Originally posted by floridaflagI had a look at your graph, I couldn't see a drop of 70 points ? Anyway you should note that your rating is only provisional, so it is liable to jump around abit. Also be thankful that you are not rated on the old system. Have a look at my graph, notice the long climb at the start, some 30 to 40 games to get to my playing strength, in the old days you had to start off at 1200 and claw your way up the ratings. Also note your current rating is about 250-300 point more that the number 1 player was when I started playing here back in 2001.
Example when a player such as Dustnrodgers screwed everyone's rating, took on many games as much as 500, delayed those he played then pretends to go on vacation, and let all time run out causing those with close rating at the start to suffer. file a complaint to redhot pawn, tell others on dustnrodgers to do the same, i personally lost 70 points when his flag timeout, and i gave him much time to come back, and he laughed.
I have had some great games with Dustnrogers, however I won't play him now because his rating fluctuates so much.
He is a much better player than me , but I am not prepared to put up with the way he manages his games
If being a MAP player is so important then let them play multiple games against each other
Originally posted by mateuloseFunny. Can we put an obnoxious whining post limit on the forums too?
Personally I can understand his frustration, look at Dustnrodgers rating charts, it's up and down like crazy. It's obvious the dude plays more games then he can handle and play to his ability, and seeing that ratings are calculated when the game is finished, and not started, this manipulates the rating charts a lot. Basicly, because of Dustnrodgers, up t ...[text shortened]... I hate to say it, but perhabs, even for subscripers, a game limit of rated games may be needed.
Originally posted by RavelloCompletely indifferent. Dustnrogers plays enjoyable games. I like playing him.
Well,suppose you were playing Dustnrogers and you're losing,you have a 1700 rating and he now has a 900 rating,then he returns and beat you with this rating,how would you feel about it?
Look, if it's really a problem for you, don't boycott him. Play games with short timeouts. Then there'll be less time for his rating to fluctuate.
Or just take a chill pill.
Originally posted by paultopiaWell Paul,the question was towards Sirlosealot and he already answered.
Completely indifferent. Dustnrogers plays enjoyable games. I like playing him.
Look, if it's really a problem for you, don't boycott him. Play games with short timeouts. Then there'll be less time for his rating to fluctuate.
Or just take a chill pill.
Since I never played Dustin it's not a problem for me,but it's a problem for many others,since this is not the first time I read this kind of complaints against this player.
You say ''don't boycott him''...........well,tell me in which way I'm boycotting him.
You say ''Play games with short timeouts''...............well,I play games with short timeouts.
You say ''Or just take a chill pill''..............are you sure it's me who needs a chill pill?
Been following this thread, and woild like to make the following observations.
1. No rating system is going to be perfect. Frankly, I consider it to be of little consequence. I'm not here to acquire a high rating, but to play chess. If ratings are important to you, then it might behoove you to take a look at the ratings for a particular player, and if you see wide fluctuations in a player's rating, then decline to play them and don't respond if they post an open invite.
2. If you don't like players who play large numbers of games at once, or MAP players (whatever that is), again, don't accept games with them and don't accept open invites or challenges from them. Again, checking their statistics out is not that time consuming. Believe me, I still use dialup and a 56K modem, so I'd know. A little research can save you some grief.
3. I don't know Dustnrogers, and the comments here about him are both positive and not. I will say that calling for a boycott of someone for reasons other than cheating is uncalled for. If you have had bad experiences with someone, just don't play them anymore. I recently had a medical emergency in my family which required resigning my current games because I was going to be out of touch with my computer and did not feel it fair to put games on "vacation flag" for an indefinite period. It may be Dustnrogers may have a good reason for what he has been doing. Frankly, I'd be charitable and give him the benefit of the doubt.
This is a good site with a lot of good players. Enjoy it. 🙄
Originally posted by SsudukhGood post.
Been following this thread, and woild like to make the following observations.
1. No rating system is going to be perfect. Frankly, I consider it to be of little consequence. I'm not here to acquire a high rating, but to play chess. ...[text shortened]...
This is a good site with a lot of good players. Enjoy it. 🙄
MAP = Most Active Player of the month.There is no problem playing MAP contenders,they are always up for a game and play quickly,making many moves a day.They need the moves,you see,they are movejunkies 😉
However,the MAP race is responsible for most of the huge gameloads that some players carry.That can result in massive time-outs,and that makes some folks angry.
Like you said,just don't play 'em 🙂
Hi, to get back to the subject.
I played him in about 5-6 games when he was rated about 1900. In the games where he had optained winning positions he played quickly and won. In those 2-3 games where he was clearly loosing or drawing (a rock down, a horse down, and an rock vs bishop and one pawn ending) He waited the maximum amount of time for each move.
The only reason for this is obvisly that he wanted to keep his "to high" rating for as long as possible.
At a time he wrote in his profile that he might not be able to finish all his games and therefore had resigned those where he was clearly lost, which apparently to his mind wasn't any of those games againt me.
He then went away for a period and was timed out in many of his games, so when I got the opportunity to time him out in our remaining games his rating was 900 which would give me rating a rating gain of whole 0, nice.
Need to say i didn't time him out in my winning positions. If he really was a fair player who wished to play like he had done so far, he would have gained a lot of rating before our games was over... but as soon as he was back on the site he immeadly resigned with about 900 in rating.
Judge for yourself if you think that way of managing your games is fair.
Originally posted by KaoslosThe exact same thing just happened to me with Dustin. Once I had a won game against him (up queen to rook, about to queen another pawn), his moves slowed to an absolute crawl-- one per week or thereabouts. Previously he had been moving multiple times a day.
Hi, to get back to the subject.
I played him in about 5-6 games when he was rated about 1900. In the games where he had optained winning positions he played quickly and won. In those 2-3 games where he was clearly loosing or drawing (a ...[text shortened]... back on the site he immeadly resigned with about 900 in rating.
After he came back from his little hiatus with a 900 rating, he resigned the game immediately.
By the way, I don't play Dustin voluntarily-- in this case I was paired with him in a clan match so I had no choice in the matter.