- Joined
- 10 Apr 03
- Moves
- 48786
I propose that each player have a setting that makes other players' ratings visible or invisible.
The question here is: "Do player ratings affect the players who are being rated?"
It is well known in science that the act of observation often changes the behavior of those being observed. This is the so-called "observer effect" which is often confused with the "Heisenberg's principle."
Playing a player with a high rating can be intimidating for some players. As a result, their style of play changes. They may "trust" their high-rated opponent did not blunder and overlook opportunities.
For some players, knowing how good their opponent is before the game has begun has the effect of losing the psychological game before play has even begun.
I propose that the default setting is "Other players' ratings are visible." if any individual player feels that he/she can benefit from not knowing the strength of their opponent, they can change the setting to "Other players' ratings are invisible."
All people are different. One person's trash is another person's treasure. There is little harm in giving people choices.
To not give a person a choice is to give those with high ratings an unfair advantage - their high ratings are an intimidation factor that is hard to ignore.
As a result of this change, I expect that the rating system will perform its function of estimating player strength more effectively. There may even be more satisfied customers of Red Hot Pawn dot com.
-Gary M. Danelishen
- Joined
- 10 Apr 03
- Moves
- 48786
Originally posted by SwissGambitI see you conceded that this is in fact an advantage. The only question you have is why I label it unfair.
What exactly is [b]unfair about this type of advantage?[/b]
Now that we have established that player ratings do not have a neutral effect on all players, I think the better question is "How is any advantage not unfair?"
In the initial starting position, we have complete equality with the only difference being that White has a half move advantage. No other advantages exist.
After the advent of player ratings, this initial equilibrium has been disturbed. Now there is a second advantage - that of intimidation.
I am just trying to help this site serve its customers better. I think that some players may like the option of playing against opponents of anonymous playing strength.
We could debate ethics but, at the end of the day, it only matters whether the needs and wants of consumers are being met.
Originally posted by Phillidor284I can think of several examples of fair advantages. I don't see how this question is even interesting.
Now that we have established that player ratings do not have a neutral effect on all players, I think the better question is "How is any advantage not unfair?"
Originally posted by Phillidor284Use hide ratings script.
I propose that each player have a setting that makes other players' ratings visible or invisible.
The question here is: "Do player ratings affect the players who are being rated?"
It is well known in science that the act of observation often changes the behavior of those being observed. This is the so-called "observer effect" which is often confus ...[text shortened]... n be more satisfied customers of Red Hot Pawn dot com.
-Gary M. Danelishen
http://members.shaw.ca/ouroboros/RHP/
Originally posted by Phillidor284Why do you assume others are intimidated by higher ratings?
I propose that each player have a setting that makes other players' ratings visible or invisible.
The question here is: "Do player ratings affect the players who are being rated?"
It is well known in science that the act of observation often changes the behavior of those being observed. This is the so-called "observer effect" which is often confus ...[text shortened]... n be more satisfied customers of Red Hot Pawn dot com.
-Gary M. Danelishen
I feel that I play better (take longer to move anyway) against a higher rated oppponent.
My phlisophy -
Player rated 200 or more points below me I should win
Anyone within 200 points +/- could go either way
Anyone 200-400 higher than me then I am looking at a hard game. A win is a bonus, a draw is good and a loss is expected.
Anyone 400+ higher then I am out of my depth. A win is to be boasted about, a draw an excellent result and a loss in more than 32 moves I have held out well.
Not knowing in advance the level of player I am up against would have more of a psychological effect.
- Joined
- 10 Apr 03
- Moves
- 48786
Originally posted by YugaThanks. This is an example of a helpful reply!
Use hide ratings script.
http://members.shaw.ca/ouroboros/RHP/
All too often, replies are plagued with words such as 'I' or "my" followed by a knee-jerk rejection of the site suggestion. I think that this type of reply boils down to "egocentrism."
Again, thanks Yuga.
Originally posted by Phillidor284Hmmmm...
All too often, replies are plagued with words such as 'I' or "my" followed by a knee-jerk rejection of the site suggestion.
Originally posted by Phillidor284
I see you conceded that this is in fact an advantage. The only question you have is why I label it unfair.
Now that we have established that player ratings do not have a neutral effect on all players, I think the better question is "How is any advantage not unfair?"
In the initial starting position, we have complete equality with the only difference being that White has a half move advantage. No other advantages exist.
After the advent of player ratings, this initial equilibrium has been disturbed. Now there is a second advantage - that of intimidation.
I am just trying to help this site serve its customers better. I think that some players may like the option of playing against opponents of anonymous playing strength.
"I" count: 5.
Highest "I" count in any thread post so far: 7.
Apparently, personal opinion is admissible only if it comes from you. 😕
- Joined
- 10 Apr 03
- Moves
- 48786
In what capacity does this clown (SwissGambit) work for RedHotPawn?
Is he trying to help the site or is he trying to discourage paying customers from renewing their membership?
Here I try to help you guys out by volunteering a site suggestion only to have this big mouthed megalomaniac come along and belittle me.
He is an embarrassment and the site would do good to disassociate itself from him.
Originally posted by Phillidor284In case you had not noticed, this is an ideas forum, not a backslapping forum. The point is to discuss pros and cons of ideas and see if they are worth implementing.
In what capacity does this clown (SwissGambit) work for RedHotPawn?
Is he trying to help the site or is he trying to discourage paying customers from renewing their membership?
Here I try to help you guys out by volunteering a site suggestion only to have this big mouthed megalomaniac come along and belittle me.
He is an embarrassment and the site would do good to disassociate itself from him.
Thankfully, free speech tends to win here, despite the occasional whiner who wishes to stifle all dissent.