Site Ideas
05 May 08
06 May 08
Originally posted by no1marauderAt the risk of inciting a riot, I don't agree with the need for a clan "rating" because it is far too easy to manipulate ratings. I also think it would serve to stratify the make up of the various clans to the detriment of the lower rated players. In the current system, there are advantages to having players in all ratings categories, although all clans do not elect to play it this way. Top heavy clans tend to find it more difficult to get challenges, except against other top heavy clans.
That's the LAME CLAN CHALLENGE SCORING SYSTEM, of course.
More than three years ago, Russ asked players to vote on the following question:
The current clan scoring system rewards clans for quantity of challenges played because there are no penalties for losing. Would [b]you like to see the current system replaced an ...[text shortened]... e every clan will have a shot.
Made sense then, makes sense now.[/b]
I do like the concept of changing the way "net points" are determined as I have stated before. I think there should be a penalty for losses and a reason to make all games have meaning. This can easily be done as I have suggested before.
I also believe that there should be rewards to be earned by clans that take on more challenges. It is more difficult to maintain high quality play in 100 simultaneous matches than it is in 3. The two cases are not equal and there should be a way to reward that. I am not sure what an equitble reward might be...perhaps some bonus points added to the total? This would offset some of the lost points they would expect due to high game load.
06 May 08
Originally posted by AmsterdamnI've made my proposal; in fact, I (and others) made it over 3 years ago. You can make yours any time.
Hi No1..
That's not asking for a new system, that is responding to somebody else's request..
But all's fine by me now.. slept well last night 🙂
But No1..
I guess it's more effective to actually have a vote on what system the community wants.. (instead of us having discussions which seem to lead to just discussions rather than solutions).
I t ...[text shortened]... t's not a necessity to let everybody start from zero..
Hope you like my addition here 🙂
06 May 08
Originally posted by shortcircuitHow exactly could one "manipulate" a clan rating??
At the risk of inciting a riot, I don't agree with the need for a clan "rating" because it is far too easy to manipulate ratings. I also think it would serve to stratify the make up of the various clans to the detriment of the lower rated players. In the current system, there are advantages to having players in all ratings categories, although all clans ...[text shortened]... e total? This would offset some of the lost points they would expect due to high game load.
How exactly does the proposal in the first post discourage having lower rated players?
Why should clans get "bonuses" for giving their players a 100 games? That's a "bad" thing if it leads to a player playing lower quality chess.
06 May 08
Originally posted by no1marauder1. Manipulating clan ratings would be more difficult than individual ratings, but could be done just the same. You set up a challenge while many of the players involved have falsely low ratings against a clan who currently has players playing at or near the highest ratings they have played. The team with the falsely low ratings, in theory, should be the stronger caliber and thus will have an edge in the match. If they are successful in the match, they would receive a higher ratings boost than they should receive and the other team would be penalized far more than the should have been. That is why the ratings mess is no nebulous. At best, it is a general range of play indicator.
How exactly could one "manipulate" a clan rating??
How exactly does the proposal in the first post discourage having lower rated players?
Why should clans get "bonuses" for giving their players a 100 games? That's a "bad" thing if it leads to a player playing lower quality chess.
2. If clans become more concerned with a clan "rating", then it will behoove them to stack up the more solid players in an effort to maintain the "rating". This would serve to be restrictive on the number of clans who you could challenge because of the inability to match up. Even though there would be a huge reward for the team than pits a 1200 rated player against a 1500 rated player, if sandbagging is not in the equation, the 1500 rated player should crush the 1200 rated player. Therefore, you will minimize the quantity of available options to play unless you set up some kind of a common structure or clan make up, which no one wants.
3. It would be a risk/reward scenario. You run the risk of making more mistakes, but you get rewarded if you pull it off. The concept isn't earth shaking, and it makes sense. You are not required to participate, but if you elect to, you can get rewarded. There are several players who want to study every move for 7 days before making the move. That is fine for them. I also realize this site was built originally as a "faster" postal chess site (eliminated the postal system while still allowing the same amount of study time). But, there is an ever increasing number of players who want faster play, some who want more quantity of play, some who want a combination of all of the above. Why can't we accomodate everyone on some scale and enhance the site further? Speed chess is not everyone's cup of tea. I much prefer OTB with clocks and without any outside aids (books, databases, computers, whatever). I have an advantage in that scenario. I am disadvantaged here because I do not use these tools when playing here. The opportunity is available to me, to be sure, but I elect not to use them. I am not advocating changing the system for players like me, but rather, make the system where it allows you to tailor your play as you like. Unfortunately, I am not a gifted computer programmer and cannot tell the site admins the way to program it in. I am merely conceptualizing a process.
