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

Site Ideas Forum

  1. Standard member Arrakis
    D_U_N_E
    20 Jul '05 04:26
    I got paired against an opponent in a tournament (so I couldn't refuse the game) and he was rated around 769! After seeing some very strong moves I clicked on his name and saw this message:

    "I'm a 1800+++ player taking a break from Redhotpawn. Don't be fooled by my 769 rating. I'm much better than 750, thank you. Starting over....... resigning all my games, and starting fresh I'm back Baby!"

    My problem is simple. I managed to beat him with White but lost with Black... but because he RESIGNED ALL HIS GAMES and dropped his rating down around 760 points, I lost 30 points!

    RHP needs to have a rating floor - yes, once a player has reached a certain rating he should not be able to drop more than 200 points below that rating!


    Feedback is welcome.
  2. Standard member Nyxie
    The eyes of truth
    20 Jul '05 07:34
    Originally posted by arrakis
    I got paired against an opponent in a tournament (so I couldn't refuse the game) and he was rated around 769! After seeing some very strong moves I clicked on his name and saw this message:

    "I'm a 1800+++ player taking a break from Redhotpawn. Don't be fooled by my 769 rating. I'm much better than 750, thank you. Starting over....... resigning all ...[text shortened]... he should not be able to drop more than 200 points below that rating!


    Feedback is welcome.
    I would support this idea with one difference. Let their rating drop. But let the calclated rating for the game drop no more then a certain amount when rewarded to the opponent.
  3. Standard member Crowley
    Not Aleister
    20 Jul '05 09:46
    Never thought I'd say this: I agree (to a degree).

    I've said this before and I'll say it again. RHP needs a 'career rating' or something.

    Our current rating system is prone to be skewed by sudden spikes.
    Mass resignations (for or against), timeouts etc. can easily artificially inflate or deflate (Dustnrogers??) a player's rating.

    We need a weighted average system to calculate ratings.
    If a player has a rating of 1800+ for 4 months and then suddenly resigns or gets TO in all games in the span of 1 month - this player should have a career rating of about 1600 and not sub 1000 as is the case now.
    A solution like this will mean banded tournament headaches will be solved as well.
  4. Standard member flexmore
    Quack Quack Quack !
    23 Jul '05 10:48 / 2 edits
    i do agree there is a (small) problem, but for the optimal method of solution i disagree.

    ratings floors will lead to ratings creep ... and huge gains by people not deserving their win.

    why should 100 lowrated players gain lots of points just because they timeout a 2200 player who is losing 100 games in a row????

    the best solution i can see is to restrict the offender in their game creation, until they prove that they can handle a large game load by successfully completing games. ... the more games they want to create - the more games they are required to have successfully completed without timeout.
  5. Subscriber invigorate
    Only 1 F in Uckfield
    23 Jul '05 22:22
    Originally posted by flexmore
    i do agree there is a (small) problem, but for the optimal method of solution i disagree.

    ratings floors will lead to ratings creep ... and huge gains by people not deserving their win.

    why should 100 lowrated players gain lots of points just because they timeout a 2200 player who is losing 100 games in a row????

    the best solution i can see is to r ...[text shortened]... ant to create - the more games they are required to have successfully completed without timeout.
    Mass resignations throw spanners in the works of RHP full stop.

    I feel most lower rated players enjoy mini-banded tournies the most as they feel they have half a chance against those of similar ability.

    If you play to your best ability and have a true rating, you probably will be entering a band about 50 points above your current status.

    However if in another tournie a 2000+ player resigns against you in both games your rating develops an ugly spike meaning that your rating falsely rises and you are forced into a mini tournie way above your level, spoiling the small chance you had to begin with.

    Furthermore, the player who resigns on mass can enter a mini banded tournie after a months rest from the site and munch the oppostition for breakfast.

