Originally posted by robbie carrobieCollusion has nothing to do with matching against lower rated players.
I disagree, if there is a rating system in place which tackles sandbagging, clans and players throwing games etc by making it detrimental for them to do so then why is this idea of a committee needed? the system will take care of itself. Artificially drop your rating and your clan suffers. Throw games and your clan suffers. Create lopsided challenge ...[text shortened]... d need a committee to explain or implement it I cannot say and neither it seems can anyone else.
Collusion can just as easily occur between equally rated players.
And it has occurred in 2016.
A player can let his clock run out irregardless of the strength of his opponent.
We have seen it happen frequently.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI am telling you because you held him up to be one of the good guys
why are you telling me? I want to address the practice by adopting an ELO based system that would prevent players from doing so and unlike some of those who have expressed an opinion I am not so partisan. You want to get rid of collusion, sandbagging and people throwing games then adopt an ELO based system, if you don't then stop making complaints about a system that is open to these types of abuse.
Originally posted by mghrn55Can you tell the forum what the point is of colluding with clans that have players who are higher rated and losing the entire challenge, no? well what are you talking about?
Collusion has nothing to do with matching against lower rated players.
Collusion can just as easily occur between equally rated players.
And it has occurred in 2016.
A player can let his clock run out irregardless of the strength of his opponent.
We have seen it happen frequently.
An ELO performance based system will make collusion worthless because there will be no point in playing anything other than fair challenges, if you cannot grasp this simple concept I don't hold out much hope for you.
letting your clock run out you will lose the game and your clans ELO will be adversely effected.
06 Jan 17
Originally posted by Steve45I fundamentally disagree see my previous post in this thread. Leagues are seperate from the clan challenge system. As it is possible to have two twenty man clans participate in a one player challenge against each other why should a lone wolf clan be barred from doing so?
I think it,s reasonable to have a clan minimum of four players in a team. In the league,s we have four and six player clan,s, so until you recruit four player,s, you can't play a challenge.
Originally posted by RagwortThat,s different because the clan leaders are choosing a 1 vs 1 challenge from a squad of players. As I said, I would like clans to have a minimum of 4 players. Clan is another word for team, and in my humble opinion, one player does not make a team. You may as well just offer an open invite challenge.
I fundamentally disagree see my previous post in this thread. Leagues are seperate from the clan challenge system. As it is possible to have two twenty man clans participate in a one player challenge against each other why should a lone wolf clan be barred from doing so?
06 Jan 17
Originally posted by Steve45Leagues require 6 and 4 man teams. Challenges as yet do not. If you insist on having a minimum number in a clan before a challenge can be played then you must insist on a minimum number in a challenge. All that will do is further restrict the options to play and in the case of stronger players further reduce the available pool of potential clan opponents to a trickle. Just click on the ratings table on the page where the 2000 players start. See how few of them are subscribers and then how few of those are in a clan and you'll see what I mean. I think that Russ should only introduce the minimum number of new restrictions to deal with collusion and sand bagging. There is no reason why a one on one challenge should be unfair.
That,s different because the clan leaders are choosing a 1 vs 1 challenge from a squad of players. As I said, I would like clans to have a minimum of 4 players. Clan is another word for team, and in my humble opinion, one player does not make a team. You may as well just offer an open invite challenge.
This thread is here because of the fact that a few people do not sit down at the chess table with the idea that they are going to play to win and as such undermine the fabric of the site if not the universe. In the BPCF days (postal) this action would be termed an announced withdrawal and come with a 6 month ban and a doubled entry fee for the next tournament and would have applied to the sandbaggers resigning games on one part of the site, clan members dumping games after a challenge is decided, as well as clan members gifting games and challenges in favour of one clan. None of which treats an opponent, who may have put some time into analysis or research, with any respect.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf you are looking for specifics, I can point out quite a few collusion challenges where players were evenly matched.
Can you tell the forum what the point is of colluding with clans that have players who are higher rated and losing the entire challenge, no? well what are you talking about?
An ELO performance based system will make collusion worthless because there will be no point in playing anything other than fair challenges, if you cannot grasp this simple ...[text shortened]... letting your clock run out you will lose the game and your clans ELO will be adversely effected.
And one player would just resign his games against his opponent in order to hand challenges to one clan.
The fix Russ implemented in January fixed the obscene rating mismatches.
But it did not stop one player from tossing a game against an evenly matched opponent.
And to take this one step further, players (one in particular) did not even bother moving a piece and letting the timeout occur.
This kind of game would not qualify as a rated game as it did not reach the required 3 moves.
Such a player is not sandbagging as the rating is not changed.
But the clan points are being manufactured in favor of one clan in the collusion.
Collusion is separate from sandbagging for this reason.
The concept is that simple.
And the majority of the forum audience has grasped this.
I'm not losing sleep over the fact that you don't.
Originally posted by mghrn55Ok I understand what you are saying now. However consider this. If a player, matched in a challenge against someone with an identical rating throws his game by prematurely resigning his clan will lose the rating difference. The other clan will gain the rating difference and the player who won the challenge, his rating will go up. This cannot go on indefinitely because the player will reach a zenith above his real chess ability and he will start to lose those points that were unfairly given to him by the colluding player. The system thus self regulates and colluding is negated. I must also point out that a single game will not be able to decide an entire challenge, as it does at present. Clan leaders will then be forced to take greater risks to gain greater points and we will have a much more exciting time.
If you are looking for specifics, I can point out quite a few collusion challenges where players were evenly matched.
And one player would just resign his games against his opponent in order to hand challenges to one clan.
The fix Russ implemented in January fixed the obscene rating mismatches.
But it did not stop one player from tossing a game again ...[text shortened]... ty of the forum audience has grasped this.
I'm not losing sleep over the fact that you don't.
06 Jan 17
Originally posted by Steve45If you can't play challenges before you recruit a minimum number into your clan then you reduce the capability of that leader to recruit as his first members can't get challenges, can't evaluate the clan potential etc
I think it,s reasonable to have a clan minimum of four players in a team. In the league,s we have four and six player clan,s, so until you recruit four player,s, you can't play a challenge.
Further to this others have muted a reduction in the number of clans that a member is allowed to join thus reducing in effect gameload without adding the prospect of joining a clan unable/allowed to start challenges until a minimum number of membership achieved.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhy do people want an adjudication committee? Because there is a lack of trust here, and because, to restore trust, justice must be seen to have been done.
I disagree, if there is a rating system in place which tackles sandbagging, clans and players throwing games etc by making it detrimental for them to do so then why is this idea of a committee needed? the system will take care of itself. Artificially drop your rating and your clan suffers. Throw games and your clan suffers. Create lopsided challenge ...[text shortened]... d a committee to explain or implement it I cannot say and neither it seems can anyone else. [/i]