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

Site Ideas Forum

  1. 14 Jun '07 00:56
    I think that if a players rating drops 250 rating points from the time you started a game with them the game should be cancelled with no winner. I think this because it's very annoyng when a player rated higher then you plays half a game. Then stops playing for a few weeks and gets timed out until his rating reaches 300-500 points less then his real rating. Then he starts playing again and beats you and it counts as being beat by a very low rated player!
  2. Subscriber coquette
    Already mated
    14 Jun '07 03:42
    I actually am very sympathetic to this poster. I am someone who plays a couple hundred games at a time and sometimes my rating fluctuates wildly in short bursts - like, for example, when I have a bad series going on and I purge some "losers" in a burst. My rating plunges only for a very short period as the rating system is well designed to return a player's rating to approximate a "true" rating strength fairly quickly. When this happens, I've actually felt bad for the poor opponents who got slammed by a loss against someone whose rating is about 200 or more points lower than it generally would be. OUCH!

    I disagree with the solution, however. It won't really help. How about this for a solution?

    Proposed: the game rating change will be calculated at no more than +/- 100 points maximum from the TOURNAMENT rating.

    Wouldn't this be more "true" and fairer? (Just thinking out loud here)
  3. Standard member rhb
    Ginger Scum
    14 Jun '07 08:24
    It's a number in a database. Get over it.
  4. 14 Jun '07 10:02
    Originally posted by coquette
    Proposed: the game rating change will be calculated at no more than +/- 100 points maximum from the TOURNAMENT rating.

    Wouldn't this be more "true" and fairer? (Just thinking out loud here)
    I'm also thinking out loud here:

    I think that the rating whould represent the players skill. The rating should not be higher nor lower than his skill. That's the very point of the rating, in the sense of a value of a players skill. Right?
    So far I agree with you.

    But in order to compare people who had never played to eachother, or the same player from times far apart we should take rating inflation into account.

    If my skill never increase or decrease I should stay at the same rating niveau constantly. I doubt that this will be the case if your proposal of limited rating loss will be affectuated.
    I think that the sum of the players rating after a game should be the same, i.e. ones rate loss is the same as the others rate gain, or else the overall rating for all players will go up.

    So another proposal I have, in order to reduce rating inflation, is to have a constant average for the rating of all players. If the rating average increas the individual rating should be compensating in some way.

    But his is only me thinking out loud here.
  5. 14 Jun '07 11:23
    Originally posted by rhb
    It's a number in a database. Get over it.
    I gotta agree. It seems by your solution that you don't care about the actual games at all. The games are the point, Not some arbitrary number. What are you gonna do, put it on your resume'?
  6. 14 Jun '07 19:54
    Originally posted by coquette
    I actually am very sympathetic to this poster. I am someone who plays a couple hundred games at a time and sometimes my rating fluctuates wildly in short bursts - like, for example, when I have a bad series going on and I purge some "losers" in a burst. My rating plunges only for a very short period as the rating system is well designed to return a player's ...[text shortened]... MENT rating.

    Wouldn't this be more "true" and fairer? (Just thinking out loud here)
    I agree that your solution is fairer, but why not just use the tournament rating intead of +/- 100 on the tournament rating.
  7. 14 Jun '07 22:19 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by rhb
    It's a number in a database. Get over it.
    Yeah, they are just numbers. Anyway your will go back up so what's the big deal?
  8. 15 Jun '07 00:47
    Not enough people care enough for anything like this to ever happen. [*I reckon]
  9. 15 Jun '07 15:31
    A simpler solution, which will also avoid rating inflation as far as I can tell, is to use the ratings at the start of the game rather than the end to calcualte rating changes.

    The people who play someone after they've lost a load of points will lose out but they can see what they're getting themsleves into.
  10. Standard member Ragnorak
    For RHP addons...
    15 Jun '07 16:29
    Originally posted by Schumi
    A simpler solution, which will also avoid rating inflation as far as I can tell, is to use the ratings at the start of the game rather than the end to calcualte rating changes.
    Great solution. I can just resign all my games now, then start 100 against players rated 1400 while my rating is 800.

    At 32 points per win, I'd be rated 4000 in no time. Suhweeet!!

    D
  11. 15 Jun '07 17:02
  12. Subscriber coquette
    Already mated
    15 Jun '07 19:56
    Originally posted by Ragnorak
    Great solution. I can just resign all my games now, then start 100 against players rated 1400 while my rating is 800.

    At 32 points per win, I'd be rated 4000 in no time. Suhweeet!!

    D
    yes, it seems, in theory, you could do this. and, yes, i think, in reality, some are actually doing this. or so it's been said.
  13. Standard member Phlabibit
    Mystic Meg
    15 Jun '07 20:06
    Originally posted by coquette
    yes, it seems, in theory, you could do this. and, yes, i think, in reality, some are actually doing this. or so it's been said.
    How could 'they' be doing this? Ratings are based on game finish, not start.

    P-