Site Ideas
09 Mar 17
Originally posted by mghrn55All I can see is the end of the clan feature and many lost subscriptions thanks to robbie and his cheating collusion sidekicks find it hard to believe no action has been taken or even a statement issued if nothing is going to happen
I can just see a bunch of clans starting up in September of every year and taking the title.
No amnesty
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou are so two faced it is unreal. You argue both sides whenever it suits you.
Here is a challenge chosen at random. Metallica vs Tolkien Clan Clan challenge 287174
Here is the position as it stands,
Metallica won 4 games Tolkien clan won 3
Metallica get 8 Gross Points and Tolkien clan get 0
Difference is 8 Net Points for Metallica and -8 for Tolkien
I think we can agree that this does not accurately reflect the play ...[text shortened]... y clans that are as strong as they are instead of beating up on weaker rated clans all the time.
A challenge that ends 4-3 appears to be pretty even, unlike the 18-2 pastings you get from the sisters.
Once again, the ratings are all skewed here.
A strong clan that is top heavy (many players 1700+) against a clan that only has
low rated players (players with average ratings below 1300) can only be matched
if the top heavy clan has low enough rated players to match up against the other clan.
The 200 point gap rule exists to prevent the challenge you suggest.
So just because the overall clan rating is high, it does not suggest in any way,
that the lower rated players in their clan are not equivalent to the players in the other clan.
This is one reason this farcical menagerie of clan ELO ratings makes no sense at all.
You are too bull headed to see this.
Now, you want to penalize clans because they don't beat the crap out of the other clan.
Which is it going to be, even challenges, or landslides.
You will bitch either way.
Cut through the BS and make a rule that EVERY clan must play EVERY clan once before they can play any clan a second time.
That means you cannot continue to duck the better clans and you will be forced to play them.
Metallica is willing to play ANY clan, provided we can legally match up.
Of course, when clan leaders refuse to play, duck the the competition altogether
or want "edges" hard in their favor to play you won't get challenges against them.
Stop this and make it a requirement to play everyone.
All clans do not have to play for the title either, in fact, there are many who don't care
about it, or don't have a large enough clan to compete.
There should also be minimum sizes to clans in an effort balance the clans.
Either that or divide clans into large division and small division.
These are ways that will stop collusion dead.
They will balance the way challenges are constructed.
You just have to get over the fact that unless they develop an individual player rating
for EVERY player for CLAN CHESS ONLY, then ratings are not going to be valid.
Put this rating into place and there goes your McTayto fest sandbagging clinic.
Regarding scoring, figure out which way you want to argue, but not both sides of the fence.
If you want to make resignation of unnecessary games a thing of the past, then make them meaningful.
The only way to make them meaningful is to award EXTRA points for playing out the string.
You argue you don't want to see 12-0 challenges, but that is what you are asking for.
Or perhaps you could modify the scoring system like this.
If you have a 10 man challenge that totals 20 game.
Make the winning clan of that challenge get 10 points Plus 1 additional point for every win over 10 they achieve.
The losing clan would lose 1 point for every game they lose in the challenge above 10.
So in the example, clan A beats clan B 13 - 8.
Clan A wins 10 points plus 3 additional points for a net + 13.
Clan B loses the challenge. They get 0 points and lose 3 more for a net -3
Conversely, Clan A beats clan B 18 - 2
Clan A gets 10 points + 8 points for a net +18
Clan B gets 0 points and loses an additional 8 for a net -8
In a 3 man challenge Clan A beats Clan B 5-1
Clan A wins 3 +2 for a net +5
Clan B wins 0 and loses 2 additional for a -2
If Clan A wins 3.5 - 2.5
Clan A wins 3 and gets no additional bonus because it only achieved .5 above the line
Clan B wins 0 and loses no additional because they did not lose a full game.
The nets here would be Clan A +3 Clan B - 0
This cuts down on the points, makes playing out the string worthwhile.
Mission accomplished.
Making all clans play each other once before they can play any other clan a second time stops the collusion.
Also, to prevent a clan from refusing to enter into a timely challenge, you could place a mandatory acceptance time limit.
Now if you want to cut to the chase and get after it, here is a reasonable solution.
Originally posted by shortcircuitYou are so two faced it is unreal - Shortcircuit
You are so two faced it is unreal. You argue both sides whenever it suits you.
A challenge that ends 4-3 appears to be pretty even, unlike the 18-2 pastings you get from the sisters.
Once again, the ratings are all skewed here.
A strong clan that is top heavy (many players 1700+) against a clan that only has
low rated players (players with average r ...[text shortened]... e limit.
Now if you want to cut to the chase and get after it, here is a reasonable solution.
Actually I prefer the term objective.
I am not sure what all your bluster about 1700 rated players playing a clan with 1300 rated players is all about, the clan ELO is not based on the ELO of individual players in the clan, its based on your win to loss ratio and the relative strength of the clan you are playing. Why you fail to grasp this I cannot say. Think of a clan as being like a player in its own right. The clan wins more games against other clans and its rating goes up or down if it loses. Its completely unaffected by the individual ratings of the players in the clan itself.
If you win a greater ratio of games you will get more points. Its nothing to do with penalising anyone. It will infact prevent people from throwing games, taking premature draws etc all of which blighted the system as it stands. Don't you want a system that rewards good chess?
