I'm currently playing an opponent whose stats and current games analysis suggests only plays 1-day Timeout/0-days Timebank games and who has won around a third of his 630 games as Timeout victories. I can account for around 15% of my 580-odd games as Timeout victories, but always offer 1-day Timeout/3-day Timebank games on the basis that many folks lead busy lives and can't move each day everyday.
This got me wondering what effect Timeout victories has on player ratings. Doesn't a seemingly disproportionate number of Timeout wins (as my opponent has in my opinion) artificially inflate a player's rating? Shouldn't genuine wins (i.e. via checkmate or resignation) receive a higher 'weighted' rating factor than those games won via a Timeout?
Hopefully most players who go for a 1-day/0-day game will do so on the basis they're looking for a quick game and nothing more, nothing less. I suspect though that there's also a small minority who see it as a way of winning games and building ratings - that can't be right.
Thoughts please......
FW
First of all a win is a win.
Then:
If you manage to time out players you wouldn't have been able to beat in a game: it inflates the rating (until you lose the points with the next strong player again...)
If you manage to timeout a player you would have beaten anyway: no change.
To engineer beating someone by time-out is not so easy. Plus the higher a players rating the more concsious they should be about these things.
All in all I don't think that the rating inflation is to be considered.
However The rating change for a player suffering a mass-timeout can be considerably. If after such a mass time-out said plöayer is entering low level tournaments it is called "sand-bagging".
Originally posted by coquette😕
time out wins don't really have any impact on ratings.
I accept all the logic and reasoning on this, but are you sure?
So a player for whom in excess of 30% of their victories have been achieved through Timeouts as opposed to forcing their opponents into checkmate or resignation doesn't have a pseudo rating? As long as they keep winning games this way, their rating remains inflated.
FW
Originally posted by FlyingWolfIn fact yes, as long as they manage to beat higher rated players by timeout without losing their rating points in the game they don't timeout...
😕
But the rating can be inflated by all sorts of strategies and shouldn't be overestimated in its importnace.
So if a player is only picking opponents below the own abilities they will have an inflated rating, this however is bound to be deflated once they are beaten...
- Joined
- 19 Dec 05
- Moves
- 301357
I have been a member of this site since Dec 2005. I have 342 time out wins and 1 time out loss. If some one is not diligent in keeping track of their games then I will take the skull and expect the same in return. It doesn't really affect my average rating but the time out keeps games moving. My graph is a mountain range reflecting my skills ups and downs not my ability to catch a player out.
If your rating is temporarily inflated as a result of a run of timeout wins, you're likely to start encountering people with higher ratings, and a few losses soon sends it back to where it belongs. If you try to do it deliberately by only playing weaker players, the points you get for a win get smaller and smaller. Sooner or later one of them beats you and you lose a lot more points than you would normally lose. Check out the rating chart in Thread 80000 and you'll see the effect.