- Joined
- 17 Jun 08
- Moves
- 179883
17 May 17
Please forgive me the paraphrase, but we're onto something...
The notion that all games should count...fine, award more points and play them all.
We get chided for not playing out the string when the outcome is already decided.
Give us a reason to play on....not a penalty for failure to do so
This is exactly what I'm talking about
Can we develop a scoring system that will honor and reward this?
17 May 17
Originally posted by GiannottiOne of my suggestions covered that.
Please forgive me the paraphrase, but we're onto something...
The notion that all games should count...fine, award more points and play them all.
We get chided for not playing out the string when the outcome is already decided.
Give us a reason to play on....not a penalty for failure to do so
This is exactly what I'm talking about
Can we develop a scoring system that will honor and reward this?
Points for the game and bonus points for the challenge.
The mechanism, using the rating change, was slightly different but the idea was the same.
17 May 17
Originally posted by GiannottiI think my original idea still seems the best.
actually we should return to that
please re-post your suggestion
if i remember correctly, it was better thought out, and more playable than mine
There must be negative points or the winner will just be the clan that issues the most challenges. No skill just overkill
For a 5 man challenge under the current rules no matter what the final result (except a draw) the winner gets 10 points the loser gets negative 10 points. A swing of 20 points.
If the system is changed to (in the event of a 5 man challenge) the winning clan receives 5 points, the losing clan gets negative 5 points but added onto that points allocation is a point for each game won.
If a clan wins a 5 man challenge 6 games to 4 the winning clan receives 5 points for the win plus 6 points for each game won totalling 11 points. The losing clan gets negative 5 points plus 4 points for each game won totalling negative 1 point. This is only a 12 point swing as opposed to the 20 point swing and rewards clans for playing out the challenge and for hard fought close challenges.
In the event of a drawn challenge each clan gets no points for the win/loss but gets a point for each game won.
The only case where there is a twenty point turnaround is when a clan is whipped 10 games to nil.
This should be an easy fix for Russ as points allocated after the completion of a challenge would be 2 tiered. Points for challenge win/loss/draw, and points for games won.
This sounds like the most logical system to me and would encourage clans to play challenges out to the end as points are still on the line for individual wins.
Originally posted by mghrn55It should be obvious that in either system the most industrious clan will win
You don't have to take away points if every team plays every other team an equal number of times.
That would constitute a league.
Clan system in its' current form doesn't force clans to play one another.
We had a system that didn't take away points for losing a challenge.
It was the Gross Points score you still on the clan tables today.
Problem wi ...[text shortened]... e tests where
there is a deduction for a wrong answer.
This to discourage guessing on a test.
If one clan leader is willing to give his/her time to his/her clan shouldn't he/she be rewarded
You must admit it takes a considerable amount of time to set up challenges these days
In the example you have given one clan was willing to try and win 800 challenges and the other clan couldn't be bothered to try too much so why should they be rewarded for not trying as hard
17 May 17
Originally posted by shortcircuitI think you lost yourself somewhere in this argument
Technically zero points are earned until a challenge is over.
No individual match stands alone.
It is strictly a "team" match with a winner takes all prize.
Whether you give win point plus a bonus to the victor, or full points to victor and minus points to the loser,
It is still a TEAM match.
And the notion that there should be no penalty for los ...[text shortened]... decided.
Give us a reason to play on....not a penalty for failure to do so. That is silly too.
Could you explain a bit clearer
- Joined
- 17 Jun 08
- Moves
- 179883
17 May 17
Originally posted by radioactive69i'm not opposed to negative points, it's what we have now and it works
I think my original idea still seems the best.
There must be negative points or the winner will just be the clan that issues the most challenges. No skill just overkill
For a 5 man challenge under the current rules no matter what the final result (except a draw) the winner gets 10 points the loser gets negative 10 points. A swing of 20 points.
...[text shortened]... age clans to play challenges out to the end as points are still on the line for individual wins.
the idea of an additional reward for games won is good, it would improve the system
a challenge that ends in a draw, due to it's equality and fairness
shouldn't we strive for this and play lots of chess
can you see your way clear to offering a suitable reward for it
in essence, we're trying to attach more meaningful numbers to what's happening
it really doesn't matter if the numbers are negative or positive
we're looking for a more playable point system that doesn't encourage resignation
i'd like to see something given for the effort that goes into a solid draw
may i please add, I like your line of thought
my point of concern is, i'll have to offer only challenges that are in my favor
if i offer an equal challenge and it comes to a draw, i get nothing
this may have a negative impact on the way we set up, and accept challenges
i'd prefer to have some reward for a draw to keep the system more fluid
17 May 17
Originally posted by GiannottiI did say in my post above that points would be awarded for a draw
i'm not opposed to negative points, it's what we have now and it works
the idea of an additional reward for games won is good, it would improve the system
a challenge that ends in a draw, due to it's equality and fairness
shouldn't we strive for this and play lots of chess
can you see your way clear to offering a suitable reward for it
in esse ...[text shortened]... , and accept challenges
i'd prefer to have some reward for a draw to keep the system more fluid
"In the event of a drawn challenge each clan gets no points for the win/loss but gets a point for each game won".
