02 Jun 09
Originally posted by PhlabibitTHat is right, there are only numbers only the difference gives you a little information 😀
As it stands with no ratings floor, there are users losing out on ratings points they should have earned, or stripped of ratings points being beaten by a low-rated sand bagger.
Anyway, rating is just a number not to be compared with ratings in other systems. If I'm rated 1500 and you're rated 1700 we know you're better. What is the difference if I wer ...[text shortened]... chess strength. Plus, the inflation isn't going to be noticeable if at all noticed.
P-
But the problems of timeout and resigning games exist in every surrounding of rules. In my sight wins by timeout are good because in other ways player can simply stop to play when they cannot wins. There will be users, who will still vanished, before he had to play all his games - a lot of reasons for. There will be a lot of memebers, who will cheat in this or any way. This problems are not very well, but we can discuss and discuss and than we have no fun any more.
So let us play with our friends and have fun with them 😀
Nice day
02 Jun 09
Originally posted by Hannilein007Play with your friends if you like, but if you join tournaments you don't pick who you play. That is the main reason for ratings floor.
THat is right, there are only numbers only the difference gives you a little information 😀
But the problems of timeout and resigning games exist in every surrounding of rules. In my sight wins by timeout are good because in other ways player can simply stop to play when they cannot wins. There will be users, who will still vanished, before he had to ...[text shortened]... have no fun any more.
So let us play with our friends and have fun with them 😀
Nice day
I have no idea why we've talked about them so long and admins have not implemented them. They are the best solution and there is zero drawback. Otherwise organizations like USCF and FIDE wouldn't use them.
I am correct in thinking FIDE uses, as well as other established chess organizations.
I know USCF uses them.
P-
02 Jun 09
Originally posted by PhlabibitYou have a torunament-rating for that, perhaps you should take it for 300 days.
Play with your friends if you like, but if you join tournaments you don't pick who you play. That is the main reason for ratings floor.
I have no idea why we've talked about them so long and admins have not implemented them. They are the best solution and there is zero drawback. Otherwise organizations like USCF and FIDE wouldn't use them.
I am co ...[text shortened]... FIDE uses, as well as other established chess organizations.
I know USCF uses them.
P-
When I said "play with friends", have fun in playing chess. There could be everytime some strange players on the opposite side of the board; don't think to much on them 😀
03 Jun 09
Originally posted by Hannilein007The 'truth of ranking' is already destroyed when someone leaves the site and resigns many games. Their 800 point drop in rating does not reflect ANY decline whatsoever in chess skill, including the ability to manage time during a game.
With all tools you destroys the truth of ranking. If you made a floor-rating the rating of all people will goes up; so in three years we are all better than the worldchampion in the real live.
Also no influence to calculation the rating by winning by timeouts, this is in the real world also.
- Joined
- 07 Jun 05
- Moves
- 5301
06 Jun 09
Originally posted by SwissGambitSwiss,
Rating floors would largely eliminate this problem. Take your established 1800+, and do not let his rating ever drop below 1600. Then he can never run amok in an U1200 tourney.
We have argued about this one before. Before claiming that rating floors will solve all problems and wash whiter than white, let's get back to the problem you are trying to solve.
User 434816 was named above, so let's have a look at where he is.
Quick summary:
- joined site in 2008
- entered a bunch of tourneys june 2008
- left for a while around feb 2009 (rated 1850 at peak in Jan)
- back playing in may 2009
- playing a 1450 tournament.
So the guys maximum rating ever has been 1850, with 1750 looking like a reasonable middle ground. I can tell from his rating graph that he has only left once, and that the early tourney wins were entered while his rating was still climbing. He has won 30 tournaments in the time since he joined.
Now let's speculate:
2 options that I can see:
1) The guy left for reasons which were unavoidable, but are his to know. He came back when he could, and wanted to play in tournaments. He takes the first option available on the home page, at the highest rating he can, before his TER falls even further. It is also a hardcore.
2) The guy left deliberately to tank his rating, all the way down to 900, and then came back after 3 months when his TER had fallen, to try and win some more tourneys.
Both options are possible. I would class the second as "sandbagging". I would not count the first as sandbagging.
User 434816 does not look like a sandbagger, because he has only left once, and because he did not wait for his TER to fall further. Perhaps he would have even preferred to be in the higher rated tourney, had the option been available.
