chess online
| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
 Artificially low ratings |
||
|
|
||
|
Unfair discrimination Bob |
||
|
Also my opinion rjacobs, you are right that ratings can drop in "a fair way" So, how to recognize the difference? Go to the past game history of someone of who you think that has an artificially low rating and look at the lost games.... much is going to be clear. I know (at least) one player who regularly drops his rating by resigning games that are not even past the 10th move, other games than team games of course.... But I know also people (yes, also in my team) that lose, keep on losing, until they drop that deep that they are challenged to players they can handle again, and than start to win again. There is no harm in that. |
||
|
There is little we can do There is little we can do but post here the names of famous cheaters and try to avoid them in matches. No I don't think I have the nerve to check the past games history of all challenging players. I put up that there will always be rating manipulators and software users. I guess it is a part of the game. |
||
|
Seriously I think it is not the goal of this site. The goal is to play chess. To make it more fun, GK makes tournaments, mini-tournaments, league, ladder, teams. If you want to score by false ratings and such, you have to ask yourself why you do this, and the answer is NOT "for the love of the game"!! It is all about playing chess, improve your skills, or just having fun. Cheating is low, and if you feel good because you win more when you do, it is a bit pitiful!! One should be ashamed! |
||
|
maca 11-Mar-10, 13:04 |
... And if a captain sometimes makes a pairing like this that seems shifty to you, then on 99% probability they're not cheating intentionally. Different captains go through different rules. I for example go mainly by the current rating. I really don't have time to always check the backgrounds off all the participating players, although I do some checks occasionally. Regards, MaCa. |
||
|
alexlexmark |
||
|
Addressing the issue: Within your own teams, how do you address this issue? It certainly is an earmark of sportsmanship but where as Capts do we draw the line? I have and will check ratings/averages - and try to only assign them to like players but it's still an issue... I have even at times with teams I have come to respect will decline cause I know my own player is far to strong... but sometimes it goes through and it doesnt look so good... Thoughts? |
||
|
grege79 26-Jul-10, 16:43 |
If I offer players up for a challenge, I state they have artificially low ratings and give a +200 ratings difference to allow a match. However players like zebutom are a problem. I only offer him for stronger players, however I am getting challenges accepted with similar players 200 below their top rating, I just decline now. With all of my challenges, I state +/- 50 top and current, but it is amazing the amount of challenges I get well outside of this criteria. If it is close I will still accept, but I still find myself declining a fair few. I have this posted in my forum " My rating is coping a battering! Well my rating has been absolutely decimated over the last week! But it is a good example to highlight artificially low ratings. When I am matched for team challenges it would be based on comparing my top (1370) and average (1315) rather than my current (1193) which is obviously less than my ability. The drop is due to me taking on just a few too many games! Round about 80 at the moment, my normal level is about 20. Feel free to post here if you feel your rating is artificially low or high. Alternately if you wish to be matched with higher opponents for a challenge let me know and I will arrange it. Regards, Greg " But it is hard, sometimes I accept without fully checking out the match, or sometimes I offer before fully checking out my own players. There are some teams that have been really consistent with fair matching, such as smashedcrabs, phoenix, checkmate etc.. and I like to play these teams. But the other problem is that what is considered "fair" varies between captains. I may decline a challenge, but an opposing captain may feel the challenge was fair. I once tried to match an opposing player of 1300, top 1370 with a player from my team of 1100, top rating 1350. The opposing captain declined, because he thought the match was unfair due to the ratings hit his player would take if he lost. Most wouldn't see it that way, but it highlights the differences in opinions between captains. Explaining why a challenge was declined helps, but I must admit to not bothering anymore, I have this on the homepage "Information for challenging Captains/Co-captains * Challenges will only be accepted if they are deemed fair (+/- 50 current or top if a discrepancy is present), based on both current and top rating, if they are not fair challenges they will be declined with no reason given, be honorable in your challenges." I don't know if I have players that deliberately manipulate their ratings, but I would ask them the question if I suspected. Easy way to tell is to compare the players rating and their team rating, if you are looking at a difference greater than 100, something is up. The other issue, and one I myself am guilty of, is a percentage difference in overall wins vs team games wins. I have about 42% for normal games, but my team games are 60%. I think this is because I play some higher rated players in tournies and challenge games, as well as the fact I did not start playing team games till I had a better idea of the game of chess. But an easy way to check this one out is to look at the players team games history, mine shows way too many losses vs 1100-1280 rated opponents, and it is starting to level out. But I think some players deliberately play in a higher bracket outside of team games in order to maintain a lower rating for team challenges. But all in all, I think most players are here to do the right thing and are here to have some fun, team games tend to be one of the harder forms as people really put in a lot of effort, especially if you come against the mighty Fighting Warriors! Greg |
||
|
maca 28-Jul-10, 11:01 |
grege79 This is actually not the case. Almost every team player I've checked has a team rating way lower than their overall rating, and it might easily be a difference of 300 points. I myself have 1492 team rating and 1832 overall rating. But that's just because team ratings tend to be lower than the overall ratings. I believe this has something to do with the way the concept of team rating was introduced. I'm guessing they gave everyone a starting team rating of 1200 to begin with, regardless of what their overall rating was at the time. Regards, MaCa. |