06 May 08
Originally posted by no1marauderI agree with this. It is a risk reward. As long as you are only basing the scoring on total points and the modified net points, then larger challenges could provide an attraction. However, it they are tracking the number of challenges won as well, then there is no incentive not to make a 10 one on one challenges rather than one 10 on 10 challenge.
If there are bonus points awarded for the winner of the challenge based on the number of players in it, it does.
06 May 08
Originally posted by shortcircuit1. You can't set up any challenges without the other side believing they are fair. There's no system that will protect a clan from a very poor leader who doesn't bother to look at the ratings graphs.
1. Manipulating clan ratings would be more difficult than individual ratings, but could be done just the same. You set up a challenge while many of the players involved have falsely low ratings against a clan who currently has players playing at or near the highest ratings they have played. The team with the falsely low ratings, in theory, should be th ...[text shortened]... t tell the site admins the way to program it in. I am merely conceptualizing a process.
2. You don't understand the proposed system. The clan rating has no relationship to the average rating of players in the clan. If clans "stack up" with just higher rated players than they won't be able to schedule matches and won't be able to raise their clan rating. So they'll do the same thing smart clans do now; try to balance their clan with players of all different ratings.
3. The system is set up so that people can do what they like as regards games, but you wanted a reward for massive amount of games being played to make up for the inevitable reduction in quality of play. This makes no sense; if you or others want to handicap their play by playing 100-150 games that's up to you, but there's no reason you or your clan should get extra compensation for doing so.
06 May 08
Originally posted by no1marauderIt would be more of a reward for a degree of difficulty factor, if you will. Without the possibility of reward, there would be no benefit in trying it. If you only penalize for trying it, then you will thwart a portion of your subscriber base who desire larger loads, because it will place them at a disadvantage. Why couldn't we make it where everyone could choose their own niche'?
3. The system is set up so that people can do what they like as regards games, but you wanted a reward for massive amount of games being played to make up for the inevitable reduction in quality of play. This makes no sense; if you or others want to handicap their play by playing 100-150 games that's up to you, but there's no reason you or your clan should get extra compensation for doing so.
06 May 08
Originally posted by shortcircuitBecause arranging your games in a way that makes it far more likely that you will play inferior chess to what you otherwise could have, shouldn't be rewarded in a scoring system based on how well a clan and it's players have performed.
It would be more of a reward for a degree of difficulty factor, if you will. Without the possibility of reward, there would be no benefit in trying it. If you only penalize for trying it, then you will thwart a portion of your subscriber base who desire larger loads, because it will place them at a disadvantage. Why couldn't we make it where everyone could choose their own niche'?
06 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderObviously we different viewpoints here. The risk vs reward is the spice, It causes it to be more enticing.
Because arranging your games in a way that makes it far more likely that you will play inferior chess to what you otherwise could have, shouldn't be rewarded in a scoring system based on how well a clan and it's players have performed.
06 May 08
Before discussing manipulations, please ensure whether non-manipulated system is stable and measures something. The rating system in which after the match both players/teams have rating randomly changed is in no way vulnerable to manipulation.
This is of course joke, but I do not feel the system offered here (based on individual ratings plus arbitrarly picked premium) is convergent to anything
06 May 08
Originally posted by MekkI don't know whether that is an endorsement or a critique. Please explain.
Before discussing manipulations, please ensure whether non-manipulated system is stable and measures something. The rating system in which after the match both players/teams have rating randomly changed is in no way vulnerable to manipulation.
This is of course joke, but I do not feel the system offered here (based on individual ratings plus arbitrarly picked premium) is convergent to anything
10 May 08
Originally posted by no1marauderNot a bad idea.
That's the LAME CLAN CHALLENGE SCORING SYSTEM, of course.
More than three years ago, Russ asked players to vote on the following question:
The current clan scoring system rewards clans for quantity of challenges played because there are no penalties for losing. Would [b]you like to see the current system replaced an ...[text shortened]... e every clan will have a shot.
Made sense then, makes sense now.[/b]
10 May 08
Originally posted by no1marauderHow exactly could one "manipulate" a clan rating??
How exactly could one "manipulate" a clan rating??
How exactly does the proposal in the first post discourage having lower rated players?
Why should clans get "bonuses" for giving their players a 100 games? That's a "bad" thing if it leads to a player playing lower quality chess.
Intentionally losing games outside of clan challenges so as to increase the "rating disparity" bonus IN clan challenges.