1. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39593
    05 May '08 19:50
    That's the LAME CLAN CHALLENGE SCORING SYSTEM, of course.

    More than three years ago, Russ asked players to vote on the following question:

    The current clan scoring system rewards clans for quantity of challenges played because there are no penalties for losing. Would you like to see the current system replaced and see a clan’s rating impacted by a loss?

    "Yes" received 86%. Yet, no change has been made except adding a "Net" column that no one cares about. In the words of the question, the current system (i.e. the LCCSS) was to be "replaced", not augmented by another stat. So get to it, Russ.

    Pendejo, I and others worked up a system three years ago. The details are in: http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=19482&page=1

    I'll repeat the salient details here:

    First every clan starts with a Clan Rating of 1200.

    The changes in the rating will be based on the changes of the individual players rating caused by the result of the match + a clan bonus or penalty based on who wins or loses. I will give as an example the present match between between the Contumelious Clan and the Pawn Stars.

    The lineups is as follows: Frogstomp 1686 - Marko Krale 1711
    TMetzler 1467 - Roseo 1424
    Ravello 1304 - Headsy 1330

    The player's rating would be frozen for the purposes of the allotment of clan points to the level at the start of the challenge. Thus later changes would be irrelevent: Ravello would always be considered a 1304 for the purposes of this challenge. This would avoid the chicanery of people resigning games to avoid losing clan points. The result of EACH GAME would be added to the winning player's clan's team rating and subtracted from the losing team's rating.

    Example: Both clans are starting at 1200. Ravello a 1304 defeats Headsy a 1330 in their first game; using the RHP calculator Ravello clan would gain 17 points while Headsy's would lose 18. Thus, after this game the Contumelious Clan would be at 1217 and the Pawn Stars would be at 1182. Suppose Headsy wins the rematch; again the calculator would give the Pawn Stars 14 points and subtract 15 from the Contumelious Clan. The split would leave the Contumelious Clan at 1202 and the Pawn Stars at 1196 as Headsy had a slight rating advantage. This computation would be done for EVERY GAME making every player and every game important to the result.

    In addition, a 10 point bonus would be added for each person in the challenge to the winning clan. Thus in our example, when the Contumelious Clan won, they would receive an additional 30 points aside from the ones awarded for the individual matchups. The Pawn Stars would lose 30 points or 1/2 that amount depending on what was decided.

    Back again; as to the inevitable complaints about retroactivity, I'll repeat what I said then:

    Moreover, the whole clan system is completely played out and boring as it exists now. A fresh start would add drama to the clan system; the same ole clans wouldn't have their positions locked in. Give Metallica a big gold star and let's get on to playing matches under a system that makes sense and in a wide open competition where every clan will have a shot.

    Made sense then, makes sense now.
  2. Amsterdam
    Joined
    04 Feb '06
    Moves
    48602
    05 May '08 20:46
    What an awful plan..

    The 'net column' is a perfect solution, where losing a challenge actually affects a clan too.. (yet you say that's something nobody cares about.. paradox?)
  3. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39593
    05 May '08 20:521 edit
    Originally posted by Amsterdamn
    What an awful plan..

    The 'net column' is a perfect solution, where losing a challenge actually affects a clan too.. (yet you say that's something nobody cares about.. paradox?)
    Care to actually offer some critique of it rather than saying it's "awful"? Do you consider the individual rating system "awful"? That's what it is based on.

    Net points is not a solution. It does nothing about the fact that many Clan games are absolutely meaningless under the present AND net system. And Net right now is a meaningless stat - it's not even the default setting. Players wanted the LCCSS "replaced" not merely tweaked by adding another stat. Russ blew it then; he should go about fixing it NOW.
  4. Amsterdam
    Joined
    04 Feb '06
    Moves
    48602
    05 May '08 21:02
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Care to actually offer some critique of it rather than saying it's "awful"? Do you consider the individual rating system "awful"? That's what it is based on.

    Net points is not a solution. It does nothing about the fact that many Clan games are absolutely meaningless under the present AND net system. And Net right now is a meaningless sta ...[text shortened]... ly tweaked by adding another stat. Russ blew it then; he should go about fixing it NOW.
    That was the critique, that I do not like the idea..

    And the "net score" is a perfect system I think,.

    The individual rating system is perfect for the individuals..

    For teams, the net score is good..
  5. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39593
    05 May '08 21:04
    Originally posted by Amsterdamn
    That was the critique, that I do not like the idea..

    And the "net score" is a perfect system I think,.

    The individual rating system is perfect for the individuals..

    For teams, the net score is good..
    Well, thanks for your reasoned arguments and well-articulated objections (INSERT "sarcasm smiley"😉.
  6. hirsute rooster
    Joined
    13 Apr '05
    Moves
    16099
    05 May '08 21:10
    Originally posted by Amsterdamn
    What an awful plan..

    The 'net column' is a perfect solution, where losing a challenge actually affects a clan too.. (yet you say that's something nobody cares about.. paradox?)
    Rubbish.

    You only say that as the 'net points' for 2008 puts your clan at the top of the list.

