Originally posted by Very RustyMy guess is that maintaining a certain rating class for 50 to 100 games is enough to 'establish' strength (and the rating floor). I will leave it to the statisticians to determine what the ideal number is.
Wulebgr had also suggested a rating floor, which indeed does sound like a great idea. The next thing would be where to set it? What amount of games would be enough to accurately arrive at someones rating strength? It is much better than my idea of "Limit Subscriber Games", as some have pointed out they could control their rating as easily with 20 games. A ...[text shortened]... not a good idea to take features away from customers once they're used to having them."!!
Originally posted by GalaxyShieldYou and a couple of other players are amazing.
I can't help feeling slightly guilty after reading this thread...
😞
🙂
I wish I could even reach to the level where you are depsite playing so many games. My play is so bad that I go change from 1500 to 1300 in one day. I do not even have to try to put in an effort. :o)
Anorther one is Marko Krale, look at the number of moves he makes, unbelievable.
Harri / Luck
Originally posted by DoctorDaraUser 63905 resigned four to me in the course of a dramatic drop in game load.
I've never seen someone do this before, drop so many games at once,
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemEverytime a new player comes along they add > 1000 to the rating pool but they also add a player to the people that pool is divided between.
Every time a new player joins, he brings at least a thousand more points into the rating pool. This seems like it would cause much more inflation than a few people beating someone on the 'floor'. I doubt it's much of a worry, although I haven't run the numbers.
1 edit
Originally posted by WulebgrYes, This is exactly what I been talking about, now people in the 1400-1600 are playing a player in the 1500's, who actually has the rating strength of a 1900 player !!! I just don't see the fairness in this, and I don't know what the solution might be, if in indeed there is one.
User 63905 resigned four to me in the course of a dramatic drop in game load.
3 edits
Originally posted by Very RustyThe solution is to suck it up and just play, ratings don't matter so much that you need to punish people for potentially hurting yours by a few points.
Yes, This is exactly what I been talking about, now people in the 1400-1600 are playing a player in the 1500's, who actually has the rating strength of a 1900 player !!! I just don't see the fairness in this, and I don't know what the solution might be, if in indeed there is one.
Fancy a game? Probably not. Potentially losing to me would hurt your precious rating more than it normally would, but isn't the fact that I can't get games against people my own strength (for fear of their ratings) punishment enough for my rating being artificially low? Should I really be punished somehow?
I'm beating players weaker than me right now , and hurting their ratings a little bit on the way back up. I admit this, but that is just how the game is played, can't get back to my rating without hurting some other people's. So should I be punished, I don't think so.
Originally posted by WulebgrHoly cow! Shock. You know maybe there should be a rule that if a player has an unusual number of timeouts that their subscription comes under review.
User 63905 resigned four to me in the course of a dramatic drop in game load.
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowSorry to hear about your bad luck. Good luck in your future games!!!
The solution is to suck it up and just play, ratings don't matter so much that you need to punish people for potentially hurting yours by a few points.
Fancy a game? Probably not. Potentially losing to me would hurt your precious rating more than it normally would, but isn't the fact that I can't get games against people my own strength (for fear o ...[text shortened]... rating without hurting some other people's. So should I be punished, I don't think so.
Originally posted by DoctorDarathere is - the performance graph!! there is no need for further indicators of a users past games.
Maybe they get a warning symbol notifying other players of their huge swings? Like the vacation flags.
if you dont wish to play such people then make sure you check their graph before the end of move 2 and delete the game if you dont want to play on.
Originally posted by MCAI think you're right there, the only drawback is it only displays the last 300 games.
there is - the performance graph!! there is no need for further indicators of a users past games.
if you dont wish to play such people then make sure you check their graph before the end of move 2 and delete the game if you dont want to play on.