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

Site Ideas Forum

  1. 01 May '09 12:43
    I dare say this has been bought up before now but I can't find a thread so I'll post anyway. I would like to see a more acurate way of selecting players for clan challenges. At the moment it is on current standings which is very inacurate. Can it not be based on current tourney entry levels?
  2. 14 May '09 21:49
    I take it that's a no then?
  3. Subscriber coquette
    Already mated
    14 May '09 23:01
    Originally posted by Goggy
    I take it that's a no then?
    You had it right at the start. This has been beaten to death a hundred times. The silence means that everyone agrees with you. Someday, it will happen.
  4. Subscriber Ponderable
    chemist
    15 May '09 09:02
    Originally posted by Goggy
    I take it that's a no then?
    Sorry for discouraging you. I support the suggestion, but also have to agree with Coquette.
  5. 15 May '09 12:08
    Yeah, thanks guys. I just think at the moment it's a pain in the butt trying to tally up games that are evenly matched. Too often a challenge is sent to me that looks fair but looking closer you see it is one sided. I am sure a lot of clan leaders just look at the current ratings and go with that, it's the easy option. Sadly, there are a few who try it on, but I will refuse those in the main. If the tourney entry level figures were used it would make it a lot quicker and easier. Even if a mistake is made it will still be fairly evenly matched. Come on Russ, is it a technical problem or are you just not convinced?
  6. Standard member Mctayto
    Highlander
    15 May '09 22:27
    Originally posted by Goggy
    Yeah, thanks guys. I just think at the moment it's a pain in the butt trying to tally up games that are evenly matched. Too often a challenge is sent to me that looks fair but looking closer you see it is one sided. I am sure a lot of clan leaders just look at the current ratings and go with that, it's the easy option. Sadly, there are a few who try it on, but ...[text shortened]... fairly evenly matched. Come on Russ, is it a technical problem or are you just not convinced?
    There is also an argument that says curren rating is more accurate. My rating can vary easily by 300 rating points dependent on the number of games in progress. It is therefore unfair to say I am a 1500 player when I have 300 games in progress. If I get that level down to 100 or less then my current tournament rating is probablt too low. Basically do your homework and take all factors into account.
  7. 17 May '09 12:27
    Originally posted by Mctayto
    There is also an argument that says curren rating is more accurate. My rating can vary easily by 300 rating points dependent on the number of games in progress. It is therefore unfair to say I am a 1500 player when I have 300 games in progress. If I get that level down to 100 or less then my current tournament rating is probablt too low. Basically do your homework and take all factors into account.
    I'm not sure that should be taken into account. The fact is if you have reached 1500 and take on a 1200 player you should walk all over him/her. The fact you have over 300 games on the go and your rate drops is understanable, but the tourney rate would still give you a rating of no less than 1400 which would be about right. I would alow you to play someone with 50 of you, so if you did drop to 1400 it would mean you could play someone 1350+. I think that is fair. Just my opinion of course.
  8. 17 May '09 12:33
    I have had some proposed games of players who are 1500+ to play 1000 or less players. They have dropped due to massive timeouts because they have not been playing lately. Anyone in that position could play lots of challenge games and win easily, this is wrong in my opinion. Ok, it's up to me to spot those ones, but it takes time to check all proposals and the tourney rate would make it a lot easier since that player would only be put against someone at roughly 1400. Ok, he would still have the advantage, but it would at least be possible for the 1400 player to win, where as a 1000 level player would stand no chance.
  9. 17 May '09 20:33
    Originally posted by Goggy
    I have had some proposed games of players who are 1500+ to play 1000 or less players. They have dropped due to massive timeouts because they have not been playing lately. Anyone in that position could play lots of challenge games and win easily, this is wrong in my opinion. Ok, it's up to me to spot those ones, but it takes time to check all proposals and the ...[text shortened]... ast be possible for the 1400 player to win, where as a 1000 level player would stand no chance.
    1800 rater times out a bunch of games and drops to 1200. They continue to play but the games are erratic and they continue to timeout as many games as they win. Over the last 100 days they finish 400 games so all that you see on looking at their graph is based on the last 100 days as follows .