    I call for punishment for mass resigners.
  6. Standard member ark13
    Enola Straight
    24 Jul '05 00:13 / 1 edit
    I support this idea, but if we are to accept it (or any variation proposed so far) we must also accept rating inflation, as flexmore said.
  7. Standard member flexmore
    Quack Quack Quack !
    24 Jul '05 01:17
    Originally posted by ark13
    I support this idea, but if we are to accept it (or any variation proposed so far) we must also accept rating inflation, as flexmore said.
    limiting the number games by repeat timeout-losers/mass-resigners will not add to inflation.

    it will just mean that they will not be able to go on such a huge rollercoaster ride next time around.
  8. Standard member ark13
    Enola Straight
    24 Jul '05 02:16
    Originally posted by flexmore
    limiting the number games by repeat timeout-losers/mass-resigners will not add to inflation.

    it will just mean that they will not be able to go on such a huge rollercoaster ride next time around.
    Yes, that's true. But I honestly don't think it's a viable idea.
  9. Standard member fierytorment
    Mr. Flame of Fury
    24 Jul '05 19:26
    Mass Resigners pay the fee to play here too. They shouldn't be limited in their games. After all it is their choice to resign, maybe a health problem or something serious came up, and they make the right choice to resign their games so tourneys don't get held up. U shouldn't slap a game limit on them because they made a decision based on their personal circumstances.
  10. Standard member Crowley
    Not Aleister
    25 Jul '05 11:17
    Originally posted by invigorate
    However if in another tournie a 2000+ player resigns against you in both games your rating develops an ugly spike meaning that your rating falsely rises and you are forced into a mini tournie way above your level, spoiling the small chance you had to begin with.

    Furthermore, the player who resigns on mass can enter a mini banded tournie after a months rest from the site and munch the oppostition for breakfast.
    Exactly what I was referring to.

    We need a better rating calculation, hence my suggestion for a 'career rating'.
    This will stop rating spikes influencing banded tournaments as well.
  11. Standard member Exy
    Damn fine Clan!
    26 Jul '05 12:53
    Originally posted by arrakis
    I got paired against an opponent in a tournament (so I couldn't refuse the game) and he was rated around 769! After seeing some very strong moves I clicked on his name and saw this message:

    "I'm a 1800+++ player taking a break from Redhotpawn. Don't be fooled by my 769 rating. I'm much better than 750, thank you. Starting over....... resigning all ...[text shortened]... he should not be able to drop more than 200 points below that rating!


    Feedback is welcome.
    Maybe the rating the player has at the commencement of any game should be the rating used to calculate the score on completion.
  12. Standard member Gatecrasher
    Whale watching
    26 Jul '05 14:04
    Originally posted by Exy
    Maybe the rating the player has at the commencement of any game should be the rating used to calculate the score on completion.
    I tend to agree with this - however it could result in some curious outcomes:

    Examples:

    A player resigning a lot of games at once could well end up with a negative rating, since the number of points lost per game would not diminsh with each loss as it does now!

    A new player to the site with a low rating, starts many simulatneous games. He wins many/most of them and his rating goes above Ironman or even Kramnik. Thats because the gain from each won match will not be diminishing at does now.

    Perhaps a better approach would be boundaries above which and below which a rating cannot cross... based on x standard deviations above or below a mean of previously observed ratings. This will act like a brake on rapid rating spikes and troughs, while not impeding regular and incremental changes in ratings.
  13. Subscriber Marinkatomb
    wotagr8game
    26 Jul '05 15:00 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by arrakis
    I got paired against an opponent in a tournament (so I couldn't refuse the game) and he was rated around 769! After seeing some very strong moves I clicked on his name and saw this message:

    "I'm a 1800+++ player taking a break from ...[text shortened]... more than 200 points below that rating!


    Feedback is welcome.
    Err, even if he had had a rating floor of -200 points, he still would have taken 25 points from you as he'd have been rated 1600. There's only one thing you can do, wait for him to get his rating back up and start a two games with him, then resign all your games so your 750 and get your own back!