I am grateful for the amount of time and money you have put into setting up and running the
site, but feel that the ratings system is too open to abuse, and that this will drive many
players away unless it is tightened up. My suggestion is as follows:
Change unrated games so that they do not count towards the win/loss record. I think that in
these games players should be free to experiment, challenge players who are better than they
are, and generally do what they like without having to worry about tarnishing their record.
But more importantly, for rated games, players should be banned from either challenging
specific opponents or making open invites. Instead there should be an option 'New Rated
Game', which will put the player on a list of people waiting for a game/games. Once there
are more than a certain number of players on this list, the person who has been on the list
the longest should be randomly paired with someone else on the list, excluding, say, those
who are more than 200 different in rating. The colours would then also be assigned randomly
and play would begin as usual. The players should, from the start, only be able to terminate
the game by mutual consent. The issue of time limits could be dealt with either by only
having 1 time limit (7 days seems the norm) or by having separate lists for each time limit.
Whilst this approach would not stop the use of computer programs and outside assistance, it
would render any 'stooge' accounts obsolete, since there would be little chance of playing
against them with any regularity, and the ratings restriction would limit this possibility even
further, as it would stop the stooges being totally strip-mined of their ratings. It would also
prevent targeting of known overrated players, the use of 'smurf' accounts to sabotage rival
players' ratings, and various other abuses.
Before we add a lot of 'anti-cheating stuff' we should first ask what we
need ratings for.
I'm not familiar with FIDE ratings but I can immagine that you can
only win/loose points if you play an official game/tournament
controlled by somebody in person. We can't do this over the web so
we shouldn't compare the purpose of official ratings with the purpose
of RHP ratings.
As for me the rating is great to show how much you improved over
time and even more important to find out whom to challenge out of
the hundreds of active players on this site. If people cheat they are
just cheating themselves.
Too bad that software can play chess but luckily it cannot chat or write
posts!
Gotti
Ratings not only give one an idea how s/he is doing strength wise
against all others, but allows others to understand the level of play
they might expect from a chessplayer, and so, the challenge the have
before them.
For me, it is no fun playing someone I can beat with sloppy play time
after time. A highly rated player tends to cause me to make a strong
effort to play precise chess. Without ratings, you have no clue about
your opponent's strength until after you have played him. Believe
me, a strong chess player rarely learns and improves from playing a
weak player. And yes, I understand some here are not at all
concerned with improving their - they just want to have fun - but let
me remind you that there are those in the RHP community, such as
myself, who strive to improve. For us, ratings are important as they
generally indicate whether our opponent could produce a thoughtful
game to challenge us.
In that case introduce a divisional system, where people have hidden
ratings but a categorised into, say 10 divisions depending on their
win/loss record. Beating players in a higher division than yourself
scores more points, beating lower division players still scores points
but not as many. This would also limit the ability for the highest
ranked players to score points from dummy accounts. Players would
still get an idea of how good an opponent is fom their division.
Ratings would be hidden, or could be dependent purely on your scores
against people from the same division.
Mark
What you are suggesting is similar to what is done at many "official"
correspondence sites. That is, you sign up to play in a rating section
with several other players. If you place first in your section you can
advance to a higher rated section. If you don't take first, you remain
at your class level or even drop to a lower class if you score poorly.
This sectional type of play is the "norm" for all organized
correspondence sites and federations. The United States Chess
Federation does it, the Correspondence Chess League of America
does it, the Interantional Correspondence Chess Federation does it,
the www.playchess.de chess site does it, our local chess federation in
Washington State does it in correspondence play. RHP is not the only
one, but is one of the few sites to have totally "free style" or private
games of chess - no organized play at all. The only organized play I
have seen here was created by the players. ROW vs USA and the
DAVE BAKER INVITATIONAL are the organized events I have seen
here. And I have noticed cheaping does not occur as often in
organized events.
Maybe 'division' was a poor choice of terminology for what I was trying
to say, as it implies a league structure. One of the things I enjoy
about RHP is the play anyone mentalilty. A better explanation would
be to rank players 1-10. New players start at rank 1, and only by
consistenlty beating players who are ranked above them can they
progress. Likewise consistently losing to players ranked below you
sees you lose rank. I know this will never produce a #1 position as the
current method does, but if people are really aiming for that position
(and good enough to reach it) then they more than likely have an
offical ranking in their respective countries, and covet this rating more
than their RHP ranking! Not foolproof I know but just a suggestion so
don't try to pick holes in it, because I could do that!!!!
Mark
Well, RHP could have both one-on-one game play and structured
tournament play. Most sites, whether live chess play (Internet speed
chess) or correspondence/email, offer both formats. RHP is one-on-
one ONLY, unless a user/player sets up a tournament, as was the
case with the Baker Invitational and the ROW vs. US. Other sites
routinely offer tournament play.
Almost all chess players fall into one of these two categories: 1)
Casual, friendly game player, or 2) Serious competitive player.
Generally, the serious player will go for the structured tournaments
where cheating tends to be minimal, while those who play for fun will
enjoy the casual play of private one-on-one game.
Creating multiple accounts to bolster one of one's account ratings is
easy to do in one-on-one games, as the abuser has total control over
who he plays – his other accounts. However, cheating is a bit more
difficult in tournaments for the opposite reason: one must play the
opponent paired to - he does not get to choose.
That's almost what I was trying to say, only you've said it more clearly. While I would
definitely put myself in category 1, I tried to suggest a way of removing the ability to choose
an opponent for a rated game, as this stops many types of cheating and gamesmanship, both
crude and subtle, in their tracks. I didn't suggest a tournament, however, because each
tournament would require a certain fixed commitment from all players involved, whereas
randomised matchmaking does still allow the player to control the number of games he is
playing.
