I would like to note that I am repulsed at your challenge. Of course there are masters here...haven't you watched the news? I may not be a master, but I am good friends with some, and have played other masters as well. I will however note that I am the master of the unranked, and will gladly take on anyone who stinks at chess.
Originally posted by dfm65While in theory, I agree with you that T/O victories shouldn't count as much as checkmates or resignations, if that sort of system were implemented, then it would punish people who play against other people who never actually resign games or make a move when they knew the next move was checkmate. So even though you could play a game legitimately, and force a checkmate that one move away, you wouldn't get the full increase in ratings points that you deserve because your opponent was too obstinate to move and give you the victory that you've earned.
i think it would be good if RHP ratings were somehow only based on your last n results, with n=20 or 50, or something. Also I think it would be good if people were penalised points for being timed out, but didn't get any (or got very few) points for timing others out.😛
-mike
Originally posted by legionnaireThanks for your reply, legionnaire. I agree that that is a problem, but maybe the number of points awarded and taken away could be made proportional to the number of completed moves in the game. that way, you could get full value (and punishment) for games in which both players had invested significant time, while games that were barely started wouldn't count for much.😕 This would also make it harder (or at least more troublesome) for people to set up 2 or more identities and play themselves to boost the rating of one of them. People who abandon games they were about to lose would still be punished, and their opponents would score well, if full value was awarded for games in which, say, 30 or more moves had been made, with a sliding scale discount applying to less advanced games.
While in theory, I agree with you that T/O victories shouldn't count as much as checkmates or resignations, if that sort of system were implemented, then it would punish people who play against other people who never actually resign games or make a move when they knew the next move was checkmate. So even though you could play a game legitimately, and f ...[text shortened]... e your opponent was too obstinate to move and give you the victory that you've earned.
-mike
Originally posted by royalchickenis there really a stigma attached to taking timeouts? lots of people openly announce in their profiles that they will take them, and the practice seems almost common enough to count as a 'social norm'. my own policy is to be generally lenient with timeouts. i.e send a reminder then wait for a while. the amount of time i wait depends on how many games i have played against them. i make exceptions for people who have timed me out in the past , and also if i notice other people are starting to time my opponent out. 😳😞 As Principal Skinner once said, 'In some ways I am a small, small man'.
Exactly right. It's bad enough for the victor to take a T/O with checkmate a few moves away. The stigma attached to taking T/O's more than compensates for the points they render.
Originally posted by ChessNutActually USCF ratings are clearly inflated compared to ELO ratings. The average difference may be as much as 150 points. ELO/USCF (or any OTB) ratings and RHP ratings are not comparable because OTB and correspondence chess are different in many ways.
I think what we have here is similiar to discussing if we should use inches or centimeters. It seems that the ELO system may be a European rating scale and that RHP is using a USCF based scale. I don't really think either is wrong. To me ELO ratings appear inflated because it is not what I'm used to seeing and vice versa.
What do you think David?
Originally posted by dfm65but I've won some games by a bit of brilliance (OK, it was luck) in the first 10 moves. If that had annoyed my opponent into refusing to move why shouldn't I get the same points as if I'd taken 30 moves to pin him down?
Thanks for your reply, legionnaire. I agree that that is a problem, but maybe the number of points awarded and taken away could be made proportional to the number of completed moves in the game. that way, you could get full value (and punishment) for games in which both players had invested significant time, while games that were barely started wouldn't count ...[text shortened]... , 30 or more moves had been made, with a sliding scale discount applying to less advanced games.
1 edit
Originally posted by dfm65As a non member I will general warn once and then take time outs.
is there really a stigma attached to taking timeouts? lots of people openly announce in their profiles that they will take them, and the practice seems almost common enough to count as a 'social norm'. my own policy is to be generally lenie ...[text shortened]... cipal Skinner once said, 'In some ways I am a small, small man'.
I only have 6 games and want to play as much as possible - not wait around forever...
My experience so far is that RHP members generally fail to move within their allocated time as oppose to non-members..?
Originally posted by AJAXOThat wouldn't be good, since I have an agreement with someone I am playing. They are out of town for about 3 weeks every other month or so. I am waiting for them to get back, and if it were to auto time out that wouldn't be very cool.
I think 'time out' should be automatic; just as one loses when his clock runs out of seconds he should lose if he fails to play in a timely fashion. After all, it is a sort of contract; if I say I will move in seven or fewer days, on the eighth day I have breached my contract and deserve the chop.
There is no problem with anyone taking a time out, unless they said they wouldn't and decide to change their mind. A warning should be sent first, and give em a day or so extra... If there was a family thing going on with the person it would stink extra to come back and find your game timed out ASAP.