game scores
12 Dec '06 01:14I've been here for a litle while now
starting to get the hang of it, but still get the idea that the scoring is a little hit and miss.
Sure, someone has to win, and i love the present system as it is really quite neat, and fair.. especially the time outs..
Having tried years ago on another site, was so often left hanging off an empty board with the other player having run off to save the loss..
The slight improvement to scoring i was wondering about is related to the length of the game - i have had some games where i have been well and truly trounced - others where 70+ moves later and a single pawn takes control of the game - almost everything else having been wiped off the board.
In these longer games, the consequent change in the score following thw win or loss is the same whether it is a long or short game, whether 'you've' been trounced or not.
If someone wins in 15 or 20 moves - there should be a benefit to their avantage in scoring. The longer you hang around, the lesser the scoring advantage, as i believe the two competitors are more similarly matched.
I have noticed queen swaps as a regular occurence. Sure, part of the game. The consequence of which is typically a longer drawn out game. Could therefore incur a point loss compared with a more convoluted 'fuller' board presenting greater complexity.
Queen swaps are not the only swaps. Once an advantage is gained, even so much as a pawn, given that the opponents are similarly matched, that advantage can be 'swapped' to the end game advantage
by whittling away at the opposition.
Sure a win is a win, but a drawn out one is surely less powerfull, less spectacular, less dramatic, etc etc.
So i wondered about a multiplier based on moves as an incentive to provide a greater scoring outcome for a faster game.
If this is also tied in to peice score - opponent vs opponent, the long drawn out tussle is rewarded by a lesser 'loss' in score for the more careful and astute..
Don't worry about careful, i lose my queen as often as anybody,
And in an effort to counter peice swapping, still an obvious and perfectly legal and wholly allowable strategy, a bias added to remaining peices, one vs. the other.
i.e. the cube function coud be sufficient to create a reasonable multiplier of 'K',
(40/moves)**(1/3) i.e. cube root of ratio of moves taken for the game
40 being a constant - average game duration of moves
cube root of (40/80) ~= 0.79
cube root of (40/20) `= 1.25
So a short game could improve the points change by 25% above standard current scoring, yet when two competitiors are more evenly matched, the change in score would be less dramatic
I have notied, when flicking through peoples bios, that there are wildly varying point scores. My own is no different. This tempering of variation could stabilise this fluctuation.
So - not a criticism, the site is the best i have seen.. Just a slight adjustment
P.S.
There is obviously a way of checking for moves, illegal ones paricularly. I have done quite a few myself and even wondered why i couldn't proceed. Then upon a more focussed deliberation found that by actually looking at the whole board I would now be in check, and should always have been looking elsewhere than my tiny little corner of angst.
So there too is a possible multilier effect, both peices left on the board, and the relative number of peices on the board.
I realise the KISS principle should apply as often as possible. But suspect the mechanism is almost in place to have these added as subtle effects.
i.e points opponent (remainder) - Opp
points challenger (remainder) - Chg
delta = Opp / Chg
Gamma = (40 - Opp) / (40 - Chg)
K(2) = ( delta * gamma ) **(1/3)
I haven't checked out the effect properly, but i think it rewards the uneven game but doesn't change the outcome if the number of peices are similar.
So an upset loss gets rewarded with the moves modifier
A drawn out game reduces the points variation
An imbalance in peices between opponents favours the one with the greater score, even if they are not the victor.
Alright - i know - i know - just call me stupid
this would send the KISS principle out the window..
However, it may just temper the points fluctuations most of us experience.
Then again, what about those that play millions of games. They could have a stabilising effect based on the number of games and reduce the topsy turvy aspect ................Sorry - now I'm getting carried away.
starting to get the hang of it, but still get the idea that the scoring is a little hit and miss.
Sure, someone has to win, and i love the present system as it is really quite neat, and fair.. especially the time outs..
Having tried years ago on another site, was so often left hanging off an empty board with the other player having run off to save the loss..
The slight improvement to scoring i was wondering about is related to the length of the game - i have had some games where i have been well and truly trounced - others where 70+ moves later and a single pawn takes control of the game - almost everything else having been wiped off the board.
In these longer games, the consequent change in the score following thw win or loss is the same whether it is a long or short game, whether 'you've' been trounced or not.
If someone wins in 15 or 20 moves - there should be a benefit to their avantage in scoring. The longer you hang around, the lesser the scoring advantage, as i believe the two competitors are more similarly matched.
I have noticed queen swaps as a regular occurence. Sure, part of the game. The consequence of which is typically a longer drawn out game. Could therefore incur a point loss compared with a more convoluted 'fuller' board presenting greater complexity.
Queen swaps are not the only swaps. Once an advantage is gained, even so much as a pawn, given that the opponents are similarly matched, that advantage can be 'swapped' to the end game advantage
by whittling away at the opposition.
Sure a win is a win, but a drawn out one is surely less powerfull, less spectacular, less dramatic, etc etc.
So i wondered about a multiplier based on moves as an incentive to provide a greater scoring outcome for a faster game.
If this is also tied in to peice score - opponent vs opponent, the long drawn out tussle is rewarded by a lesser 'loss' in score for the more careful and astute..
Don't worry about careful, i lose my queen as often as anybody,
And in an effort to counter peice swapping, still an obvious and perfectly legal and wholly allowable strategy, a bias added to remaining peices, one vs. the other.
i.e. the cube function coud be sufficient to create a reasonable multiplier of 'K',
(40/moves)**(1/3) i.e. cube root of ratio of moves taken for the game
40 being a constant - average game duration of moves
cube root of (40/80) ~= 0.79
cube root of (40/20) `= 1.25
So a short game could improve the points change by 25% above standard current scoring, yet when two competitiors are more evenly matched, the change in score would be less dramatic
I have notied, when flicking through peoples bios, that there are wildly varying point scores. My own is no different. This tempering of variation could stabilise this fluctuation.
So - not a criticism, the site is the best i have seen.. Just a slight adjustment
P.S.
There is obviously a way of checking for moves, illegal ones paricularly. I have done quite a few myself and even wondered why i couldn't proceed. Then upon a more focussed deliberation found that by actually looking at the whole board I would now be in check, and should always have been looking elsewhere than my tiny little corner of angst.
So there too is a possible multilier effect, both peices left on the board, and the relative number of peices on the board.
I realise the KISS principle should apply as often as possible. But suspect the mechanism is almost in place to have these added as subtle effects.
i.e points opponent (remainder) - Opp
points challenger (remainder) - Chg
delta = Opp / Chg
Gamma = (40 - Opp) / (40 - Chg)
K(2) = ( delta * gamma ) **(1/3)
I haven't checked out the effect properly, but i think it rewards the uneven game but doesn't change the outcome if the number of peices are similar.
So an upset loss gets rewarded with the moves modifier
A drawn out game reduces the points variation
An imbalance in peices between opponents favours the one with the greater score, even if they are not the victor.
Alright - i know - i know - just call me stupid
this would send the KISS principle out the window..
However, it may just temper the points fluctuations most of us experience.
Then again, what about those that play millions of games. They could have a stabilising effect based on the number of games and reduce the topsy turvy aspect ................Sorry - now I'm getting carried away.