So let's call a spade a spade:
Sandbagging is leaving deliberately, to enter and win low rated tournaments on your return.
The quickest and simplest fix for this is to keep the TER for longer - six months or a year, or even permanently. You don't get the disadvantages of rating floors, and would be sandbaggers are kept out of low rated tourneys.
06 Jun 09
For what it's worth, I'm not a sandbagger. I didn't play chess for 3 months because of work committments. When I returned, my rating had dropped very low. Therefore, whoever I play is going to accuse me of sandbagging, but that is a fault of RHP, rather than myself.
I'm now having to get the rating back up. No guarantee there, because I've not got as much free time as I would like to play chess. Therefore, I might have a high rating before. Doesn't mean I'll get up to those heights again.
If RHP want to put me back to my original rating, that's fine. Then everyone will be happy. Artem can win his tournaments without any interference and I won't be accused of cheating.
I play on this site for fun. I'm not Kasparov. What I'd suggest to Artem is join a chess club and get playing on the tourney circuit. You'll be happier there, because it's face to face.
Online chess is always a pain for this. You might not believe it, but I have been beaten by players with 900 ratings. It hurts, it's annoying, but it's part of the online landscape unfortunately.
I could drone on like this for hours. You'll either agree with me or still think I'm a cheat. What I will say in my defence is that I didn't play on this site for over 3 months. In that time I didn't play chess at all. Am I therefore supposed to avoid playing all players who were below my previous rating!!!
The RHP system is flawed, but it's still better than any other online chess site.
06 Jun 09
2 edits
Originally posted by gezza"Sandbagging" is a term primarily used by others in this debate. I prefer to call the situation 'mass resignation' or something that avoids casting blame. I understand that there are many legitimate reasons for needing to leave the site for awhile. I've no interest in conducting interrogations to see why, or if, people left, or deliberately tanked rating, etc.
Swiss,
We have argued about this one before. Before claiming that rating floors will solve all problems and wash whiter than white, let's get back to the problem you are trying to solve.
User 434816 was named above, so let's have a look at where he is.
Quick summary:
- joined site in 2008
- entered a bunch of tourneys june 2008
- left for a whil advantages of rating floors, and would be sandbaggers are kept out of low rated tourneys.
What I AM interested in preserving fair tourney conditions, and keeping ratings true to playing strength in general, for the benefit of all rated forms of competition. And this is where the TER idea fails miserably.
- If the TER period is extended, a guy like duckboy could enter tournaments for 1600+ level players, even though his rating is only 1424. Higher-rated players don't want to play extreme underrateds either!
- The "T" in TER stands for "tournament" - it does nothing at all to fix the problem of a hugely underrated player showing up in other forms of rated play, particularly clan challenges where the aim is to get a team match between players of approximately equal strength.
- The TER formula is fundamentally flawed. Example: Korch User 124624 used to be a solid 2200 player, and is now a 1400! This means that even if his "Highest Rating" is permanently set to 2200, his TER is still only 1800! Nothing stops him from entering a U1900 tourney. Under my proposal, his rating floor is 2000, he comes back as 2000, and can enter no lower a band than U2100.
Rating floors ARE a very simple fix. I have even provided the programming logic needed to make it happen [in other threads]. The alleged 'disadvantages' of rating floors [a negligible amount of inflation] are minuscule compared to the problem of allowing people to come back from absences and play while hundreds of points underrated - a no-win situation for everyone. With rating floors such as I've proposed, duckboy would have come back as a 1600. No more entering low-band tournaments, whether innocently motivated or otherwise.
- Joined
- 07 Jun 05
- Moves
- 5301
07 Jun 09
Originally posted by SwissGambitSpot the "rating floors" troll.
"Sandbagging" is a term primarily used by others in this debate. I prefer to call the situation 'mass resignation' or something that avoids casting blame. I understand that there are many legitimate reasons for needing to leave the site for awhile. I've no interest in conducting interrogations to see why, or if, people left, or deliberately tanked rating ...[text shortened]... No more entering low-band tournaments, whether innocently motivated or otherwise.
The title and opening post give it away. The question here is "what is sandbagging?" The post from Fabian I quoted from another thread mentioned them as a problem in tournaments.
In my last post, I gave a definition of sandbagging. It's about trying to win tournaments.
