I suggest that nobody be told their own rating after a certain number of games, and that Robomod automatically remove 4-digit numbers from posts. Thus a new player knows their rough skill level (because they can see their rating until it is likely to have stabilised) and can see everyone else's rating, so they know who their sensible opponents are, but they can't get upset about their own rating once it becomes theoretically unknown to them. Even if they did keep track of it themselves, it would be very difficult to discuss it or whinge about fluctuations in it, because nobody else would have any reason to believe anything anyone said about his or her own rating (I may know your rating, but your complaints about it are still not credible, because I have to assume that you're talking rubbish, even if I see that your rubbish matches the truth. In this case, even if Grandmouster's rating had dropped a lot, his attributing it to Galaxyshield could not be taken seriously, because of the possibility that he's bluffing and doesn't know anything about his own rating beyond his last observation of it.)
😛
That was not serious, but the point I'm trying to make is: ratings are a statistical measure for determining which potential opponents would give a roughly fair game, a task in which it succeeds on average. There's no reason to get needlessly competitive about it.
Originally posted by powershakerAre you saying you couldn't beat a master if he gave you a rook and knight odds?
I'm sandbagging to win a free membership on redhotpawn. Just kidding! I wish they did give an extra year to someone who wins a Sprint tournament on RHP or something. That would be cool! My rating now: 1588! 1700-1799 is my real OTB strength in standard OTB play. But, I'm not sandbagging. It's just playing without sources, no databases and no help ...[text shortened]... an rest in peace if I drop back to 1588-1600 say. Then, I'll know I had it in me.
Once your up that much material, I don't think using an engine would help. Rememeber the cookie story I told you?
Originally posted by powershakerI thought you were on vacation?! So take the break already!
I'm sandbagging to win a free membership on redhotpawn. Just kidding! I wish they did give an extra year to someone who wins a Sprint tournament on RHP or something. That would be cool! My rating now: 1588! 1700-1799 is my real OTB strength in standard OTB play. But, I'm not sandbagging. It's just playing without sources, no databases and no help ...[text shortened]... an rest in peace if I drop back to 1588-1600 say. Then, I'll know I had it in me.
Originally posted by royalchickenI realise you weren't serious, but part of this idea raises something interesting which is fundamental to all the complaints about people's ratings fluctuating - the idea that normally a person's rating will 'stabilise' at some level.
I suggest that nobody be told their own rating after a certain number of games, and that Robomod automatically remove 4-digit numbers from posts. Thus a new player knows their rough skill level (because they can see their rating until it is likely to have stabilised) and can see everyone else's rating, so they know who their sensible opponents are, but which it succeeds on average. There's no reason to get needlessly competitive about it.
It's not really true. I've played hundreds of games, been timedout in only 2 (by a total jerk, different story...), never had a mass resignation, avoid claiming timeouts unless it's clear the person has disappeared off the face of the earth.
When I started on the site, my rating fluctuated somewhere around 1200 for a long time. I'd go up a bit, down a bit (lowest I ever got was just above 1100), but certainly in my first 150 games or so I spent a lot of time around 1200.
Now, however, I haven't been below 1300 in months and I succeeded in hitting 1400 for the first time a few weeks ago.
I haven't stayed there though. In fact I was above 1400 for less than an hour and didn't even know it had happened until I logged in the next day. I then crashed around 50 points in a matter of a few days as I lost several games to lower-ranked opponents, including some I was pretty sure I was going to lose well before I actually did.
So what's my 'true' rating?
Yes, I understand that it's annoying when a rating graph looks like a rollercoaster. But any solution to this problem would be applied to ALL players, because there isn't going to be some committee that looks at graphs and decides who has fluctuated too much and who hasn't.
[EDIT: I just had another check of my graph and saw that in April 2005 I lost over 100 points in 2 days. No 'sandbagging' involved. It was partly because my rating had become unusually high after 5 or 6 wins in a row including several upsets of higher-ranked players. When I started losing again, each loss cost me more than it ordinarily would have.
I then lost another 65 points in the week after that. Too many games against strong players.]
one more point about the way people think about ratings. it's really easy to think winning someone 200 points higher would be really really tough, as gaining 200 pts is so hard. but statistically 200 pts weaker player wins 25% of games against the stronger, which is quite a lot. the difference is, winning a 200 pts stronger player once takes only one game with 25% chance of winning, while gaining 200pts would take maybe 10 wins against the odds in addition to the 'normal' wins. sort of like flipping a coin once and winning, against flipping a coin 10 times and winning every time.
so, in a way, 200 pts difference is really not that much. and that said, points from a single game are almost insignificant.
