean C'MON you all care too much.
You al say that the ratings don't matter and that you're all here to
play chess, but, lets face it, you're STILL cpmplainign that some
people are cheating! I suspect you are all more concerned with your
rathings than you cae to admit...
Except Stephens of course... and me, my alter-ego Pawn Cocktail.
Well, maybe just a bit...
Ratings, of course, do matter. After all, chess IS a competitive sport.
However, it's more than that: it's also an art, a science (Dr. Max
Euwe). Those who only play for ratings... Well, it's their way of
enjoying the game. Nothing wrong with that. But, if anyone goes for
cheating to inflate their rating, where, then, is the satisfaction of, let's
say, a personal achievement? They'd better buy a strong programme,
let it search the correct (?) move, whilst they read a book, the morning
paper, or go out for a drink & a chat at his/her local.
Fritz7 is not all that expensive, I've seen at chessbase.com. And if
they then want to boast about their (high) rating, just let them. On the
other hand, it's very much like a race between EPO & non-EPO
athletes, which is a handicap not easilly overcome by 'clean' players
also playing for a -correct- rating.
I could have cheated at CWnet. Easilly so. Could have gone up to
just -2000 (site-ranking!). But what the hell is the point? I mean: the
main objective is to play chess. Instead of putting one's effort in the -
cheating-game it had better be put into into chess-playing (or
studying for that matter).
So, let's 'Chess, chess, chess...'
To all: lots of chess & chat fun
Erm... cerwankovas?... perhaps? Anyway...
Why do you feel insistent upon personally putting down every post I
make? Is this a personal think? Do have something against cocktails?
Or is just a sense of self-importance you get from preaching
your "purity chess" to some kid? Hmm...
Freud would have quite a lot to say about your obsessions...
Did I get at you personally? I wouldn't know. I reply to posts, but
hardly ever remember the nick I reply to. Must be sheer coincidence.
And 'No', I have nothing against coctails. Especially exotic ones.
Self-importance? My God! At my age (61) I don't feel I have to prove
something. I've lived most of my life now and haven't achieved great
things, but I can look back on many happy and interesting years.
Having been a copywriter & account-executive I enjoyed a fine career
and was fortunate enough for having been able to travel a lot for my
job and meeting people of many nationalities.
I'm just an intermediate chess-player, but have been fascinated by
the game for almost half a century. And 'Yes', I like the purity of our
game we all love so much.
Obsessed? With what? Freud? Jesus! You've read him? And if you did:
did you understand him? I didn't. Too difficult for me. Like to read
other stuff, I understand & am interested in. Won't give you a list of
my library. It's mostly literature (also English + Dutch) and a great
deal non-fiction. Like to read things I can learn from.
Enjoy your games. So do I. Sans rancune!
Well said Ron, I too feel that there is too much chat about cheats this
and cheats that, who cares who is top, most of us cannot get anywhere
near that rating anyway so forget about it. I too am here for fun and
although I obviously like a higher rating, cheating is not the way to do
it... SO WELL SAID RON,
I would also like to mention these wholesome people who are good
fun to play with :
kyngj
wookiesurfer
ryanjames
rhymester
fatgingergeeze
innertemple
powermonger
gabwaa
savant
T1000
Lawguy ... the list is endless
And your good self Ronster 'the graveyard shift' man himself.
i respect what you say about ratings but i read your post about
martins and it concerned me. this post and that one seem to
contadict! you say ratings dont matter yet you advised martins to start
over with a 1200 nick rather than start with a 800-900 nick?? yes if he
beat a 1200 player that player would lose about 80 points. im
wondering how many points ill lose??? would it be over 200 points.!!
well im happy to risk it! its the game im after not the points. i dont
need points.ive got plenty to spare.the ratings are the problem. i ask
you! you have played here for a long time! have you ever played a
game and lost 60 points as a result! have you ever played a 60 move
game and only won one point ! in an almost even game! many
posters here have never been in that situation.!they are at the win 16
loose 16 mark.! but when you get right up! hell it can hurt especially if
a programme is used. i beg to differ with you on the p[oint of knowing
if a programme is used or not.! very interesting point. some of us
here hve combine our chess talents and rhp experience as a hobby to
this effect.! but please comment on my next post. ratings problem
solved ?? as i know you understand the maths involved but i sure
dont. i post this to you in the utmost respect!.....glenn.!
