what you say in laymans terms is 100% correct ! the maths is there!
but most doent understand it. but we can understand nick names.as
rhp is growing many new issues have arisen. like any small town
growing into a city !you have the old town folk and now the newer city
people. that is progress! all making rhp their chess home.! this is what
everyone wants!
as allways thanks tom still confused tho.isnt there something about
the win/loss ratio in there as well. and ill stand corrected but im fairly
sure ive seen a 52 point loss. as rule of thumb tho if what you say is
correct about maxium loss! that i understand!! well now this might
change attitudes. so what you are saying is a 2000 player plays a 800
player max points lost would be 32 ??? what would the 800 player get.
if it won. i know it it only looses 1. did you see my other post about
having a user calculator placed on the site.?for this purpose.!
Yeah, I should explain myself better. Ratings aren't totally unimportant, but
quite a few people on this site seem to worry about it way too much. Now I
understand where you're coming from as to loosing 60 points and gaining 1 in a
60 move game, and I mostly agree. But what I was referring to was people
worried about others cheating and their rating, and not accepting games from
people rated below 1600 because they're rated 1700. And the reason I suggested
martins start a new nick was it just seemed to make sense since he's a much
better player than a 875 rating would suggest. I didn't think of how it would
impact my rating until I read your post, but I'm still not going to delete any
games I have with him or not start anymore with him because he's a great player,
our games are very entertaining and he has a cool attitude even if I stand to
loose a lot and gain little. I'll be doing my best not to loose against him
initially especially. But then again, he gave me quite a few points when he
resigned a few games I was playing him from before he left, so I could cough up
some for him and not loose any sleep. Anyway, I don't understand the math for
rating calculation any better than most. It's weighted depending on each
players current rating - pretty much sums up my understanding.
As for knowing when someone is using a program to cheat, how do you do that? I
mean you could run their moves against a program yourself, but even if they're
the same that doesn't PROVE anything. Seems to me the only way to absolutely
PROVE it would be to stand over their shoulder when they're making the moves.
Well, you could also use a program to monitor their desktop without them knowing
it. Short of that, you can't prove a thing, so why worry? Seems to me the best
thing would be to just put up a post to warn other players and let it be. Just
my humble opinion, and I post this with utmost respect also.
Thanks for hint, stevens. Moreover, friend from my chessclub will
borrow me Fritz for the weekend (forgot whether it's 5, 6 or 7). does
that matter? Will do some experimenting, if I can handle the machine.
Will try that site you suggested. Hope it will clarify matters. Keep you
posted.
Yes, I too don't understand how it can be proven someone is using a
programme. I've read somewhere on the net though there are sites
where they can find out about what they call 'typical programme
moves'. I wouldn't know how to detect that. If anyone here can...
Tim Harding in 'Winning at Correspondence Chess' writes at length on
this subject. He even suggests, and I believe ICCF or so does it, that
players who use a machine, should say so and that is publicised. So,
opponents know. But that's rubbish, of course. It all depends then on
the (dis)honesty of the user.
Programmes maybe used as a database in the opening. Nobody can
forbid you to use MCO, ECO or NCO in the opening phase. I use for
that purpose ECO & MCO, or a opening book on a particular subject. It
has always been done in the 'old days' of correspondence chess. I
suppose those who use a programme, only play for a higher rating
they don't deserve. To what end? It has been said here before: they
are only cheating themselves. What's the fun of having a Fritz &
others making your moves? Must be boring. Why play chess then?
The only sensible us I think is that one can have the machine analyse
your games AFTER you have finished them. Even GMs use this
function to save time when post-mortem analysing is done.
If anyone here at RHP knows about how to find out the use of a
programme I would very much like to read that. Thanks.
assuming the ratings were a fair reflection of each players' stregnth, they can be very useful to allow people to play the most challenging
games in a non-tournament environment like this one, i.e. by playing against more or less equally strong opponents. Playing with
friends, regardless of the respective ratings does not impact that, because the system is meant to compensate the chances by the amount
of points won/lost.
it's a different game in a elimination-type of tournament, where one would prefer to put the highest ratings against the lowest in the
early stages (like in tennis), in order to maximize the chances for (a) top class (quarter, semi-,) final(s).