Originally posted by wormwood200 points is a lot to non-sub. It seem that the rating problem is mainly just for you subs. You guys play so many games at once and don't play great chess now and then, and you get roller coaster ratings. Also, the sandbagging stuff etc...
one more point about the way people think about ratings. it's really easy to think winning someone 200 points higher would be really really tough, as gaining 200 pts is so hard. but statistically 200 pts weaker player wins 25% of games against the stronger, which is quite a lot. the difference is, winning a 200 pts stronger player once takes only one ...[text shortened]... e is really not that much. and that said, points from a single game are almost insignificant.
Ah, the good life of the non-sub 🙂
Originally posted by RahimKYou really ought to subscribe so your carriage's ascent will gain speed as it crests the top and begins its descent. Besides, there are several clans that would be happy to have you among their members.
200 points is a lot to non-sub. It seem that the rating problem is mainly just for you subs. You guys play so many games at once and don't play great chess now and then, and you get roller coaster ratings. Also, the sandbagging stuff etc...
Ah, the good life of the non-sub 🙂
Two words: Sore Loser.
This dude loses to a player at his own ability level, in a clan challenge approved by his clan leader (who obviously was aware of galaxy's true rating) and decides that accepting defeat graciously isn't the ethical thing to do.
Oh no, the ethical thing to do is to publicly accuse the opponant of cheating/sandbagging.
Sore Loser.
Originally posted by WulebgrI've been asked by several clans to join them since they could really use me.
You really ought to subscribe so your carriage's ascent will gain speed as it crests the top and begins its descent. Besides, there are several clans that would be happy to have you among their members.
Honeslty though, I don't see a point for me personally to subscribe. I used to play 6 games when I first joined here and stayed at a 1500ish rating. I started playing seriously on here and cut down my games to 2-3 at once and my rating has shot up 250 points and i'm just taking my usual break right now and I'll try for another burst to get over 1800. I don't see the point for me playing more then 6 games on here. I'd rather have a couple of game on here, play them good, learn from then and concentrate on my OTB games.
Originally posted by RahimKTrue dat! True dat! hehe
Ah... $2500 is still a lot of money.
You could pull it off. If you lived in the place they were holding the tournament, no need to worry about hotel etc...
Plus you don't need to go for the big doh..
I could easily drop my rating join the lower section, pay the $20 entry and win the $100 prize.
Anyone could do this = sandbagging.
But let's add things up.
Exhibit A: You fly to Philidelphia from Hawaii. Price tag: $250 if lucky one way.
Exhibit B: You have to eat the whole 9 rounds - whole week of play.
$6 Wendy's Combo x 3 meals a day x 7 mmm hmmm
Exhibit C: You get bored and end up in the hotel lounge getting drunk.
(Thank goodness I quit drinking) There goes about $100
and the Philidelphia hooker you picked up the night before
gets
her money too, and I hear women are pretty expensive in
Philli even when they're not hooking, but just hanging out
in the library waiting for that special guy. And, what about the
ticket for public drunkeness in Phildelphia??? Big bucks!
That's about $1,000 already or more.
If you're lucky, you'll have about $500 left once you win the thing - enough for my plane ticket back to Hawaii. LOL
Originally posted by powershakerI don't really count the food bill since you gotta eat anyways.
True dat! True dat! hehe
But let's add things up.
Exhibit A: You fly to Philidelphia from Hawaii. Price tag: $250 if lucky one way.
Exhibit B: You have to eat the whole 9 rounds - whole week of play.
$6 Wendy's Combo x 3 meals a day x 7 mmm hmmm
Exhibit C: You get bored and end up in the hotel lounge getting drunk.
...[text shortened]... ve about $500 left once you win the thing - enough for my plane ticket back to Hawaii. LOL
All I count is entry fee and prize. I know its not proper but when you go work, do you count your gas bill, your food bill, etc?
Plus I said if you live there. I'm not even saying it has to be the world championship.
Any tournament. Like we have sectionals, $100 prize, $20 entry fee. I woudln't do such a thing but it's possible to sandbag and do it.
Originally posted by GrandmousterGoing to stick your statement and leave?
Maybe its a case of a misunderstood word. In my chess circles, when anyone mentions "sandbagger" They mean someone who, of course, lose's points, to play in money tourneys, as a "lower rated player"
But it could also mean anyone who is playing at a lower rating, but is really stronger.
This would cover many internet identities on chess playing sites. ...[text shortened]... sonal Integrity and values, and see how your sense of "right" and "wrong" holds up.