Rating Floor

Originally posted by gezza
Bad advice. You are suggesting that someone use an engine to prepare their moves. Don't.

If you were to blunder, you get to see the engine's stunning response, and you make a different move. Blunder checking is just as much engine abuse as looking for suggestions.

Check the game when it is done, not before. And then report to the admins, if there is evidence.

I was actually suggesting that people use engines to RESPOND to a move, not to prepare one:-
I make a move(not at the very start of the game obviously) and my opponent replies.
I then make my move in a chess engine.
If my opponents move is the same as the chess engines reply over a number of moves(10 or more) this would suggest to me he is using an engine.
This is not "blunder checking" because i have already made my move in the game.

Originally posted by tomtom232
You are all stating fluff.

If a player plays an x amount of games and his average rating is y then when the player comes back you want to decrease the amount added to x to get back to rating y as much as practically possible. This would create more balance and accuracy to the ratings system. It may at first cause inflation but it doesn't matter if a 140 ...[text shortened]... ual to the players skill and would only change at the same rate that the players skill changes.

Don't get your point.Please explain more clearly.

Originally posted by tomtom232
You are all stating fluff.

It may at first cause inflation

Why only at first?

Why not every time someone loses a bunch of games in a row?

Originally posted by venda
I was actually suggesting that people use engines to RESPOND to a move, not to prepare one:-
I make a move(not at the very start of the game obviously) and my opponent replies.
I then make my move in a chess engine.

Fair enough if that is what you intended to say. I am still not happy with any analysis of
a game in progress - there have been a few of my games where my computer has recommended
the same move for each of several of my moves. The stunning response to your hanging queen is still valid a move later, if your opponent does not spot it first time round.

And if you read your post, you said "plug the moves into an engine yourself, move () and watch the responses"

To me, that looks like putting the moves into the engine before making your move, thus the flame.

Use the computer to analyse when it is done, and not before!

Originally posted by gezza
Why only at first?

Why not every time someone loses a bunch of games in a row?

The point is, that it doesn't matter. Inflation is a minimal problem with a trivial solution. What we are trying to obtain here is balance of the rating system.

Ie my rating compared to your rating isn't as true a comparison as it can be.
Inflation wouldn't effect the difference between our rating as much as not having a rating floor does.

The solution to inflation is to reset every non provisional rating back an x amount every so often... and wallah! Even so, there is probably an even more elegant solution to inflation as it will happen anyway.

Originally posted by adramforall
If a lowly 1300/1400 rated player beats, by timeout, someone who is "floored" at 1800 they will gain a heap of points, artificially bumping their rating. This screws them up for future banded tournaments.

This affects them more if they take several timeouts wins against much high rated opponents. 6 win @ 24 points bumps the rating by 144 points. ...[text shortened]... ey can never drop below their floor.

I avoid playing 1100 rated guys that should be 1900.

This could be fixed. You could make the "floor" start at 1800 or even 2000 and give out site titles like RHP master and such.