This means in a 5 man challenge (10 games) if the challenge is drawn (say 5 all) then each clan receives 5 points. There are no points for a won or lost for the draw but as each team won 5 games each they receive 5 points each.
Surely the system outlined is the fairest and most competitive offered.
I can see no value in having the clan that plays the most challenges declared the winner. This just means that smaller clans might as well not bother.
17 May 17
Originally posted by GiannottiI am opposed to negative points it's what we have now and it is not a fair system
i'm not opposed to negative points, it's what we have now and it works
the idea of an additional reward for games won is good, it would improve the system
a challenge that ends in a draw, due to it's equality and fairness
shouldn't we strive for this and play lots of chess
can you see your way clear to offering a suitable reward for it
in esse ...[text shortened]... , and accept challenges
i'd prefer to have some reward for a draw to keep the system more fluid
I am sure it results in a lot of challenges not being offered for fear of losing ground
It also has the effect of smaller clan challenges
Imagine losing 10 man challenge 11 - 9 and being 40 points worse off for losing one game
It should be 1 point for every game won plus a point for each game should the challenge be won
So the losing team would get 9 points and the winning team get 22 points
Surely this a more fairer way to go forward
17 May 17
Originally posted by padgerOnce again I point out that the yearly winner will be the largest clan that issues the most challenges under your proposal. What's the point of a smaller clan even bothering to play. There must be some motivation for them to play in the clan system.
I am opposed to negative points it's what we have now and it is not a fair system
I am sure it results in a lot of challenges not being offered for fear of losing ground
It also has the effect of smaller clan challenges
Imagine losing 10 man challenge 11 - 9 and being 40 points worse off for losing one game
It should be 1 point for every game won plus a p ...[text shortened]... uld get 9 points and the winning team get 22 points
Surely this a more fairer way to go forward
Negative points are a must. Anyone that fears losing ground should stand down as leader and pass it on to someone a little more intrepid in the clan.
Originally posted by radioactive69radio,
Once again I point out that the yearly winner will be the largest clan that issues the most challenges under your proposal. What's the point of a smaller clan even bothering to play. There must be some motivation for them to play in the clan system.
Negative points are a must. Anyone that fears losing ground should stand down as leader and pass it on to someone a little more intrepid in the clan.
You make a very good point. I have pointed out in the past why not put the smaller clans together to make one clan or clans. Of course that would mean Clan leaders stepping down. I had also suggested some years ago, might be good to have a co-clan leader to help the Clan leader, as there is a lot of work involved.
The other pay site I am a member of has co-Captains, sometimes more than one and they can all issue matches. They are trained by the Captain, and the Captain has the last say and can choose co-captain(s) also can remove them if it is not working out.
-VR
Originally posted by radioactive69And I point out to you it has always been the most industrious clan that has won
Once again I point out that the yearly winner will be the largest clan that issues the most challenges under your proposal. What's the point of a smaller clan even bothering to play. There must be some motivation for them to play in the clan system.
Negative points are a must. Anyone that fears losing ground should stand down as leader and pass it on to someone a little more intrepid in the clan.
And it will always be the larger clans that will win
The smaller clan can still win ,they just have to work a bit harder
But they don't stand a chance if they lose points because of 1 loss
17 May 17
Originally posted by padgerThere has to be a risk of losing points for losing a challenge.
And I point out to you it has always been the most industrious clan that has won
And it will always be the larger clans that will win
The smaller clan can still win ,they just have to work a bit harder
But they don't stand a chance if they lose points because of 1 loss
Otherwise, it becomes a contest of which clan can issue the most challenges.
I previously pointed out the example of 2 clans.
One wins 200 challenges, loses 600 challenges
The other wins 150 challenges, loses 50 challenges
It doesn't make sense that the first clan wins with a much worse W/L record.
The net points option isn't perfect by a long shot.
But the gross points is much worse, which is what you are proposing.
The clan system used to run on the gross points and that was replaced.
That was before my time. That's just what I heard.
Under Net points, a clan can still win with volume.
But some will say, you have to play to win.
The clan rating which was discarded allowed a clan to win playing just a dozen challenges in a year.
Which is one of the reasons it was discarded.
I have offered suggestions on how to improve the net scoring system that improves somewhat on what we have today.
17 May 17
Originally posted by mghrn55I have already replied to your first time with this
There has to be a risk of losing points for losing a challenge.
Otherwise, it becomes a contest of which clan can issue the most challenges.
I previously pointed out the example of 2 clans.
