22 Oct 10
Originally posted by Very RustyWe are in agreement 🙂 8 moves is not enough.
The draw situation: simply put, to create "preplanned" draws at 8 moves, would cost each participant its own rating, since all ratings are effected after only 3 moves. While there may be some who want to effect their personal rating for this, there are not enough to make cheating the system a viable move. 8 moves should be more than enough.
You may ...[text shortened]... obvious in Tournaments & Clan games when this is done, certainly changes the results in both.
Draws in less than 20 moves should be few and far between.
I am sure Russ & Co could easily ascertain the average number of moves per drawn game by taking the top say 200 players drawn games and then use this as a more realistic number.
However, a little preplanning and even draws in 20 moves are possible by making a limited number of genuine moves, if deep mode is used as all other moves would be made automatically. Unlikely to happen but always a possibility with a little collusion between players.
28 Oct 10
Originally posted by RussI am not going to rehearse the arguments I made in other threads but I do not see the merit of ranking based on net points. Quite how to generate the staggering net gains of the top clans is something I can't quite see but I still think fair challenges should emerge close to a 50:50 average in the long run.
The series of consultation votes last month illustrated how closely opinion was divided on some of the proposed changes to the clan tables, so we are not expecting everyone to warm to the updates.
What we do have now is a table focusing on annual position using net points as the default table view, rather than the gross wins from the start of time we had b ...[text shortened]... is that games must be played beyond move 8 if a draw is to result in any points being allocated.
Like other clans I'm sure, I often give games to weak clan members assuming they enjoy their games as much as the rest of us. If I am expected to start obsessing about the points sacrificed through the net points system, then I imagine I have to start de-selecting or even kicking players who are not winning enough - all a bit aggressive for my taste. I have a some players who have definitely improved a lot over a year or so and I assume their experience has been useful to them.
I am also sometimes prepared to take on a much stronger player, if that helps to produce an interesting challenge overall. It is hard to match every single player in a clan challenge unless I stick to very small challenges of 2 or 3 players. Again, must I start rejecting all challenging challenges because of the sanction from net points? I may also have to d-eselect myself for this reason!
With the system based simply on number of wins (with no penalty for defeats) I can have a mix of totally fair challenges where I should get some points and pretty difficult challenges where we won't get as many points - that seems more lively to me, more likely to be beneficial for players wanting to improve.
In that World, I accept that clan position is largely a function of clan activity levels, which in itself is perhaps an indication of a good clan or perhaps an indication that it is too much like work to play for them.
Truth is that clans really can compete best in the leagues - where we put our best team forward and accept that there are some tough opponents. That is the place where clans should be fighting for honours.
I wonder if it would also be fun to have a clan knockout tournament on the same basis?
But net points? Horrible.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 04
- Moves
- 186301
31 Oct 10
Originally posted by RussAnd?
The series of consultation votes last month illustrated how closely opinion was divided on some of the proposed changes to the clan tables, so we are not expecting everyone to warm to the updates.
What we do have now is a table focusing on annual position using net points as the default table view, rather than the gross wins from the start of time we had b ...[text shortened]... is that games must be played beyond move 8 if a draw is to result in any points being allocated.
- Joined
- 05 Jan 05
- Moves
- 687691
20 Nov 10
Originally posted by Mctaytothat is the case currently but hopefully for he 2011 season a lot more clan leaders will get a bit more savy and start checking the challenges they receive and hopefully rejecting all those that re far too lopsided. maybe then certain clans will find it much harder to milk points from the clans that do not bother checking out players ratings currently so allowing the huge build up of points from unfair challenges
The tables (by using annual net points) are simply a table to show in which clans most abuse the current system
21 Nov 10
Originally posted by Wycombe AlDream On :'( :'( :'(
that is the case currently but hopefully for he 2011 season a lot more clan leaders will get a bit more savy and start checking the challenges they receive and hopefully rejecting all those that re far too lopsided. maybe then certain clans will find it much harder to milk points from the clans that do not bother checking out players ratings currently so allowing the huge build up of points from unfair challenges
22 Nov 10
Originally posted by Wycombe AlMore chance of you and I reaching a 2000 rating by Christmas.
that is the case currently but hopefully for he 2011 season a lot more clan leaders will get a bit more savy and start checking the challenges they receive and hopefully rejecting all those that re far too lopsided. maybe then certain clans will find it much harder to milk points from the clans that do not bother checking out players ratings currently so allowing the huge build up of points from unfair challenges
It needs to be addressed by admin and it doesn't look like that is happening or likely to happen any time soon.
29 Nov 10
1 edit
The same half a dozen or so agitators keep springing up in various forums being critical of the way this site is run.
Their is Approx. 200,000 registered members, but 6 ( 0.003% ) or so of them want to flood these forums with their negativity.
