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

Site Ideas Forum

  1. 05 Feb '09 19:16
    I'm in a situation, and this comes up a lot where I am playing someone who was intially 100 points higher than me. This person has not moved in a month, and has had scores of games timed out since then. His rating is now 500 points below mine, but there is 28 days left on his clock.

    If by chance he comes back in those 28 days and resumes play, I have a tough opponent for which I can expect to lose 30 points even if I split against him.

    Here's an idea... If I am playing someone who loses 200 or more points on timeout losses [b]since my last move against him[/i], I would have the option to change the game to unrated. The 200 point drop need not be sequential, just a combined 200 points over time.

    This would keep those who temporarily abandon play from sucking large amounts of points away from their in progress opponents when they return to the site. But I would have to choose this option before making a move. This would prevent me from hedging (i.e. playing on to see if I can win, and then switching to unrated if I am losing).

    Perhaps an option could be used on the start of new games too. Anytime I come across an opponent who has lost 200 points to timeouts, I could choose to play unrated before making my first move.
  2. Standard member SwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    05 Feb '09 23:28
    Originally posted by techsouth
    I'm in a situation, and this comes up a lot where I am playing someone who was intially 100 points higher than me. This person has not moved in a month, and has had scores of games timed out since then. His rating is now 500 points below mine, but there is 28 days left on his clock.

    If by chance he comes back in those 28 days and resumes play, I have ...[text shortened]... o has lost 200 points to timeouts, I could choose to play unrated before making my first move.
    Better solution: rating floors. It would stop virtually all of these ludicrous 500-600 point drops due to site absence.

    Thread 106564
  3. 05 Feb '09 23:47
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    Better solution: rating floors. It would stop virtually all of these ludicrous 500-600 point drops due to site absence.

    Thread 106564
    Hmm.

    One downside of rating floors would be that it could grossly inflate the average ratings as those stuck on their ratings floors could become "ratings point fiats". Someone stuck at 1600, for example could timeout 100 games against opponents of perhaps equal strength giving away 16 points each. That puts 1600 points into the system without costing this person any points.

    Rating floors of course are used in OTB games, but no one can walk away from 100 games simultaneously playing OTB. And it would be very unusual for such a player to sequentially play 100 games without putting up spirited competition in most of them.
  4. Standard member zakkwylder
    Mouth for war
    06 Feb '09 01:59
    Perhaps we could just lock the ratings for at the beginning of a game. a users rating would still change as a player wins and loses games, however the new ratings formulated after a game concludes would be based upon the rating had at the beginning of a game. I can't even count how many times I've been one move from checkmate and my opponent won't move allowing me to win until he is satisfied with the rating I have that won't cost him too many points.
  5. 06 Feb '09 03:14
    Originally posted by zakkwylder
    Perhaps we could just lock the ratings for at the beginning of a game. a users rating would still change as a player wins and loses games, however the new ratings formulated after a game concludes would be based upon the rating had at the beginning of a game. I can't even count how many times I've been one move from checkmate and my opponent won't move al ...[text shortened]... me to win until he is satisfied with the rating I have that won't cost him too many points.
    I think this was discussed a while back.

    A downside of locked in ratings is it allows even more gaming of ratings. For example, I could be a good (but not great) player starting the site with a 1200 provisional rating. I could start 200 games against other players rated 1200. If I win 90% of them, I gain 16 * 160 points. Once the dust settles, I am rated 3760, although I may actually only be playing at 1700 stength.

    People game the system some when they have some control over the sequence and timing of their game finishes, but I think the locked in rating basis would make it 10 times worse.
  6. Subscriber coquette
    Already mated
    06 Feb '09 22:01
    Originally posted by zakkwylder
    Perhaps we could just lock the ratings for at the beginning of a game. a users rating would still change as a player wins and loses games, however the new ratings formulated after a game concludes would be based upon the rating had at the beginning of a game. I can't even count how many times I've been one move from checkmate and my opponent won't move al ...[text shortened]... me to win until he is satisfied with the rating I have that won't cost him too many points.
    rec'd. The rating should be calculated from the start of the game, when the opponent times out.
  7. Standard member SwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    06 Feb '09 22:39 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by techsouth
    Hmm.

