Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Site Ideas Forum

Site Ideas Forum

  1. 04 Aug '07 15:55
    Right now it seems that tournament games that time out (or even are resigned...?) before 2 moves are played on each side are not rated. I suggest that this is bad because it allows you to just sign up for every tournament in sight, and then decide later whether you really want to play--if not, just let all the games time out and there's no consequence to your rating.

    If you sign up for a tournament, you should be committed to playing the games. So I suggest these games should always be rated, even with fewer than 3 moves.
  2. Standard member Dutch Defense
    Stealer of Souls
    04 Aug '07 16:10 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by incandenza
    Right now it seems that tournament games that time out (or even are resigned...?) before 2 moves are played on each side are not rated. I suggest that this is bad because it allows you to just sign up for every tournament in sight, and then decide later whether you really want to play--if not, just let all the games time out and there's no consequence to ...[text shortened]... ying the games. So I suggest these games should always be rated, even with fewer than 3 moves.
    That's a great idea! In fact, only tournament, clan and clan league games should have that. I would recommend it but I ran out of recommendations.

    Send feedback.
  3. 04 Aug '07 18:37
    It should apply to ALL games really.
  4. Standard member Dutch Defense
    Stealer of Souls
    04 Aug '07 18:56
    Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
    It should apply to ALL games really.
    Yeah, forgot about that.
  5. Standard member Ramned
    The Rams
    04 Aug '07 21:50 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by incandenza
    Right now it seems that tournament games that time out (or even are resigned...?) before 2 moves are played on each side are not rated. I suggest that this is bad because it allows you to just sign up for every tournament in sight, and then decide later whether you really want to play--if not, just let all the games time out and there's no consequence to ...[text shortened]... ying the games. So I suggest these games should always be rated, even with fewer than 3 moves.
    I agree and disagree: I agree, it is unsettling that players may join tournaments and then drop out through early resignation. But, rating a game with less than 2 full moves isn't meaningful only but to persuade people to join tournaments reasonably. The rating signifies skill level - if you win a game or lose a game by resigning in less than 2-3 moves and your rating changes, that's stupid. Because you didn't really use skill whatsoever. So rating judges skill and should be ignored in games decided in less than 2-3 moves.

    Now if you get a timeout against an engine user I believe that if you were winning or in a drawn position you should get credit rather than unrating it.
  6. 04 Aug '07 23:42 / 1 edit
    But the ratings are not actually a measure of skill. They're a measure of performance. Part of that includes being able to set aside the time and concentration to make the moves, etc. (If you made all your moves tired, in a hurry, etc., your rating would fall as well, regardless of your true "skill".) "80% of success is showing up."

    By your reasoning, all timed out games should be unrated (or at least adjudicated as to who was actually winning when the game ended).

    In an OTB tournament, wouldn't games you didn't show up for count as losses against your rating? Why should it be different here?

    Another problem with the current system is that it makes it easy for someone to throw games to help out a friend. If you're matched up with your friend, just resign and give them a nice little boost toward the next round with no consequence to you.

    Also, it is hard to make the argument that no skill has been demonstrated after 2 moves, but skill *has* been demonstrated after 3 moves. If you really want to claim to measure skill, you'd need some more complex criteria than that.
  7. Standard member wittywonka
    Chocolate Expert
    04 Aug '07 23:57 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by incandenza
    By your reasoning, all timed out games should be unrated (or at least adjudicated as to who was actually winning when the game ended).
    No, that's not his reasoning at all. Just in the same way that regular games don't count toward ratings before three moves are completed, tournament games shouldn't, either.

    The majority of games that are timed out have been played out more than three moves.

    ***

    On a questioning note, do the games also not count if you resign, or do they only not count if they are timed out?
  8. 05 Aug '07 00:00 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by wittywonka
    No, that's not his reasoning at all. Just in the same way that regular games don't count toward ratings before three moves are completed, tournament games shouldn't, either.
    But his justification for that stance seemed to be the question of whether or not the game was a display of skill.

    Can winning solely due to a timeout ever be considered a demonstration of skill?
  9. 05 Aug '07 00:23
    Well why stop at 2 full moves - there's not much skill involved in the first 10 book/database moves is there?
    Whatever answer you give to this question could also apply to the first two moves.
    It seems ridiculous to me that a player can pull out of a game once it has started and not be penalised.
    Maybe 1 move could be a said to be an accident but after that they should be obliged to finish the game.

    That's my opinion anyway.
  10. Standard member Ramned
    The Rams
    05 Aug '07 01:01
    Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
    Well why stop at 2 full moves - there's not much skill involved in the first 10 book/database moves is there?
    Whatever answer you give to this question could also apply to the first two moves.
    It seems ridiculous to me that a player can pull out of a game once it has started and not be penalised.
    Maybe 1 move could be a said to be an accident but after that they should be obliged to finish the game.

    That's my opinion anyway.
    Because 3+ moves you can mate is my guess. I doubt rating would stop people from dropping games anyways. They can always get it back to where their normal play puts it.

    I don't disagree with the fact of the problem but don't think any game should be rated that the opening hasn't even started properly.
  11. 05 Aug '07 05:17
    Originally posted by Ramned
    ....don't think any game should be rated that the opening hasn't even started properly.
    After how many moves would you consider that the opening has started properly? [I'm told that databases are followed for up to 15 or more moves]
    Therefore don't you think it varies from game to game?

    In a live game you would still be classed as having lost if you stopped playing after 1 move.
    If you pull out of a game I look at it as a surrender.

    I would be in favour of scrapping the 2 move delete/no penalty rule simply to make people think first about what games they are agreeing to.
    Rating points are not that important to me.
  12. 05 Aug '07 13:36
    The post that was quoted here has been removed
    You're missing the point, which is that your argument about skill doesn't hold together.

    Since you're not responding on that point, I guess you concede.
  13. Standard member Dutch Defense
    Stealer of Souls
    05 Aug '07 13:47
    Originally posted by incandenza
    Since you're not responding on that point, I guess you concede.
    Maybe they haven't read your post yet!
  14. 05 Aug '07 14:02
    So do I win by timeout then?

    Actually he already responded to the post. Although I think a lot of people here don't really read what is said, or don't think about it.
  15. Standard member Phlabibit
    Mystic Meg
    05 Aug '07 14:02 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by incandenza
    You're missing the point, which is that your argument about skill doesn't hold together.

    Since you're not responding on that point, I guess you concede.
    LOL!

    "I said something, and you were not waiting here with baited breath to post to me... I win!"

    Your idea is as lame as that last post.

    3 was decided as the number. That number could be 5, it could be 2... it could be 10.

    But it's not, the number is 3

    P-