One wins 200 challenges, loses 600 challenges
The other wins 150 challenges, loses 50 challenges
It doesn't make sense that the first clan wins with a much worse ...[text shortened]... ggestions on how to improve the net scoring system that improves somewhat on what we have today.
You obviously do not read all the posts
On your example one clan is trying to win 800 challenges or the other that is only trying to win 200
Who do you think deserves to win most
The one who takes time sorting out challenges or the one who just does enough to get by
17 May 17
Originally posted by GiannottiGiannotti .....
actually we should return to that
please re-post your suggestion
if i remember correctly, it was better thought out, and more playable than mine
I have copied a portion of my proposal from my separate thread.
Here it is .... with some comments added, labelled MGHRN55 >>>
///////////////////////////// Portion of my original thread /////////////////////////////
Primary issues (problem statement):
1 - problem with the scoring system. Meaning the way net points are awarded.
2 - perceived problems with player rating manipulation commonly called sandbagging.
3 - putting clan goals ahead of personal goals. In other words, players resigning clan games where the outcome has been decided.
4 - collusion amongst amongst several clans to generate points towards one clan.
MGHRN55 >>> Russ has addressed this.
Secondary issues:
1 - inactive players in clan challenges
2 - accusations of challenge dumping.
3 - others. Feel free to add some.
Proposed ideas:
1 - implement a separate rating for clan games for each player. Best starting point for each player would be the site rating
1A - further to (1) , use the same formula in the site FAQ but modify the K factor by lowering it to 8 from the 32 value in tournament play. This will reduce the rating variations from +/-32 to +/-8 per completed clan game. For 2 equally rated players, a win or a loss will result in a rating change of +/-4 rating points. This will greatly reduce the accusations of rating manipulation.
This coupled with proposal 1 will solve the sandbagging issues.
Once the player clan game rating is decoupled from the site rating, it will not be nearly as volitile as the tournament rating.
MGHRN55 >>> adopt a player rating for clan games but lower the variance factor.
A lower variance factor (K) will address issues two-fold.
In that it will reduce effects on the rating by game dumping in decided challenges.
And therefore reduce accusations of sandbagging.
2 - Implement a new net point scoring system with 2 components as follows:
2.1 - use the net rating change as a score to contribute to a net score for the challenge. For example, if a player wins his game and his rating goes up 4 points, his clan will be awarded 4 points. His opponent losing the game will result in his clan getting -4 points. Rating changes from draws will factor in as well. They will likely be very small.
Every game will count and the challenge score will be cumulative. So this will address resigning games in decided challenges.
MGHRN55 >>> We can replace this with award of +/- 2 points per game won/lost. No points for drawn game.
Otherwise coding for the above might be onerous.
Either way, making every game count will encourage games to be continued in decided challenges.
And thus address the accusations of game dumping in decided challenges.
2.2 - the above (2.1) comes with a flaw as it would discourage larger challenges. Clan leader may prefer 10 one player challenges over 1 ten player challenge. To address this create a bonus point system for challenge size. For example, 0 points for <5 games, x points for 5-10 games, y for > 10 games. Challenge draws award 0 bonus points. Final bonus point values can be worked out. And carefully so as to not just recreate the current scoring system.
MGHRN55 >>> Alternate suggestion. Continue to award challenge points, +/- 2 points per player in challenge as today.
Or +/- 1 point per player in challenge to supplement points earned in 2.1
This would result in a hybrid scoring system.
In this system, all clan scores are reset to 0 on Jan 1st of each year.
Which is not the case with the clan rating proposal.
3 - all clan games must go at least 5 moves to be set as rated games. This means any games not reaching 5 moves will not update the rating for each player. Additionally the games will not be assigned a W or L to the challenge game score. Abnormally and suspicious short games will not contribute to a challenge result. This will take care of inactive players. Additionally, any players tossing games would at least have to make some moves. Not a perfect solution but a deterrent.
MGHRN55 >>> Russ has implemented this.
4 - consider a rethink on when the points are rewarded. Specifically 2 ideas:
4.1 award the points on a game by game basis.
4.2 award the clan bonus points once the challenge is clinched.
The proposals above are a departure from the current protocol of awarding the points once the challenge is complete.
Perhaps a radical departure that may be hard to digest. But this would end complaints of resigning games in decided challenges as well as the accusations of year end challenge dumping.
MGHRN55 >>> We can discard this if proposal 2, 2.1 and 2.2 are designed properly.
Further thought on this proposal reveals design could be problematic.
For example, one challenge on going at year-end can send points to both 2017 and 2018 total for a clan challenge.
Could be messy.
5 - maintain a protocol of human intervention in the event of any improprieties by any clans. This is a requirement irregardless of whichever system this site moves forward with. Data correction may be easier in this system than with the clan rating system. Unless someone has figured out how to correct a clan rating.
MGHRN55 >>> Russ has implemented this. And thank you.