Originally posted by moonbusThank you, thank you so much.
Yes. The explanation is this:
The crucial insight is that collusion is merely a symptom of a fundamental flaw in the way clan standings are calculated. At present, clan standings are based on bulk wins. This tends to favor: a) large clans which play short timeouts and b) clans which play each other over and over again (i.e., collusion).
By pegging cla ...[text shortened]... ffectively render both phenomena irrelevant before the fact by removing the motivation for them.
Further clarification: Why collusion won't work anymore once clan standings are pegged to ratings.
Suppose Clan A and Clan B collude to play each other over and over again, with Clan A being fed easy wins because Clan B players keep resigning games (even won games). Clan B's standing will plummet; therefore, Clan A's gain from beating Clan B will decrease with every challenge. Whereas, Clans C,D,E,F and so on, which are not colluding or being fed easy wins, will pull away from Clan A by playing evenly matched challenges.
There won't be any points to remove at the end of the season because Clan A's standing will have increased only incrementally (by playing an increasingly weaker feeder-clan) compared to other clans which played even matches; that is, the collusion itself will be its own penalty, no further penalty will be required.
Most folk on here are proposing suggestions that help their way of playing and hamper their opposition.
To improve the situation you require a level playing field that can't be abused by any clan or any individual.
1. Change from a clan system to a league system
2. Only the winning margin should count as a score ie score 10-6 = 4 points for the winning clan/team
3. All draws count as zero
4. Different rating for clan, club & tournaments
5. Any player awol for 30 days or longer is automatically unavailable for challenges
A league system could begin with either ten or twenty clans/teams per division
Bottom/top 2 of each division relegated/promoted.
Originally posted by moonbusreally good ideas
Yes. The explanation is this:
The crucial insight is that collusion is merely a symptom of a fundamental flaw in the way clan standings are calculated. At present, clan standings are based on bulk wins. This tends to favor: a) large clans which play short timeouts and b) clans which play each other over and over again (i.e., collusion).
By pegging cla ...[text shortened]... ffectively render both phenomena irrelevant before the fact by removing the motivation for them.
slight flaw how do you stop time out collusion
if a clan resigns straight off which has happened this year or using a player who has not moved in months again this tactic has been used this year
ratings will remain unaltered so it can be done again and again
removing points would bring back some sort of integrity to the clan system what was allowed to happen was a joke. it would be justice to see those involved waste their time and effort for nothing, not looking to get any player banned.
- Joined
- 12 Nov 05
- Moves
- 145614
Originally posted by MctaytoI quite like some of these suggestions - however a clan league and a clan system would have a different number of games going at one time which is usually why some people elect not to play in the clan leagues.
Most folk on here are proposing suggestions that help their way of playing and hamper their opposition.
To improve the situation you require a level playing field that can't be abused by any clan or any individual.
1. Change from a clan system to a league system
2. Only the winning margin should count as a score ie score 10-6 = 4 points for the winning ...[text shortened]... either ten or twenty clans/teams per division
Bottom/top 2 of each division relegated/promoted.
How often would you have the leagues change over? (is it a timeframe or based on timebank?)
The other 4 peints i agree with personally
31 Dec 16
Originally posted by Mctayto6] if a game is won by time out without the other player moving then no point is awarded
Most folk on here are proposing suggestions that help their way of playing and hamper their opposition.
To improve the situation you require a level playing field that can't be abused by any clan or any individual.
1. Change from a clan system to a league system
2. Only the winning margin should count as a score ie score 10-6 = 4 points for the winning ...[text shortened]... either ten or twenty clans/teams per division
Bottom/top 2 of each division relegated/promoted.
I would go for the 'winning margin' idea personally.
Plus, I would appoint a couple of moderators you can trust to oversee and investigate clans and tournaments. They should have the power to suspend and close down clans and remove points. Any constant individual offenders should be banned from the site. 90% of clan leaders and clan members are heartily sick at all that has been going on for several years - and we deserve better - and we deserve better input from you Russ.
As an aside, you should also ban McTayto from tournament play. This one individual has destroyed all the enjoyment of tournament play for anyone with a rating of 1250 or below. I only try and enter a tournament that he hasn't signed up for these days.
Exactly how much longer are you going to permit this.
Originally posted by HopsterI have pointed this out in the past.
As an aside, you should also ban McTayto from tournament play. This one individual has destroyed all the enjoyment of tournament play for anyone with a rating of 1250 or below. I only try and enter a tournament that he hasn't signed up for these days.
Exactly how much longer are you going to permit this.
While not relevant to the clan issue,
individuals who enter tournaments and then resign their games en-masse are taking spots in the tournament away from subscribers who actually want to play tournament chess.
This continued behavior will negatively impact revenue for this site.
Originally posted by moonbussorry but your suggestion will not stop clans from colluding. The reason is that clans can gift points to a specific clan, but play it straight against other clans, thereby avoiding reducing their overall clan rating while rolling over for their favored clan.
Further clarification: Why collusion won't work anymore once clan standings are pegged to ratings.
Suppose Clan A and Clan B collude to play each other over and over again, with Clan A being fed easy wins because Clan B players keep resigning games (even won games). Clan B's standing will plummet; therefore, Clan A's gain from beating Clan B will decrease ...[text shortened]... hes; that is, the collusion itself will be its own penalty, no further penalty will be required.
