Originally posted by gezzaAt this level of detail chess becomes unenjoyable
Hiya.
I'm always good for discussions about rating; we all have our weaknesses.
I do try and do my research, so that at least I appear to know what I am talking about.
There is a general downward slope from 23rd Oct, but if you were to have looked from 4th Sept until 4th Oct, then the picture is different. I guess I am saying that your opponent may well ...[text shortened]... rfect, but some suggestions could break it for everyone (hyper-rating inflation).
Cheers, Gezza
Lighten up fellas!!
I sympathize with the OP.
Some players' rating indeed plummets dramatically due to lots of timeouts, and unfortunately they affect other RHP players' chess experience as well. There seems to be no good solution to accomodate those "timeouters". If a 1650-level player has a rating of 1100, you don't want him to play in 1100-banded tournament, because he will likely defeat everyone there easily spoiling their experience. You don't want him to play in a 1600-banded tournament either, because if he wins from a 1600-rated player, the rating of the latter will take an unfair dive as he lost to a 1300-rated player who has actually a level of 1650.
I think RHP is the chess site that is most friendly towards timeouts (with the system of timebanks and skulls), but it seems to backfire a bit. To make a constructive suggestion: RHP could do the following (similar to other chess sites):
1) Introduce for every player a timeout rate, defined as the fraction of games you lost due to timeout during the last 90 days. Use this timeout rate as a prerequisite for (at least some) tournaments. For example, only people with a timeout rate lower than 15% can participate.
2) You may also introduce "Timeouters Redemption Tournaments", where people with poor timeout rates can still play in a tournament.
3) Make vacation available to non-subscribers as well. Not doing this will likely make games of non-subscribers during vacation timeout, and this will affect badly the subscribers as well. Not only is it no fun to not being able to finish a game, you also don't really want your rating to go artifically up because of a timeout of your opponent; you want to earn those rating points!
For the sake of clarity, I'm not trying to make RHP look more like other chess sites (I like the distinct atmosphere here), but in my opinion it does strike a better balance between being lenient towards timeouts (featuring timebanks and skulls) and not being too lenient towards timeouts to let it affect other people's rating.
Originally posted by TowerwoodNumber one is a very good idea, certainly it's feasible and easy to implement I'd imagine. Number two would be interesting.
I sympathize with the OP.
Some players' rating indeed plummets dramatically due to lots of timeouts, and unfortunately they affect other RHP players' chess experience as well. There seems to be no good solution to accomodate those "timeouters". If a 1650-level player has a rating of 1100, you don't want him to play in 1100-banded tournament, because he ...[text shortened]... s and skulls) and not being too lenient towards timeouts to let it affect other people's rating.
Number three will never happen, no matter its merits, as 'vacation flags' are essentially paid for here...they are a primary 'tool' with which to attract subscribers, and I'm afraid that that is likely to continue.
Tournament 17084 is a textbook example of what's wrong with the rating system as it applies to entry in banded tournaments. Intent on gaming the system, or honest belief that you've forgotten to play chess, is irrelevant; imagine how the player who belongs in that band feels about playing out this final round against someone who clearly should never have been allowed to enter the tournament.
Originally posted by KewpieThat's hilarious. The much-ballyhooed Tournament Entry Rating was supposed to prevent this from happening, but - surprise! - it gets what a half-arsed solution deserves.
Tournament 17084 is a textbook example of what's wrong with the rating system as it applies to entry in banded tournaments. Intent on gaming the system, or honest belief that you've forgotten to play chess, is irrelevant; imagine how the player who belongs in that band feels about playing out this final round against someone who clearly should never have been allowed to enter the tournament.
Originally posted by KewpieIt would appear that the player in question had over a year away and so came back with a novice rating
Tournament 17084 is a textbook example of what's wrong with the rating system as it applies to entry in banded tournaments. Intent on gaming the system, or honest belief that you've forgotten to play chess, is irrelevant; imagine how the player who belongs in that band feels about playing out this final round against someone who clearly should never have been allowed to enter the tournament.
Would even a flooring system have prevented it ?
Originally posted by padgerHaving thought a bit more about this he or she could have come back as new player.
It would appear that the player in question had over a year away and so came back with a novice rating
Would even a flooring system have prevented it ?
Perhaps banded tournaments should have a system where if the band that a player is in is exceeded they should be bumped up to the next band and the second player in the group continues
Originally posted by KewpieThis could lock at a high rating if a player starts high after the provisional period.
If the TER was an all-time number instead of just the last 365 days, he'd never have been able to do it. Possibly the TER could be something like highest-ever less 200 points, so that you don't price yourself out of the market accidentally with a long run of wins.
Originally posted by padgerI don't get the "new player" thing either.
What about my second idea that he/she could have come back as a new player ?
The bump up to the next level would solve all problems
Bumping is not going to work. If the system is working off an artificially-reduced TER it won't bump.