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

Site Ideas Forum

  1. 30 Apr '07 19:06
    I asked the question in the general forum Thread 68012 but the clowns there turned it into a circus act. There is ambiguity concerning what is :-

    - padding (as defined on playchess is an illegal way of boosting your own ratings)
    - playing numerous "friendly" games with the same person
    - the implications if those "friendly" games are also rated
  2. Standard member Phlabibit
    Mystic Meg
    30 Apr '07 19:14
    Originally posted by z00t
    I asked the question in the general forum Thread 68012 but the clowns there turned it into a circus act. There is ambiguity concerning what is :-

    - padding (as defined on playchess is an illegal way of boosting your own ratings)
    - playing numerous "friendly" games with the same person
    - the implications if those "friendly" games are also rated
    Prove the player didn't try to win every game. Please.

    P-
  3. 30 Apr '07 19:18
    Originally posted by Phlabibit
    Prove the player didn't try to win every game. Please.

    P-
    Where does that come from? Is there a link in the sitemap or a previous post by an admin? Some servers have defined what is or is not acceptable. It is the lack of guidance that I'm querying since if someone was padding they could claim "There's nowhere in the TOS" if challenged.
  4. Standard member Phlabibit
    Mystic Meg
    30 Apr '07 19:27
    Originally posted by z00t
    Where does that come from? Is there a link in the sitemap or a previous post by an admin? Some servers have defined what is or is not acceptable. It is the lack of guidance that I'm querying since if someone was padding they could claim "There's nowhere in the TOS" if challenged.
    So you are saying If someone has been playing a person they most often beat, there should be a limit, or the games should be non-rated after a certain amount of time?

    Why didn't you just suggest it rather than point at a user you feel is breaking a non-existent rule?

    P-
  5. 30 Apr '07 19:38
    Originally posted by Phlabibit
    So you are saying If someone has been playing a person they most often beat, there should be a limit, or the games should be non-rated after a certain amount of time?

    Why didn't you just suggest it rather than point at a user you feel is breaking a non-existent rule?

    P-
    I'm not suggesting anything merely asking for guidance based on experiences elsewhere. Someone was saying they have family playing here i.e. a Dad playing with his son but that could also be someone with two accounts boosting his own rating. It could be a legitimate situation but then again it could be an infringement.

    I only pointed at that user because prior to that I had never seen anyone play anyone else up to 1/5th of their games.
  6. Standard member Phlabibit
    Mystic Meg
    30 Apr '07 19:46
    Originally posted by z00t
    I'm not suggesting anything merely asking for guidance based on experiences elsewhere. Someone was saying they have family playing here i.e. a Dad playing with his son but that could also be someone with two accounts boosting his own rating. It could be a legitimate situation but then again it could be an infringement.

    I only pointed at that user because prior to that I had never seen anyone play anyone else up to 1/5th of their games.
    Just suggest that perhaps there should be a limit to the number of times a user should be able to play a rated game against someone they always beat. That way you get feedback on the topic, rather than having pointed out a user you feel is trying to up their rating by playing one person over and over.

    Where would you set the limit?

    P-
  7. 30 Apr '07 20:26
    My suggestion would be :-

    - for rated games close family/friends should not be played more than 10 times
    - unrated games/sparring/themes etc can be played without limitation

    The example I gave of 10 games played by that user is easily surpassed by another example of 40 games so 10 is a good limit. That way Dad's trying to teach their son's can do so without being accused of multiple accounts etc.
  8. 30 Apr '07 20:32 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Phlabibit
    Just suggest that perhaps there should be a limit to the number of times a user should be able to play a rated game against someone they always beat. That way you get feedback on the topic, rather than having pointed out a user you feel is trying to up their rating by playing one person over and over.

    Where would you set the limit?

    P-
    I asked in the past that if someone played 1200 rated players only, would his rating climb continuously.
    It was sort of explained [It's fairly obvious really] that you would reach a certain rating 1600 [or something like that] when you would get no further. [assuming you won all the games of course]
    So therefore padding doesn't exist - unless, as hinted above, the opponent is deliberately losing.
  9. 30 Apr '07 21:09 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
    I asked in the past that if someone played 1200 rated players only, would his rating climb continuously.
    It was sort of explained [It's fairly obvious really] that you would reach a certain rating 1600 [or something like that] when you would get no further. [assuming you won all the games of course]
    So therefore padding doesn't exist - unless, as hinted above, the opponent is deliberately losing.
    Padding does exist on major chess sites particularly like on the PlayChess server where people legitimately hold multiple accounts through acquisition of ChessBase products.