The only way to avoid collusion is to limit the number of points any clan can capture from another clan during a calendar year. Trust me on this, if there is any possible loophole, Robbie and his 3 sister clans will find it and exploit it during 2017 as they aptly did in 2016.
I logged on this morning to message from Wycombe Al saying that because of the situation on this site with regards to the Clan problems and also the sand bagging he is leaving
I think he may be a bit early in his judgement but I can see where he is coming from
I am waiting to see how this will pan out before I follow him
Originally posted by my2sonsFurther explanation how pegging clan standings to individuals' ratings would work. The key words are: collective net ratings change. I will unpack this piece by piece.
sorry but your suggestion will not stop clans from colluding. The reason is that clans can gift points to a specific clan, but play it straight against other clans, thereby avoiding reducing their overall clan rating while rolling over for their favored clan.
The only way to avoid collusion is to limit the number of points any clan can capture from anoth ...[text shortened]... Robbie and his 3 sister clans will find it and exploit it during 2017 as they aptly did in 2016.
Rating: means the rating of each individual clan member. Nothing new here, everyone knows what this is and how it is calculated (there is a formula, it is provisional at first, etc.). The only provisio is that individuals' clan ratings must be isolated from tournament and general ratings at RHP (to prevent players from entering tournaments and dumping their ratings by resigning games en mass in order to enter a clan challenge with an artificially low rating).
Change: means that when you win a game your rating goes up, when you lose a game your rating goes down, when you draw a game your rating also changes, depending on the rating of your opponent. Nothing new here, everyone knows what this is and how it is calculated (some anomalies appear during the provisional period, but the ratings soon stabilize).
Net means this: suppose a player starts a game with a rating of 1300, beats his opponent, and his rating goes up to 1310. The net change is +10. Suppose a player starts the clan season with a rating of 1300; ya win some, ya lose some, and the rating at the end of the season is 1410. The net change for the season is +110.
Collective: because we're tallying multiple ratings of many clan members, we need to take account of all the ratings of the members of any given clan and subtract total losses from total wins.
Putting the pieces all together:
Suppose Clan A has two members who start the season with the following ratings Player A1 2000, Player A2 2200. They win some, they lose some, they draw some. At the end of the season their ratings are A1 2100, A2 2150. So, A1's net rating change is +100, A2's net rating change is -50. The collective net rating change for the whole clan is therefore +50.
Suppose Clan B has five members who start the season with the following ratings: B1 1100, B2 1200, B3 1300, B4 1400, B5 1500. They win some, they lose some, they draw some. Ratings at the end of the season are: B1 1175, B2 1275, B3 1200, B4 1700, B5 1400. The net change for each is as follows: B1 -25, +75, B3 -100, B4 +300, B5 -100. Add up the net losses and the net gains, you get the following: -225, +375. This means that the collective net change for the whole clan for the season is +150.
Thus, Clan B has a higher score than Clan A in this example.
The advantages of this system of clan ranking, over bulk wins, are as follows:
1. It is neutral with respect to clan size. Neither large clans nor small clans are favored. (shortcircuit's suggestion of a minimum clan size should be considered). It creates a level playing field.
2. It is neutral with respect to absolute ratings. Neither clans with a large number of 2000+ players nor clans with a large number of 1000- players are favored. It creates a level playing field.
3. The system encourages players, at whatever rating, to play for wins, because this increases their ratings and thereby their clan's standing. There is nothing to be gained by dropping games which might yet be won or drawn. There is nothing to be gained by repeatedly thrashing the same clan over and over. Sandbagging and collusion become irrelevant. Put simply, the best way to increase a clan's standing is to play good chess. This encourages clan solidarity by encouraging players to analyze their games together, stronger players to help weaker clan members by coaching them to improve their game, and so on.
4. Reply to my2sons: A proviso has already been mooted, that a maximum number of same-clan-same-players challenges be allowed to count. This will obviate collusion.
5. In case there are several clans with equal scores (equal collective net ratings changes) at the end of a season, some sort of tie-breaker system might be adopted. There is an international precedent for this. See for example the final standings at the 2016 Chess Olympiad at Baku
http://chess-results.com/tnr232875.aspx?lan=1&art=0&rd=11&flag=30&wi=821
Several different tie-breaks were employed to determine the ultimate winners of the team tournament at Baku. To be discussed, which of those (or some other) might be appropriate at RHP.
Further comment would be appreciated.
Cheers and Happy New Year,
moonbus
31 Dec 16
Originally posted by roma45Good point. I'll give this a ponder at the weekend. Talk to you next year.
really good ideas
slight flaw how do you stop time out collusion
if a clan resigns straight off which has happened this year or using a player who has not moved in months again this tactic has been used this year
ratings will remain unaltered so it can be done again and again
31 Dec 16
1 edit
Originally posted by padgerI let my subscription expire in Sept. I too am waiting to see how this pans out.
I logged on this morning to message from Wycombe Al saying that because of the situation on this site with regards to the Clan problems and also the sand bagging he is leaving
I think he may be a bit early in his judgement but I can see where he is coming from
I am waiting to see how this will pan out before I follow him
One of the great strengths, potentially, of a clan system is that it could, if done right, create a level playing field for clans of different sizes and ratings bands. So a clan with 1500max players would have the same chance of doing well as a clan of 2000+ players. Otherwise it is just discouraging to clans with lower-rated players.
The alternative, I suppose, is to force all clans to be the same size and to play round robins, but I don't think people here want level of rigidity.