Author: KarinsDad
Date: 07:51:27 06/30/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 30, 1999 at 10:21:55, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On June 30, 1999 at 09:46:06, blass uri wrote: > >> >>On June 30, 1999 at 08:52:59, Peter McKenzie wrote: >> >>>On June 30, 1999 at 08:27:30, blass uri wrote: >>> >>>>I think that there should be competitions when everyone must agree to play >>>>everyone. >>>> >>>>Rating of players should be based *only* on the results of these competitions. >>>> >>>>players who refuse to compete for a long time should have no rating. >>>>players who win a competition(except the winner of the strongest competition) >>>>can play next time in a competition of better rated players when players who >>>>lose will play next time in a competition of worse players. >>> >>>I don't like this idea, and fortunately it has zero chance of happening: >>> >>>People pay good money to play on ICC, having your rating calculated is a valued >>>part of the service provided. The rules you suggest would obviously make it >>>much less convenient for the majority of people to play rated games, therefore >>>they would be less likely to shell out their subscription money. Hmm, I wonder >>>if the nice folks at ICC want to drastically decrease their income? >> >>It is possible to have 2 rating systems. >> >>The reason for my idea is that I find that the rating is misleading if people >>can avoid playing specific opponents. >> >>Uri > > >I don't see how this can be helped. It has happened in human rating systems >since Elo hatched the idea. we have 'sandbaggers' (those who keep their rating >low so they can win class prizes in a class lower than they should be playing >in) and those with inflated ratings because they 'pick' their events to play >in. Always have had 'em... probably always will. > >ICC is _huge_. There is no way to 'enforce' what you suggest, because there is >no way to have an event with 50,000 players at one time. So the problem will >_always_ exist there... I don't know. It sounds feasible to me. There are currently ratings for Blitz and Standard chess. Why not have a rating for Tournament Blitz and Tournament Standard chess? The deflation/inflation problems will still be there to some extent, but not NEARLY as much as currently since if you join a tournament, you will have no control over who you play (of course, people could still cheat, but that's life). I do not agree with the original assertion that refusing to play would remove your rating. However, the rest of the idea has merit. And, you could even list the number of tournament games played: Joe Blow TS 2137 45 means that Joe has a tournament standard rating of 2137 after 45 games. KarinsDad :)
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.