||
|
grege79 28-Jul-10, 15:24 |
|
||
|
thinking.... In regards to setting team matches, I'll always check before accepting the match -- but rarely check my own prior to sending out. For the most part I know those that are at/above or below their true ratings... I usually rely on the other capt to decline as needed or match if they have someone in the same situation. I also tend to lean towards declining a match with players that have averages competitive to my players - but have for some reason fallen sharply on their own ratings... In the event it's a loss, the hit on ratings is pretty significant. And... if it's a win, there's no gain on a personal level other than its 'one for the team'. In addressing a player that has a 'complicated' history in ratings - Is it fair to the player for a captain to start checking on games outside of 'team games' and question the motives? I have a few players that typically join tournaments and for whatever reason time out. OR - for some reason resign a winning game... (all outside of team stuff) and by my addressing it - maybe a very fine line... I dont know... is it to much - That could be a lot of babysitting.... |
||
|
bharryb 30-Jul-10, 06:58 |
That said I've looked over some players records and they resign practically all their standard games and win all their team games because they are playing 1100 rated players and have a real rating of 1500+ ''The other issue, and one I myself am guilty of, is a percentage difference in overall wins vs team games wins. I have about 42% for normal games, but my team games are 60%. I think this is because I play some higher rated players in tournies and challenge games, as well as the fact I did not start playing team games till I had a better idea of the game of chess. But an easy way to check this one out is to look at the players team games history, mine shows way too many losses vs 1100-1280 rated opponents, and it is starting to level out. But I think some players deliberately play in a higher bracket outside of team games in order to maintain a lower rating for team challenges. '' What about effort?. Some people focus a lot more on their team games than their standard games. Meaning they win more team games then standard games, especially over long periods of time |
||
|
unfair matchups abound in Open Challenges what makes this extra frustrating is that every Open Challenge I list I add the comment "Fair matchups only please - past 90 day ratings for your players to be no higher than 75 points above mine please" yet this is either (accidentally) missed or (deliberately) ignored. all my open challenges are set at 50 pts difference. I am yet to be offered open challenge matchups by opposing captains where the 90 day rating is to my advantage so I would probably be right in saying that these unevenly weighted 'matchups' are not accidental. |
||
|
Open Challenges.... My two cents Yes, open challenges can be frustrating in that regard - I know for myself, anytime I post an open challenge I do this with no expectations really that a perfect/great match will come through. Seeing how it's potentially a more risky area to work a team match - I never really take it to seriously.. Chances are - others wont really read your comments, be it language barriers, time issues to check or thinking that you'll just accept anyways.. I frequently post in the open with players that are tougher to match - knowing that most teams have a few of these players - maybe it'll work out... easy enough to just decline.. I also use the open area to throw a big list out - knowing a Captain can take a quick glance and send over who they can - what works for them My most successful matches are ones that are set directly with the other team - a bit of back and forth and completely respecting their decisions - not taking things personal.. while we are all trying to work together and keep our teams happy - it's a competition and a bit of a gamble at times... Hope things good better for you.. Laurie |
||
|
Artificially low ratings please review and comment at will.. kmeister |
||
|
|
||
|
maca 15-Sep-12, 01:43 |
I also have the experience that finding good team matches has gotten far more difficult over the past few years. However, I'm not quite sure whether it has more to do with intentional foul play, rather than Captains intentionally "playing on" the team challenge system. When determining a match-up for a given player in a challenge, more and more Captains seem to be going for the strongest option if they have several players that in principle comply with the rating range set by the challenging Captain, even though one of the other players would in actuality provide a closer game. On the other hand, teams themselves are getting increasingly strict in their policies as to determine what kind of challenges are acceptable. Meanwhile, the size of an average challenge in terms of participating players has gotten smaller; now one has to struggle with 3-man challenges, while earlier on 4-5 players were commonplace. You no longer see huge challenges spamming over 8 boards, unless both of the participating teams are huge; they just take far too much effort to set up. These phenomena are obviously connected, and their impact is that it takes considerably more effort of an individual Captain to set up team challenges to keep their players occupied. For example, when I started as a Captain, it was reasonably straightforward to 4-5 player challenges using the standard of +/- 50 range of CURRENT rating, and that was considered perfectly acceptable. Now, finding acceptable challenges for even just 3 players is a pain, with some teams requiring a rating range narrowed down to +/- 25 in both CURRENT and 90 DAY AVG. Considering that the entire Teams system does not really make much sense as a competition, I feel that we are just making our lives more difficult here with very little to possibly gain. I think that culturally, we should really take some emphasis away from these overly competitive aspects of the team play as far as the Team Ladder and the Team Ratings table are concerned, and go a little way back to what the GK team play used to be: more focus on individual team matches that are set up as fair and balanced as possible, and then be happy when your team manages to win such hard-fought matches. Regards, MaCa. |
Log in 