With all due respect stevens, as you are aware with myself I was
unfortunately in a similar position (down at 960ish) after I had to quit
my games for reasons of work being non too impressed, and when at
that lowly point I beat a 1400 player and only got about 32 points if
my memory recalls so unlikely to lose 80-200 points. You could test
the theory by throwing some numbers into the equation provided by
Chris and russ.
Your point is a valid one, but hey that is life. All you have to do is WIN.
PK
yes i remember you taught me that valuable lesson:-) i dont
understand the maths involved.other wise i would.! at the time im
replying to this my suggestive post hasnt been posted! but would
welecome your comment in due time as one who has been there done
that! i only know sorta! from what ive been working out the hard way.i
suppose i could activate a nick close to the bottom against stevens.
resign as stevens to it and find out how many points i would lose! that
is the only way i know of finding out! :-) without going back to school
but i keep that one there to findout howmany nicks are on rhp. by
veiwing the place on the ladder.thats all. got to keep an eye on
things.lol:-)
Just by way of explaination (and yes, I spent the last half hour
figuring this out), the ratings work as follows:
Where a higher rated player wins, the points exchanged are few. The
number of points approaches 0 at about 720 difference in rating
Where the lower rated player wins, the points are high. As the
difference increases, the number of points aproaches K (a changable
constant). The rating difference for maximum gain will depend on K.
(K = 32 for 0-2099, 24 for 2100-2399, 16 for 2400 and above)
K does mean that points lost by looser does not have to equal points
gained by the winner.
This all equates to the answer - you can never lose more than 32
points per game (if Chris coded it correctly).
(where points are equal, you stand to gain K/2 points)
See here for rating calculation:
http://www.redhotpawn.com/static/help/faq_rating.php
Oh yes, this backs up Xenephobes stand of not playing lower rated
people - if you play anyone more than 720 points below you then you
can never gain anything even if you win.
Between *about* 525 and 720 rating difference (for players less than
2099 rating) you stand to gain only 1 point.
You get the idea.
thanks tom when i joined the top rated player was 1520 (top of the
ladder) but as ratings have risen we can now say if this one played
that one . just to help understand things better. so what you are
saying if i played martins and won i wouldnt even get a point! um this
a bit over my head sorry. the games will go ahead anyway regardless!
martins is very equal to myself.so i hope you have done your sums
correctly:-)
Just feel I should point out another reason people shouldn't worry
about the ratings here because -as far as I can tell - the system has a
logical flaw that damages the concept that two players with equivalent
scores are relatively equal in ability.
The problem is that we all get to choose who we play with; for a rating
system to even attempt to work, who plays who must me relatively
random so that, in the long run "every plays everyone."
As an example of the problem:
Take the top ten players here, at this point Xenophobe through
bessyboo. (my apologies to using your names/nicks, but you both
post so hopefully won't mind being used as an example). Have these
ten just play each other. As time goes on, poor bessyboo, as
the "worst" player in that group rating would slowly sink down into the
netherlands. So a very strong player ends up with an 1000 rating.
No imagine another player "circle" made up of me and 9 players even
worse than me (if that's possible!). By beating 9 random pawn
pushers, my rating would eventually soar to xenophobic levels!
So there you would have me, rated at 2200 even though I'm not a
good player. And there is poor bessyboo, and excellent player, stuck
with a miserably low rating. Bessyboo would of course beat me 999
games out of 1000, if we actually played, but the ratings won't reflect
that.
The problem seems to be one of not enough "mixing" of players, and
allowing players to choose who they play with.
One way around all that may be to have - as people have suggested -
tournaments, ie a venue where the proper "mixing" of players would
occur. And insures that all the top players do end up playing each
other. Ie one can't choose who one plays with in a tournament. And
have a second, tournament based, rating for those interested in
getting more accurate ratings.
Or if not tournaments, maybe - for those interested in such things -
computer generated matchups that you MUST play for the "alternate"
rating points. Again a second rating scale in addition to the current
method.
Hope this made some sense. Maybe I'm just confused.
And take home lesson: two people with the same, say 1600, rating
may be very different in skill; it all depends on who they've played
against.
The ratings here should just be taken as a tool to help find someone
you'd like to play chess against.