When the problem you are trying to solve has been defined, then the time comes to talk about a solution. Rating floors and the massive inflation they bring with them have no place in the discussion - they are the solution to the wrong problem!
In terms of keeping sandbaggers from entering the wrong tournament band, the TER can be used just fine. The only flaws are in your understanding. Korch's TER is currently 2168 (look below the graph User 124624), precisely 100 points below the 2268 which is his highest rating in the last 100 days. We will not be seeing him in any 1800 tournaments just yet. These little technical errors throw a very bad light on your suggestions.
08 Jun 09
2 edits
Originally posted by gezzaI wouldn't think it's too hard to understand, but to reiterate:
Spot the "rating floors" troll.
The title and opening post give it away. The question here is "what is sandbagging?" The post from Fabian I quoted from another thread mentioned them as a problem in tournaments.
In my last post, I gave a definition of sandbagging. It's about trying to win tournaments.
When the problem you are trying to solve has be ments just yet. These little technical errors throw a very bad light on your suggestions.
1) I agree there is a problem with players who are obviously hundreds of points underrated entering low-band tournaments.
2) However, 'sandbagging' is not a good term to use in describing the problem, because it's likely that many of the underrateds did not deliberately tank their rating.
3) I recognize that the problem described in this thread is part of a larger problem with underrated players in all sorts of rated events. It is not rational to fix only one aspect of the problem when it has been shown that the problem is larger in scope.
The problem has been clearly defined. The efficacy of the floor solution is not in doubt. The site admin has promised that this change will be implemented, as it has garnered tons of support in the RHP community.
In terms of keeping sandbaggers from entering the wrong tournament band, the TER can be used just fine.
If so, why do threads about 'sandbaggers' [again, not the best of choice of term, though the problem is real enough] keep popping up? You claimed that the TER is a 'simple' solution, yet we've had it for months and we keep hearing about more and more former 1800's tearing thru the ranks of 1400 tourneys.
Korch's TER is currently 2168 (look below the graph User 124624), precisely 100 points below the 2268 which is his highest rating in the last 100 days.
LOL! So they made an 'exception' to the rule that renders the main TER formula [midpoint between current and highest rating] null and void for the first 100 days! Nice 'fix'.
These little technical errors throw a very bad light on your suggestions.
No; the clumsy tweaks to TER throw a bad light on the whole TER concept. Obviously, if it was well-conceived in the first place, they wouldn't have to ignore it entirely for 100 days. And they have only traded one problem for another. Now, any player who goes on a hot streak and reaches a peak rating uncharacteristic of their average ability is forced to play "up" in tournaments that are too strong for him, for 100 days. After the 100 days, his TER starts dropping and we go back to the other problem again.
Also, what's your answer to the problem of Korch running amok in U1900 tourneys - which he will be fully able to do after 100 days?
- Joined
- 07 Jun 05
- Moves
- 5301
08 Jun 09
Originally posted by SwissGambitOh dear Swiss.
LOL! So they made an 'exception' to the rule that renders the main TER formula [midpoint between current and highest rating] null and void for the first 100 days! Nice 'fix'.
Go back and read the formula. Again. Carefully.
Like I said, "These little technical errors throw a very bad light on your suggestions."
ROTFL!
11 Jun 09
Originally posted by gezza*Highest Rating excludes provisional (first 20) games.
Oh dear Swiss.
Go back and read the formula. Again. Carefully.
Like I said, "These little technical errors throw a very bad light on your suggestions."
ROTFL!
*Tournament Entry Rating is calculated by the formula (CurrentRating + HighestRating) / 2.
*The entry rating will never drop to more than 100 points below your Highest Rating.
The variable "highest rating" only lasts for 100 days.
After 100 days your highest rating changes.
Your highest rating changes after 100 days.
Is that clear enough for you?
12 Jun 09
Originally posted by tomtom232It's now 365 days.Perhaps that will stop the sandbagging
*Highest Rating excludes provisional (first 20) games.
*Tournament Entry Rating is calculated by the formula (CurrentRating + HighestRating) / 2.
*The entry rating will never drop to more than 100 points below your Highest Rating.
The variable "highest rating" only lasts for 100 days.
After 100 days your highest rating changes.
Your highest rating changes after 100 days.
Is that clear enough for you?
