Hello. I'm somewhat intrigued by some patterns I'm consistently seeing in opponents ratings, and wonder if this has been discussed before - if not, then I'd appreciate comments. Two particular patterns I'm seeing are good players having very low ratings, and when you investigate, a pattern of resignations and timeouts follows a peak in the rating, bringing it back down to a totally unrealistic value. Is this an attempt to manipulate tournament ratings? I see similar patterns with many players going through peaks and troughs, where a win is _likely_ to be followed by a win, and a loss by a loss, but with resigning/timeouts not being the cause of losses. I did suffer one such episode where I was away from a computer for a while & simply forgot to move, but this was just a few games.
So, in summary, are players manipulating their ratings other than by winning.
Oh, and why do people bother taking up the challenge of a player rated much lower who insists on offering games only to much higher rated players - eg a 1450 rated player offers challenges with a range of 1800+ ?
Thanks
Graham
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
Originally posted by Graham NichollsEither that, or (let's not be entirely discrediting), a very variable home (or work) life. It happens. In fact, it once happened to me, although, being the non-sub that I am, it only cost me four games.
Hello. I'm somewhat intrigued by some patterns I'm consistently seeing in opponents ratings, and wonder if this has been discussed before - if not, then I'd appreciate comments. Two particular patterns I'm seeing are good players having very low ratings, and when you investigate, a pattern of resignations and timeouts follows a peak in the rating, ...[text shortened]... k down to a totally unrealistic value. Is this an attempt to manipulate tournament ratings?
I see similar patterns with many players going through peaks and troughs, where a win is _likely_ to be followed by a win, and a loss by a loss, but with resigning/timeouts not being the cause of losses. I did suffer one such episode where I was away from a computer for a while & simply forgot to move, but this was just a few games.
Same reason, possibly. Or fluctuating health. You wouldn't believe how much an episode of the dreaded lurgy can affect your chances of spotting a hung piece 😕.
So, in summary, are players manipulating their ratings other than by winning.
Yes, they are. But perhaps not as frequently as certain blog posters (and I don't mean you) prefer to believe.
Oh, and why do people bother taking up the challenge of a player rated much lower who insists on offering games only to much higher rated players - eg a 1450 rated player offers challenges with a range of 1800+ ?
A sense of duty, perhaps? We were all provisional at one time.
Richard
Originally posted by Shallow BlueI never turn down a challenge from a lower-rated player precisely for that reason, as long as the time control is reasonable.
Oh, and why do people bother taking up the challenge of a player rated much lower who insists on offering games only to much higher rated players - eg a 1450 rated player offers challenges with a range of 1800+ ?
A sense of duty, perhaps? We were all provisional at one time.
Richard[/b]
When I was a new player, there were several much stronger players who played me regularly, and I learned from them. I feel obligated to pay it forward.