    It's not all about you.
  7. hirsute rooster
    Joined
    13 Apr '05
    Moves
    16099
    05 May '08 21:11
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    That's the LAME CLAN CHALLENGE SCORING SYSTEM, of course.

    More than three years ago, Russ asked players to vote on the following question:

    The current clan scoring system rewards clans for quantity of challenges played because there are no penalties for losing. Would [b]you like to see the current system replaced
    an ...[text shortened]... e every clan will have a shot.

    Made sense then, makes sense now.[/b]
    We have ratings for individuals, now ratings for clubs.
    Why not ratings for clans.

    Makes a lot of sense.
  8. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39593
    05 May '08 21:18
    Originally posted by orangutan
    Rubbish.

    You only say that as the 'net points' for 2008 puts your clan at the top of the list.

    It's not all about you.
    How pathetic; I hadn't even noticed that.

    That is the main "argument" for not changing the LCCSS; a few clans want to keep the status quo because they think it makes them look good. And to hell with the rest of the players on the site!
  9. Amsterdam
    Joined
    04 Feb '06
    Moves
    48602
    05 May '08 21:24
    Originally posted by orangutan
    Rubbish.

    You only say that as the 'net points' for 2008 puts your clan at the top of the list.

    It's not all about you.
    Yes for 2008..

    We're talking about All Time Net Points.. we're way behind there, so no worries..
  10. Amsterdam
    Joined
    04 Feb '06
    Moves
    48602
    05 May '08 21:27
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    How pathetic; I hadn't even noticed that.

    That is the main "argument" for not changing the LCCSS; a few clans want to keep the status quo because they think it makes them look good. And to hell with the rest of the players on the site!
    True, I'm not asking to change the system..

    With the current system we're down on page 2, meaning that over 30 clans are above us...

    What status is that??

    The "net points (all time)" is just mentioned by me since you're asking for a system that also penalizes clans for losing.. I was not asking to make it the primary list..
  11. hirsute rooster
    Joined
    13 Apr '05
    Moves
    16099
    05 May '08 21:31
    Originally posted by Amsterdamn
    Yes for 2008..

    We're talking about All Time Net Points.. we're way behind there, so no worries..
    But why are you opposed to clan ratings as suggested?

    A clan rating [method of calculation up for debate maybe] as a definitive measure would seem far better than having 'all time' and 'this years' total / net points - which seem to reward quantity rather than quality.

    I'd rather have one measure for the clans.
  12. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39593
    05 May '08 21:32
    Originally posted by Amsterdamn
    True, I'm not asking to change the system..

    With the current system we're down on page 2, meaning that over 30 clans are above us...

    What status is that??

    The "net points (all time)" is just mentioned by me since you're asking for a system that also penalizes clans for losing.. I was not asking to make it the primary list..
    Since you refuse to offer any arguments in support of your position, I'm not interested in your repetitive posts. Obviously you think it's a big deal for your clan to be ahead in Net Points for 2008; bully for you. That doesn't change the fact that that scoring option shares a large flaw with the LCCSS to wit, many games are actually meaningless to a clan's points. In the system, Pendejo, I and others proposed every game would meaningfully count.
  13. Amsterdam
    Joined
    04 Feb '06
    Moves
    48602
    05 May '08 21:36
    Originally posted by orangutan
    But why are you opposed to clan ratings as suggested?

    A clan rating [method of calculation up for debate maybe] as a definitive measure would seem far better than having 'all time' and 'this years' total / net points - which seem to reward quantity rather than quality.

    I'd rather have one measure for the clans.
    Well, I'd say a win by a team is a win..

    Winning a clan match with 10 players with 20-0 provides you with the same amount of points as a 11-9 win..

    Like I compared it with football.. (or any other team sport)

    That's the reason why I think you can work with at least part of the current rating system..
  14. Amsterdam
    Joined
    04 Feb '06
    Moves
    48602
    05 May '08 21:38
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Since you refuse to offer any arguments in support of your position, I'm not interested in your repetitive posts. Obviously you think it's a big deal for your clan to be ahead in Net Points for 2008; bully for you. That doesn't change the fact that that scoring option shares a large flaw with the LCCSS to wit, many games are actually meaningless to a cla ...[text shortened]... s points. In the system, Pendejo, I and others proposed every game would meaningfully count.
    Who's repetitive? 😛

    Again, who said I wanted the YtD Net Points as main measure? Not me at least and I was not advertising it either..

    The point that I do agree to is that losing should also be reflected in the scoring..
  15. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39593
    05 May '08 21:51
    Originally posted by Amsterdamn
    Well, I'd say a win by a team is a win..

    Winning a clan match with 10 players with 20-0 provides you with the same amount of points as a 11-9 win..

    Like I compared it with football.. (or any other team sport)

    That's the reason why I think you can work with at least part of the current rating system..
    Those "sports" (chess isn't a sport) don't consist of discrete, separate games.

    Moreover, the meaninglessness of many of the games results in resignations that impair the primary purpose of the site i.e. to play chess. I've had players resign games with me because their clan have already mathematically clinched a win in the clan match. This is quite annoying for anyone here except those who's ego is helped by receiving extra rating points they haven't really earned. And it is detrimental to the whole concept of clan competition.
Back to Top