    Their current rating is 1150
    Their high rating is 1250 in last 100 days
    Tournament entry rating is 1200

    A challenge is sent and they are matched against you. Do you accept straight out and then moan when you realise they are an 1800 rater or do you do a little more work to see how they performed previously?
  10. 26 May '09 15:41
    I check most challenges, but have missed a few. I never complain afterwards, it's just annoying. I am convinced there must be a fairer/easier way of managing clan challenges, but it looks like it is falling of deaf ears anyway, so whatever.
  11. Standard member Mctayto
    Highlander
    27 May '09 04:52
    Originally posted by Goggy
    I check most challenges, but have missed a few. I never complain afterwards, it's just annoying. I am convinced there must be a fairer/easier way of managing clan challenges, but it looks like it is falling of deaf ears anyway, so whatever.
    The only true fair way is for the clan leader to do his homework and determine the player match is fair. however even then he needs to take into account more than superficial reasons.
  12. Subscriber coquette
    Already mated
    27 May '09 05:37 / 2 edits
    This is a very simple concept: the player's rating should be the best representation of the player's true playing strength. This leads to the best matches, the fairest competition, and reduces unnecessary "background checks" through profiles of past performances to see stretches of ratings that were 5 or 6 hundred points higher than the current rating. That would be so easy to do, since it's already done - for tournaments. Just adopt the same tournament entry rating display on the ratings ladder and fair and balanced matches will be much easier to make.
  13. Standard member Mctayto
    Highlander
    27 May '09 10:43
    Originally posted by coquette
    This is a very simple concept: the player's rating should be the best representation of the player's true playing strength. This leads to the best matches, the fairest competition, and reduces unnecessary "background checks" through profiles of past performances to see stretches of ratings that were 5 or 6 hundred points higher than the current rating. That ...[text shortened]... ng display on the ratings ladder and fair and balanced matches will be much easier to make.
    Ok then, check out my profile and tell me a fair tournament/clan rating for me.

    My rating is totally dependeant upon the relationship between the number of games in progress and the other factor which tends to be driven by this - the time taken to study each move.

    When 200 + in progress look & move in 5 seconds
    Up to 150 in progress look & move 15 seconds
    less than 100 in progress look & move 30 seconds etc.

    Therefore in determining a fair level of rating my current level of games in progress is vital to the calculation.
  14. Standard member Daemon Sin
    I'm A Mighty Pirateā„¢
    27 May '09 11:11
    Originally posted by Mctayto
    Ok then, check out my profile and tell me a fair tournament/clan rating for me.

    My rating is totally dependeant upon the relationship between the number of games in progress and the other factor which tends to be driven by this - the time taken to study each move.

    When 200 + in progress look & move in 5 seconds
    Up to 150 in progress look & move 15 sec ...[text shortened]... mining a fair level of rating my current level of games in progress is vital to the calculation.
    As per your profile - Fair Tournament/Clan Rating: 1455

    If you choose to overload yourself with so many games that it causes you to rush moves out every 5 - 15 seconds just to keep up then it's your own fault you're not playing to you full ability.

    Piss-poor time management skills aren't vital to the calculation at all.
  15. Standard member Mctayto
    Highlander
    27 May '09 22:14
    Originally posted by Daemon Sin
    As per your profile - Fair Tournament/Clan Rating: 1455

    If you choose to overload yourself with so many games that it causes you to rush moves out every 5 - 15 seconds just to keep up then it's your own fault you're not playing to you full ability.

    Piss-poor time management skills aren't vital to the calculation at all.
    typical comment from a pillock without a star.
    The point I make is when my gameload is high (through choice) then my ability is reduce due to time constraints. When my gameload is low my abilities exceed my rating.
    Point is that at very few times is mt tournament rating reflective of the current performance.