Why you want to force others to play every other clan is impractical, some clans simply do not have the time that is why they play fewer challenges and have time outs of 21 days. All your chest beating bluster about Metallica being willing to play anyone does not change this.
I am asking for nothing of the sort. If a challenge is won 12-0 then clearly this is an overwhelming disparity in relative strength between the participating clans. One is clearly much stronger than the other. If it is the case then it will be reflected in rating. What I want is that if the disparity is so much then the result doesn't count or counts for very little. So its just as when an 1800 rated player beats up on a 800 rated player they don't get any points for it. This will force clan leaders to seek fairer challenges against stronger clans making the system much more competitive at present. Don't you want a more competitive system?
Nothing you have said makes much sense and you seem to be harbouring some rather serious delusions. You have a win to loss ratio of 80% and under the ELO system you will theoretically do very well because its based on win to loss ratio.
Originally posted by roma45more inane drivel.
All I can see is the end of the clan feature and many lost subscriptions thanks to robbie and his cheating collusion sidekicks find it hard to believe no action has been taken or even a statement issued if nothing is going to happen
No amnesty
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou haven't tried to answer my question.
You are so two faced it is unreal - Shortcircuit
Actually I prefer the term objective.
I am not sure what all your bluster about 1700 rated players playing a clan with 1300 rated players is all about, the clan ELO is not based on the ELO of individual players in the clan, its based on your win to loss ratio and the relative strength of the clan ...[text shortened]... under the ELO system you will theoretically do very well because its based on win to loss ratio.
You have been whining for years about unbalanced challenges.
Here it is again. In a simple form.
Clan A has a clan rating of 1600
Clan B has a clan rating of 1200
They set a 1 player challenge where both players are rated at 1400.
Each clan has an equal chance of winning.
Why would clan B stand to gain 30 rating points while clan A stands to gain 2 rating points ??
The challenge is balanced because the player strengths are balanced.
Under this system, these 2 clans will never agree to this challenge meaning that the number of challenges will go down.
Originally posted by mghrn55Sigh. . . . because clan B is much lower rated and so clan A will not agree, therefore they will bounce the challenge and make it less lopsided by playing a challenge with someone closer to their own rating as happens in THE REAL WORLD between REAL chess players or they will include more players to lessen the impact of any chance of defeat.
You haven't tried to answer my question.
You have been whining for years about unbalanced challenges.
Here it is again. In a simple form.
Clan A has a clan rating of 1600
Clan B has a clan rating of 1200
They set a 1 player challenge where both players are rated at 1400.
Each clan has an equal chance of winning.
Why would clan B stand to ...[text shortened]... e 2 clans will never agree to this challenge meaning that the number of challenges will go down.
You do realise that clans bounce challenges all the time, in the REAL world, right?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou never bounce a challenge from your sister clans
Sigh. . . . because clan B is much lower rated and so clan A will not agree, therefore they will bounce the challenge and make it less lopsided by playing a challenge with someone closer to their own rating as happens in THE REAL WORLD between REAL chess players or they will include more players to lessen the impact of any chance of defeat.
You do realise that clans bounce challenges all the time, in the REAL world, right?
Hard to say no to collusion
No amnesty
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou just want a system where you can match your 1700 rated players against 1200 rated players and game the system like you did the beginning of last year with your 3 sister clans. Actually it was more like pitting 1900 rated players against 800 rated players of the opposing clan as I recall.
Sigh. . . . because clan B is much lower rated and so clan A will not agree, therefore they will bounce the challenge and make it less lopsided by playing a challenge with someone closer to their own rating as happens in THE REAL WORLD between REAL chess players or they will include more players to lessen the impact of any chance of defeat.
You do realise that clans bounce challenges all the time, in the REAL world, right?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe players are equally rated.
Sigh. . . . because clan B is much lower rated and so clan A will not agree, therefore they will bounce the challenge and make it less lopsided by playing a challenge with someone closer to their own rating as happens in THE REAL WORLD between REAL chess players or they will include more players to lessen the impact of any chance of defeat.
You do realise that clans bounce challenges all the time, in the REAL world, right?
That's what matters.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAt this point I will wait for Russ' thoughts.
Sigh. . . . because clan B is much lower rated and so clan A will not agree, therefore they will bounce the challenge and make it less lopsided by playing a challenge with someone closer to their own rating as happens in THE REAL WORLD between REAL chess players or they will include more players to lessen the impact of any chance of defeat.
You do realise that clans bounce challenges all the time, in the REAL world, right?
He may just have responded to your hysterics because he got tired of your incessant whining about sandbagging.
If he was really going to fix sandbagging, he would have looked at tournaments first.
- Joined
- 11 Nov 14
- Moves
- 34223
Originally posted by mghrn55And maybe he just looks at the mudslinging mess that you have all made of the 'Site Ideas' forum and thinks 'why bother' ??
At this point I will wait for Russ' thoughts.
He may just have responded to your hysterics because he got tired of your incessant whining about sandbagging.
If he was really going to fix sandbagging, he would have looked at tournaments first.
Thought the toddlers were supposed to have their tantrums in 'Clans'
Rollback, collusion, etc etc. Yawn
sorry (edit) ~ add 'sandbagging' yawn