Are you talking about people who have big peaks and troughs in their profile? You think they resign a whole lot of games to get a low entry score and then join in tournaments.
Or is it something else?
The idea of a lowest floor rating comes up in site ideas from time to time. Maybe you should add your voice there to try and get it done
A different sort of problem happens in long duration tournaments which is that people who are still learning get better and better over the course of the match...
There is only one way to fight back against that ... 😉
Originally posted by danger daveJust send me the names of the players in question, and I'll be sure to send them lots of chall...erm, take care of the issue for you. 😳
Does anybody on RHP look at players profiles, and take action against players lowering their handicaps deliberately over a short space of time? Or do we just have to put up with cheating?
I struggle to understand peoples' attitude to ratings. When I occasionally get myself into a winning position in games, many of my opponents (I would say the great majority) slow the game right down; why do they do this? Okay people don't like losing, that I understand, and ignoring the fact that this this is mean - spirited and not in the spirit in which I think the game should be played, what do they gain by it?
I am no mathematician and struggle with logic sometimes but is it not true that if one resigns an obviously lost game, thus lowering ones' rating, the next game that one wins gets more points, and the next loss loses less points?
This has been raised before I know, but I still don't get it really. I would like to appeal to all chain - draggers out there (you know who you are...) to take the hit, respect you opponent and when the game is lost, resign!! A lot more chess could be played this way.
So my question is; am I right?
- Joined
- 08 Apr 09
- Moves
- 20026
Originally posted by Indonesia PhilNo.
So my question is; am I right?
Although the game may end when you think you have a lost game, it is not over when you think you have a won game. There are too many reasons why not to resign, and even playing slower is reasonable. In tough positions, everyone spends more time on thinking. Or gives up, but that is not chess.
Originally posted by Indonesia PhilThe best attitude to ratings is to completely ignore them and play each game to the best of your ability.
I struggle to understand peoples' attitude to ratings. When I occasionally get myself into a winning position in games, many of my opponents (I would say the great majority) slow the game right down; why do they do this? Okay people don't like losing, that I understand, and ignoring the fact that this this is mean - spirited and not in the spirit in w ...[text shortened]... ame is lost, resign!! A lot more chess could be played this way.
So my question is; am I right?
The best guide to a players ability is probably the 5 year rating although I think MY 5 year rating was probably a fluke as I've never got anywhere near it since 2011.
Regarding "lost" games , even the best players will sometimes fall for a stalemate so it may be worth trying to manufacture such a situation.
It is actually not irrational to wait out games when you are lost. First, people make mistakes. Second, people leave the site. These are rational reasons for waiting. On the other hand, the more games you have, the least time/game and not resigning lost games may affect your results in other games. Finally, and this is my main reason for resigning lost games, is that it is depressing looking at these games, having to relive your mistakes.
Originally posted by Indonesia PhilI'm much more likely to play slowly when I'm in difficulties than when I'm ahead. As tvochess said, it is a lot easier to find good moves when ahead than when behind. Although sometimes I've found myself in positions where I'm objectively ahead but don't really know what to do with a good position. Really it matters whether I can find a plan or if I'm just limping from move to move - it's normally easier to find a plan when ahead. I'll always resign a clearly lost position promptly, there's no point in doing anything else (the exception to this is when my opponent has a pretty checkmate and I let them play it out, but I'll normally move quickly under those circumstances).
I struggle to understand peoples' attitude to ratings. When I occasionally get myself into a winning position in games, many of my opponents (I would say the great majority) slow the game right down; why do they do this? Okay people don't like losing, that I understand, and ignoring the fact that this this is mean - spirited and not in the spirit in w ...[text shortened]... ame is lost, resign!! A lot more chess could be played this way.
So my question is; am I right?
Originally posted by lemondropThis is a good point that people tend to overlook.
I think that the tournament entry rating is a much truer indicator of a player's strength, since it has a floor in place, the TER will never drop more than 100 points from your yearly high no matter how many games you resign.
- Joined
- 08 Apr 09
- Moves
- 20026
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI don't think I actually said that it is easier to find good moves when ahead.
I'm much more likely to play slowly when I'm in difficulties than when I'm ahead. As tvochess said, it is a lot easier to find good moves when ahead than when behind. Although sometimes I've found myself in positions where I'm objectively ahead but don't really know what to do with a good position. Really it matters whether I can find a plan or if I'm ...[text shortened]... checkmate and I let them play it out, but I'll normally move quickly under those circumstances).
I take more time in 'difficult positions'. This will be when I'm worse, because I can't afford extra blunders or need to trick an opponent. Or in a good position, when I don't have a clear plan.
Originally posted by tvochessNo you didn't and I'm left wondering why I thought you did.
I don't think I actually said that it is easier to find good moves when ahead.
I take more time in 'difficult positions'. This will be when I'm worse, because I can't afford extra blunders or need to trick an opponent. Or in a good position, when I don't have a clear plan.
Originally posted by tvochessPlaying more slowly may be reasonable, but to more or less stop playing altogether is stretching a point rather, and implies a different reason for not making moves. It is also quite reasonable to resign clearly lost positions ( it's still chess...); if people prefer to fight on to the last pawn then fair enough, just don't stop playing, that's my point.
No.
Although the game may end when you think you have a lost game, it is not over when you think you have a won game. There are too many reasons why not to resign, and even playing slower is reasonable. In tough positions, everyone spends more time on thinking. Or gives up, but that is not chess.