Originally posted by taipei5200It does suck but you need to send feedback.
Let's say you have two equally rated players, like 1500 who are in the process of a game.
One player carrying hundreds of games resigns a whole slew of them & drops to 700. He now beats his 1500 opponent which drops him mucho points.
Is that fair, ethical etc?
skeeter
Originally posted by taipei5200Regrettably the player in question can do this if he wants. Bluddy annoying but nothing in the rules to stop him doing so.
Let's say you have two equally rated players, like 1500 who are in the process of a game.
One player carrying hundreds of games resigns a whole slew of them & drops to 700. He now beats his 1500 opponent which drops him mucho points.
Is that fair, ethical etc?
More annoying is the fact that the player is still entering tournaments despite having 407 ongoing games and stating he couldn't cope with the large number of games he had, so resigned a heap of games.
it happens all the time.
first and most important - it doesn't matter. those few points that you drop return over your next several games. you go up and down and up and down. temporary drops aren't a reflection on your playing strength.
second and of lesser importance - you make a good point it would be nice if mass time outs didn't have a disproportionate effect on a lot of ratings, if only to keep the tournaments and clans matches more fair. however, we do have the tournament rating to help protect that.
yes, i have been irritated myself a few times when that's happened to me. i'm only saying that after a few more games my rating goes back to being just as bad as it ever was, so i just get past it.
Originally posted by adramforallEven worse is the countless times we've asked Russ for a ratings floor.
Regrettably the player in question can do this if he wants. Bluddy annoying but nothing in the rules to stop him doing so.
More annoying is the fact that the player is still entering tournaments despite having 407 ongoing games and stating he couldn't cope with the large number of games he had, so resigned a heap of games.
Let's say you take your average rating plus your highest rating and divide that by two.
Subtract 150 and that is your 'rating floor'. Rating floor is used for ratings calculations... but your true rating would also be shown and figured in over the 5 year span.
Our graph would be green as usual, but there would be a blue line showing our rating floor. Rating floor is used for game calculations.
Mine just happens to be right near my lowest rating.
Phlabibit 1362
Expuddle 604
Trev 1536
Taipai 1219 (also very close to lowest)
Skeet 2193
Divg 923
Adram 1280
coquette 1388 (when a player has a high game load, they play better than their rating shows IF they want to concentrate on a single game.)
I also did a low rated player with TONS of time outs and resignations of even or winning games. Their top rating was about 1350, Average was about 1040 lowest about 700.
Their floor would be about 1040 rather than their 700.
Anyone see a problem with this formula?
P-
Originally posted by CrowleySeveral chess players at RHP evidently considering how often these issues come up. How fair is it for a 1900 player to bag-down to 1400 or lower and enter a banded tournament? I wonder who's going to win THAT one. How fun is it to be beating a person rated 100 points over you who suddenly drops 2 or 3 hundred points.
Ratings on here have about as much meaning as I'd be able to extract from the Rosetta stone.
Who cares?
It screws with the rating system and upsets REAL chess players. Real chess players care, Crowley... you don't. Speaks volumes, doesn't it?
P-
- Joined
- 14 Mar 04
- Moves
- 193295
Originally posted by PhlabibitI like your idea stated previously but you know as well as we all do that in any "sport/game" there are people who cheat (Ben Johnson, Lance Armstrong, Ironman, Tiger Woods...you get the point). The only people they are really cheating, when all is said and done, is themselves. Some get away with it most don't. On a chess site you're going to play people who "cheat". You either accept that and move on or you stop playing on it.
Several chess players at RHP evidently considering how often these issues come up. How fair is it for a 1900 player to bag-down to 1400 or lower and enter a banded tournament? I wonder who's going to win THAT one. How fun is it to be beating a person rated 100 points over you who suddenly drops 2 or 3 hundred points.
It screws with the rating system ...[text shortened]... players. Real chess players care, Crowley... you don't. Speaks volumes, doesn't it?
P-
Originally posted by Phlabibitmeh
Several chess players at RHP evidently considering how often these issues come up. How fair is it for a 1900 player to bag-down to 1400 or lower and enter a banded tournament? I wonder who's going to win THAT one. How fun is it to be beating a person rated 100 points over you who suddenly drops 2 or 3 hundred points.
It screws with the rating system ...[text shortened]... players. Real chess players care, Crowley... you don't. Speaks volumes, doesn't it?
P-