Its getting real old. It would be nice to see you all just get banned and we can get onto playing chess as you should be, instead of micromanaging every clan and every other player on this fine site.
30 Nov 10
Originally posted by utherpendragonNot a surprising comment from a member of a clan at the top of the challenge table due to manipulating the challenge system in their favour. Of course you want me banned, it must be really annoying to have someone blow the whistle. Not that I ask for anyone in those clans to be banned, just a level playing field. As I said, no real surprise though.
The same half a dozen or so agitators keep springing up in various forums being critical of the way this site is run.
Their is Approx. [b]200,000 registered members, but 6 ( 0.003% ) or so of them want to flood these forums with their negativity.
Its getting real old. It would be nice to see you all just get banned and we can get ont ...[text shortened]... as you should be, instead of micromanaging every clan and every other player on this fine site.[/b]
30 Nov 10
Originally posted by GoggyYa okay. Its a conspiracy among the 20 members of the Metallica clan to "manipulate the challenge system" in their favor. That sounds so ridiculous.
Not a surprising comment from a member of a clan at the top of the challenge table due to manipulating the challenge system in their favour. Of course you want me banned, it must be really annoying to have someone blow the whistle. Not that I ask for anyone in those clans to be banned, just a level playing field. As I said, no real surprise though.
Many of us are in other clans and even have clans of our own. So what would be our motivation to conspire to game the system in favor of Metallica? Absurd!
As far as wanting YOU banned I dont recall ever naming names. You must then identify your self as one of the agitators who want to constantly slam this site and the way its run.
So, if thats the case and the shoe fits wear it!
30 Nov 10
Originally posted by utherpendragonNope, I never said that the whole clan was in a conspiracy. But clan leaders have been manipulating clan challenges for a while now. In fact your clan leader has admitted the fact (see 'Fair play award goes to........' thread in the clan section. And yes, I do identify myself as one of the few who stand up for fair play in clan challenges. If that's a banning offence, then so be it.
Ya okay. Its a conspiracy among the 20 members of the Metallica clan to "manipulate the challenge system" in their favor. That sounds so ridiculous.
Many of us are in other clans and even have clans of our own. So what would be our motivation to conspire to game the system in favor of Metallica? Absurd!
As far as wanting YOU banned I dont recal ...[text shortened]... stantly slam this site and the way its run.
So, if thats the case and the shoe fits wear it!
30 Nov 10
Originally posted by GoggyClan leaders have been manipulating clan challenges for a while now.
Nope, I never said that the whole clan was in a conspiracy. But clan leaders have been manipulating clan challenges for a while now. In fact your clan leader has admitted the fact (see 'Fair play award goes to........' thread in the clan section. And yes, I do identify myself as one of the few who stand up for fair play in clan challenges. If that's a banning offence, then so be it.
I believe since the beginning of the conception of clans this has been the case. They want their team to win, that is the bottom line.
Sometimes it can get out of hand in the quest to be the best!!
30 Nov 10
Originally posted by Very RustyGood point Very Rusty!
Clan leaders have been manipulating clan challenges for a while now.
I believe since the beginning of the conception of clans this has been the case. They want their team to win, that is the bottom line.
Sometimes it can get out of hand in the quest to be the best!!
As a clan leader myself, every challenge I get or give I check out every single player from the opposing team. 90 day/one year/ 5 year averages and highs. What is their record vs my players I am matching them against,etc,etc.
To be a effective clan leader you must do this in order to be successful.
As is stated by the admins "only create one if you are absolutely sure you want one. Managing a successful clan can be time consuming – you will effectively be managing the games of a number of people, and should take care not to over burden your strongest players."
Its a lot of work and should not be entered into lightly. I feel this is the problem we are having here with the same few agitators. They either are too lazy or incompetent to run a clan effectively.
Therefore they bash the clans who do, and bash the system and the entire site for not being "fair" ad nauseam.
Its quite pitiful actually. They really have no grasp of what competition is about or, the sport of Chess for that matter,by viewing their individual ranking nearly none are beyond the novice level.
That may sound insulting but I do not intend it to be. In less than 3 months We have moved our new clan from the last page to the third for net points.
Not by cheating or gaming the system but by playing good chess to the best of our ability.
Unless something changes drastically in our personal lives we will be on page one next year. Can we be number one or two? I have done the math and I highly doubt it.
Metallica and Amsterdam can/will be up there for two reasons. 1. They have leaders who oversee their clan on a daily basis (several times a day). 2. They have players who are committed to a very large clan game load and can really play chess pretty well at this level. More power to them! They are not "cheating" at all.
In closing, I would like to say we entered our first clan league. We got a pretty good team but the competition is stiff. I will be very happy to end in second place. Is that to say the first place team is cheating some how? Hell No! They just put together a stronger team, or so it seems ( its not over yet). We will give a congrats and try better next time.
Thats competition. What these few agitators keep trying to stir up and change things too is not competition.