The only trouble is I enjoy the games against people I know, but who
no longer live near me (ie my brother and best friend). Randomising
matches would eliminate this, else a lot of my games would be
unrated which woud also be annoying (especially as I just beat my
brother for the first time this morning!). Maybe the way to eliminate
cheating is for people to reach inside their conscience and realise that
they are only cheating themselves, and will eventually be found out
and publicly humiliated
- Joined
- 04 Jan 02
- Moves
- 11961
You make some very well thought out suggestions here, but my gut
reaction to them is simply that it seems to be putting Russ/Chris into
more of a babysitting role than I think they would like. I honestly
believe that we, as a community, can be, and are perfectly capable of,
policing ourselves. I think that we need to stop all this talk of what
Russ and Chris should do to make the site better (i.e. attempting to
eliminate the potential for cheating and abuse), and perhaps have a
little more talk about what WE should do to make it a better site.
And, in my opinion, the first thing EVERYONE should do, especially
during this particular phase of RHP life, is to send them money!
There is no way that it can be whole ton of fun being Russ and Chris
right now, if they are reading all the posts criticizing THEIR site, which I
am certain was, and is, a labor of love. Let's try to give them some
reasons to continue instead of just deciding to pack it in. Let's keep
reminding them, as T1000 did so beautifully yesterday, how much this
place means to some of us.
Peace--
Tim
Your suggestion here is simply not a workable pro-active solution.
The website belongs to Chris and Russ, and if they are not concerned
with doing what is necessary, as other chess sites ARE, then they WILL
fall by the way side. Good chess players have too many good playing
sites to go to, i.e., www.PlayChess.de and www.letsplaychess.com, just
to name two. FIDE and ICCF also have their own sites for
correspondence play.
I am not the best player here, but I am a player with ethics and
standards. I am stating here and now quite clearly that I will not
remain a member of a chess site that will not make concerted efforts
to control inappropriate behavior.
RHP could be a wonderful site to play correspondence chess, but
suffers from this cancerous use of multi-user accounts playing each
other to falsely increase ratings with others using computer chess
playing programs to make their moves. If Chris and Russ do not
know how to control some of this behavior then they should visit some
of the sites I mentioned for ideas about how to solve the problems
and then post a “code of conduct” so all will know what is required of
them and what the consequences will be for those who ignore
the “code” and abuse the site.
Believe me, none of this stuff is rocket science. It just takes
webmasters willing to maintain their site for all to enjoy. If they
choose not to, then I don’t think they will last very long. The choice of
how to maintain their site is entirely up to them. Sink or swim – their
choice!
Mustangace,
I completely agree that there could be more efforts made to crack down on abuse here,
even considering the volunteer nature of the site, and the limits on Chris and Russ's time.
For example, posting a code of conduct which specifies disallowed behavior and
consequences, as well as scanning for obvious game-fixing and multiple accounts would
help. This is very important, compared to other aspects of site improvement, so it should
be a priority.
However, there is really no way to detect whether people are using computer programs to
cheat, or prevent if from happening. So, I don't think it's reasonable to expect a even a
partial solution to that problem or to the suspicion and tension that results from it.
I went to playchess.de, briefly. It looks like a very nice site, but in just a few minutes of
browsing forums and player profiles, I found a couple references to possible computer
cheating. I doubt that that site is totally pure, either - and there's no real way of knowing if it
is or isn't. It's just a fact of life in online correspondence chess play, I think.
No site that I know of, excepting the Fritz7 player site, is free from or
has means of dealing with inappropriate use of computer chess
playing software. However, most sites do have rules, a "code of
conduct" if you will, to inform members that if inappropriate behavior
is discovered or detected, certain actions will be taken against the
abuser.
Because I mentioned the Frtiz7 site (www.PlayChess.com ...not to be
confused with www.playchess.de - they are different), I should mention
that this site is for live free chess play for owners of Fritz7 or
Shredder6. The site is set up so that it can detect, while you are
online, if you are using your chess playing software to help with moves
when you play human to human. Once detected, the player is booted
and his account deleted and a message appears so all know that such
has been done to that particular player. And the action is swift.
Of course this cannot be done with correspondence type play on the
Internet. However, if enough players complained about the same
player, a review of games could be done. Often one who uses chess
playing software will play unusually strong at certain points in a game
and very weak in others.
However, the problem that can be strongly dealt with here is that of
multiple user accounts set up to play each other. This type of
behavior should not be permitted.
first of all, I'd like to say that this is a very cool site with some great
people. The fact that some of these people are even having these
recent debates shows that they care about the site.
Second, I think a code of conduct is a very good idea, making it clear
from the start that any form of cheating will lead to expulsion.
Third, I think the answer to most of the problems is to make the site
into a pay site. It will eliminate almost all multiple nicks (nothing new
there) and as for guests, they could play up to 10 unrated games.
There has been a lot of input as to how this site might operate as a
pay site and I think by combining a lot of these ideas you could
create an even more awesome site.
The extra cash could be used to hire at least one full time monitor
who could deal with problems like investigating complaints and
analyzing games using Fritz and other programs to see if someone
played exactly as the computer would have done.
Fourth, finally and most importantly, don't take all this too seriously.
Chris and Russ did this for fun. It's still fun. You think someone is
cheating, you don't play him or her. Simple. You think the site doesn't
live up to your expectations, revise your expectations, send feedback
to Chris and Russ, see what happens and if it still doesn't match up
then keep looking. As long as you're having fun and being happy.
Life's short.
Ben