    Originally posted by PlayChess Rules
    5 Manipulating the rating

    1. Increasing an ELO-rating (padding or boosting) by losing intentionally is forbidden, and it does not matter if this manipulation is achieved through losing against one's own accounts, friends or acquaintances.


    Your 1200 example is far-fetched but in the examples I gave the rating difference is much closer to be a concern. If I play you 10 times in a row, win and the rating difference to start with was a 100 elo, I have boosted my rating in a manner different to that from playing 10 strangers on RHP.

    The rationale for Dad's playing their sons rated games is unclear, you already know how your son plays so why play them over and over and over. Why not just play in the dining room and leave RHP of it?
  10. Subscriber coquette
    Already mated
    30 Apr '07 21:59
    I've thought about the concept of "padding" and it doesn't bother me at all. It simply is an idiotic way to artifically boost a rating. Please do explain what possible value there is to having an 1800 rating when you are a 1400 player!

    Now, allowing for the impulse to cheat, there are other ways to cheat that would be far more efficient. For instance, letting a computer program pick your moves. However, you (the human) still have NOT improved YOUR rating by even so much as ONE rating point! If you are a 1400 player and you let a computer make your moves, your computer may have a 2400 rating, but YOU do not.

    We can't stop cheating altogether. All we can do is have fun and enjoy the mental exercise and pleasure. Let those who choose to cheat be cheaters, for ultimately, they are also the losers.
  11. Standard member Phlabibit
    Mystic Meg
    01 May '07 00:08 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by z00t
    Padding does exist on major chess sites particularly like on the PlayChess server where people legitimately hold multiple accounts through acquisition of ChessBase products.

    Originally posted by PlayChess Rules
    [b]5 Manipulating the rating

    1. Increasing an ELO-rating (padding or boosting) by losing intentionally is forbidden, and it does not matte hy play them over and over and over. Why not just play in the dining room and leave RHP of it?
    [/b]Hey, wait a minute.

    I asked you to prove this user was letting the other guy win, and you start yammering on about this and that wanting to find it in the TOS. Now you quote this rule that says losing intentionally.

    What gives? You just wanted to fire back for kicks?

    P-[b]
  12. 01 May '07 00:31 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by z00t
    padding (as defined on playchess is an illegal way of boosting your own ratings)
    If you love Playchess so much, why don't you marry it? Is it because your rating would get jealous?

    Lolz etc.
  13. Standard member c99ux
    'Sir' to you
    01 May '07 01:13
    Originally posted by z00t
    My suggestion would be :-

    - for rated games close family/friends should not be played more than 10 times
    - unrated games/sparring/themes etc can be played without limitation

    The example I gave of 10 games played by that user is easily surpassed by another example of 40 games so 10 is a good limit. That way Dad's trying to teach their son's can do so without being accused of multiple accounts etc.
    I don't think that's a good idea.
    I can't play my son OTB very often because he lives in Poland and I live in Japan.
    I also have quite a few "friendly rivals" that I always play rated games with. Why should I stop playing rated games against them?
    Apart from Mokko, the ratio of those games is about 60/40 against me. Would those players be accused of padding?
    If I was always winning all those games, and my rating was steadily increasing as a result, even then it wouldn't necessarily mean that I was padding.
  14. Subscriber coquette
    Already mated
    01 May '07 03:52
    Originally posted by c99ux
    I don't think that's a good idea.
    I can't play my son OTB very often because he lives in Poland and I live in Japan.
    I also have quite a few "friendly rivals" that I always play rated games with. Why should I stop playing rated games against them?
    Apart from Mokko, the ratio of those games is about 60/40 against me. Would those players be accused of paddin ...[text shortened]... teadily increasing as a result, even then it wouldn't necessarily mean that I was padding.
    yeah, what he said.
  15. 01 May '07 03:56
    Originally posted by z00t
    the clowns there turned it into a circus act.
    It seemed natural to have clowns after a monkey act.