@lstcyr saidThe tournament entry rating was (as I understand it) brought in to prevent abuse of rated tournaments where sandbaggers could dump a load of non-tournament games to appear lower rated and then enter tournaments where they'd have a distinct advantage.
In a thread in another category, someone posted that the TER is inaccurate as it does not reflect the actual rating of a player. I think it does exactly what it was designed to do though I understand the concern. I was wondering if anyone had suggestions on how to change the TER to improve it?
The Tournament entry rating therefore stays "high" for longer. This helps to weed out abnormal behaviour.
We're working on the definition of a "normal" player ... sadly the algorithm at present, detects too many false positives.
@orangutan saidAlso,the TER can be inaccurate because it is based on a calculation of current rating.For other reasons,current rating can be inaccurate.For example,if a player loses a lot of games by timeout his current rating will plummet.You then play him and lose,and your current rating is affected.
The tournament entry rating was (as I understand it) brought in to prevent abuse of rated tournaments where sandbaggers could dump a load of non-tournament games to appear lower rated and then enter tournaments where they'd have a distinct advantage.
The Tournament entry rating therefore stays "high" for longer. This helps to weed out abnormal behaviour.
We're working o ...[text shortened]... efinition of a "normal" player ... sadly the algorithm at present, detects too many false positives.
The only reliable player rating is probably the 5 year one
@lstcyr
In fact there is no "accurate" rating. Since there is no objective measure.
As was pointed out before the TER is skewed to the highest rating in a year. So if a person had a big rating spike, they may suffer for a year. But this is the same for everyone.
3 edits
@venda said@venda,
Also,the TER can be inaccurate because it is based on a calculation of current rating.For other reasons,current rating can be inaccurate.For example,if a player loses a lot of games by timeout his current rating will plummet.You then play him and lose,and your current rating is affected.
The only reliable player rating is probably the 5 year one
Dave I don't know if even the 5 year rating is accurate my old friend.
I will use my own 5 year rating as an example!!! It is on my Profile Page.
Many things can happen to a person in 5 years which would make that 5 year TER very inaccurate. My TER for example is 1416, which I don't think is accurate, but I guess that would be more for others to judge than myself. People who have played a number of games against me of course.
-VR
@Very-Rusty saidFair point,but it's surely a better guide than current rating which is up and down like a whores pants
@venda,
Dave I don't know if even the 5 year rating is accurate my old friend.
I will use my own 5 year rating as an example!!! It is on my Profile Page.
Many things can happen to a person in 5 years which would make that 5 year TER very inaccurate. My TER for example is 1416, which I don't think is accurate, but I guess that would be more for others to judge than myself. People who have played a number of games against me of course.
-VR
@venda said@Venda,
Fair point,but it's surely a better guide than current rating which is up and down like a whores pants
Here is the way it is if you think my rating is up and down like a whore's pants then try getting the Clan Challenge ratings separate from the other ratings, like I been promoting for years!!! If they were separate ratings then there wouldn't be the big up and down you see in the Graph.
At the moment on this Site I have just over 200 games going but only a handful are actually Clan Challenge Games.
-VR
@Very-Rusty saidI was talking in general,not your personal rating
@Venda,
Here is the way it is if you think my rating is up and down like a whore's pants then try getting the Clan Challenge ratings separate from the other ratings, like I been promoting for years!!! If they were separate ratings then there wouldn't be the big up and down you see in the Graph.
At the moment on this Site I have just over 200 games going but only a handful are actually Clan Challenge Games.
-VR
3 edits
@Ponderable saidPondy,
Can be manipulated by sandbagging.
I Believe we all know the ratings can be manipulated in many different ways, we both have been here long enough to know how it is done. One way is when you carry a lot of games. You don't even have to try to manipulate it is going to happen simply because of the amount of games being carried.
There are other ways and I proved it many years ago by carrying 600 games at a time. It was to prove one could put their rating where they wanted which is exactly what I did to prove a point. I'd never do it again as it is very hard to carry 600 games plus play on two other Sites. 😉 I believe I drove my rating into the 1800's which those of you who know me, know I am not an 1800 player.
This is why I have been promoting for years to have the Clan Challenge ratings separate from tournament, Club, and Private Games, which was voted down some years ago. REASON???? 3 guesses first 2 don't count. At least then the Clan Challenge ratings would be fairly accurate with few exceptions.
-VR
@Very-Rusty saidI am totally with you on the issue and would prefer the different ratings.
Pondy,
I Believe we all know the ratings can be manipulated in many different ways, we both have been here long enough to know how it is done. One way is when you carry a lot of games. You don't even have to try to manipulate it is going to happen simply because of the amount of games being carried.
There are other ways and I proved it many years ago by carrying 6 ...[text shortened]... t count. At least then the Clan Challenge ratings would be fairly accurate with few exceptions.
-VR
I ahve to admit, that I would want epople having fun much more than people making a point in mximising "winning" (whateverythe winning parameter is). Sadly enough Metallica was a clan that did strike me as especially rubbing in the "win".
1 edit
@Ponderable saidMetallica had many people who had a lot of time for playing chess many of us were retired too or some of us were semi-retired which means a lot of time on our hands so were able to play many more games. Now some clans refuse to play us. So we would have to win a very high percentage of Clan Challenges to have a chance.
I am totally with you on the issue and would prefer the different ratings.
I ahve to admit, that I would want epople having fun much more than people making a point in mximising "winning" (whateverythe winning parameter is). Sadly enough Metallica was a clan that did strike me as especially rubbing in the "win".
I would say Breaking Bad is now the Clan to beat in my humble opinion, although one can never count Metallica out, even though we have to win a higher percentage of our challenges.
I think with the separate ratings would make things at least somewhat more even as far as match ups. The Clan Leaders who have been around for close to a few decades and a few a lot less than that already know most people's real ratings for match ups in challenges. Some do their home work and others don't really care that much.
I figure why even bother to play if your not playing to win??? Then that is my way of looking at it. Others may have a completely different way of looking at it.
-VR