    One downside of rating floors would be that it could grossly inflate the average ratings as those stuck on their ratings floors could become "ratings point fiats". Someone stuck at 1600, for example could timeout 100 games against opponents of perhaps equal strength giving away 16 points each. That puts 1600 points into the system without costing ...[text shortened]... player to sequentially play 100 games without putting up spirited competition in most of them.
    This is only a very small bit of inflation spread across a large pool of players, and thus not too much of a worry. As the 100 play others, that small bit will smooth out like ripples in a pond.

    The main point of ratings is to compare strength relative to others in the same rating pool. Even if the whole pool inflates, the relative comparison still holds.
  8. Standard member zakkwylder
    Mouth for war
    06 Feb '09 22:53
    Perhaps a rating floor isn't a good idea, perhaps it is. I haven't quite weighed the variables yet myself. However, suppose a player sustains a rating for a x amount of time, perhaps restricting them from certain ratings bands permanently for tournaments would work.

    Example, a player holds a rating between 1700-1800 for 20 games. This player would then not be allowed to enter tournaments with a rating limit below say 1600 even if their rating sinks to 1000.

    Sure it may suck for them that they won't be able to enter a tournament until they get their rating back up, but the way I see it sucks for more users when these players wipe out an entire tournament that is banded at a lower level. It is for the greater good. Further more, they can avoid being exempt from tournaments by not sandbagging in the first place.
  9. 07 Feb '09 08:25
    Originally posted by coquette
    rec'd. The rating should be calculated from the start of the game, when the opponent times out.
    It get my rec too.

    Rating floors doesn't solve the problem when it happen anyway. Unless it is forbidden to lose on time out.

    A friend of mine had an accident and he lost every game. I stood there with an equal rating and wanted my 16 points after the win. Insted he plummeted down to 800 points and I got nothing.
  10. Standard member SwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    07 Feb '09 23:23
    Originally posted by zakkwylder
    Perhaps a rating floor isn't a good idea, perhaps it is. I haven't quite weighed the variables yet myself. However, suppose a player sustains a rating for a x amount of time, perhaps restricting them from certain ratings bands permanently for tournaments would work.

    Example, a player holds a rating between 1700-1800 for 20 games. This player would the ...[text shortened]... her more, they can avoid being exempt from tournaments by not sandbagging in the first place.
    They can enter tournaments for 1700-1800s and up, but it sucks for the rest of the people in those events - they have to play a 1000 who is really 800 points stronger than that.
  11. 08 Feb '09 14:30
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    They can enter tournaments for 1700-1800s and up, but it sucks for the rest of the people in those events - they have to play a 1000 who is really 800 points stronger than that.
    That problem can be solved by only allowing those within say 90% of the tournament rating limits being allowed to join. It would certainly limit sandbagging.

    For a 1700-1800 tournament anyone rated less than 1530 (90% of the lower limit) would be unable to join.
  12. Standard member zakkwylder
    Mouth for war
    08 Feb '09 19:04
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    They can enter tournaments for 1700-1800s and up, but it sucks for the rest of the people in those events - they have to play a 1000 who is really 800 points stronger than that.
    That's not what I said. If they sink to a lower rating, they will not be able to participate in banded tournaments until they are withing a reasonable range of their previous rating. IF they don't like being subjected to rules like this, don't sandbag. It's that simple, not like they can't join non banded tournaments.
  13. Standard member SwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    09 Feb '09 02:28
    Originally posted by adramforall
    That problem can be solved by only allowing those within say 90% of the tournament rating limits being allowed to join. It would certainly limit sandbagging.

    For a 1700-1800 tournament anyone rated less than 1530 (90% of the lower limit) would be unable to join.
    Not a bad solution, but I still prefer rating floors for two reasons:

    1) It allows players to immediately enter tournaments after they come back [why make a paying customer wait?] - at a rating close to their true skill level.
    2) It addresses the problem of sandbagging across all forms of rated games, not just tournaments.
  14. Standard member SwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    09 Feb '09 02:28
    Originally posted by zakkwylder
    That's not what I said. If they sink to a lower rating, they will not be able to participate in banded tournaments until they are withing a reasonable range of their previous rating. IF they don't like being subjected to rules like this, don't sandbag. It's that simple, not like they can't join non banded tournaments.
    Sorry - your proposal sounded similar to the Tournament Entry Rating already in use, and I got the two confused.