Author: Pete Galati
Date: 08:20:54 06/30/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 30, 1999 at 10:51:27, KarinsDad wrote: >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 :) Would somebody pleas explain to me why these ratings are needed? I'm quite sure that I have a very narrow focus on the whole thing, but I really don't see what they are being used for. If it's a marketing thing, then it does not seem to apply well to most programs?-most of which are not comercial as I see it. Pete
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.