| |||||||
| From | Message | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
kightgator 15-Aug-12, 03:15 |
 Deleted by Gameknot.com on 15-Aug-12, 08:51.
|
||||||
|
Adblocker Today, I received a message that my free account will be removed due to an adblocker that I had installed. It also says that I've had 2 prior warnings about adblocking. For as far as I know, I haven't had any warning and I was not aware of this policy in the first place. I have excluded Gameknot.com/* from my adblocker list. Does this mean my account will be removed anyway? |
||||||
|
Also, if you have any specific questions about your GameKnot account, please contact the customer support directly (it is a much more reliable way to get an answer instead of posting your question in a forum): gameknot.com |
||||||
|
I will be sure to contact customer support if I encounter any more questions that are not answered by the FAQ. |
||||||
|
Google Chrome and log in.... I was able to before with Chrome, mmm? Thanks R |
||||||
|
tobiasverhulst 27-Mar-13, 03:58 |
Also, what's preventing players from stalling games in the hope of getting a draw by adjudication (for the purpose of progressing in the tournament) in a position that is slightly inferior but might still be inside the drawing range of the computer, but will likely deteriorate to a loss when a weaker player has to defend it? Are the ratings of the players considered when calculating the computer evaluation? An equal but complex position might in practice be an advantage to the stronger player, who can still outplay his opponent. As an extreme example, the starting position would probably be considered within drawing margin by the computer, even though a player who has several hundreds of ELO points in advantage has obviously high wining chances. Of course it's unlikely that the game will still be in the starting position when 99% of the games have ended, put I assume you understand the point. |
||||||
|
Because the adjudication happens to the last 1% of games in the tournament round, they should all be in the endgame by that time, so it is much less likely that a minuscule advantage can be turned into a decisive win later on. It would certainly be a mistake to try to adjudicate the starting position of course. Yes, computers shouldn't be used to influence games, and they don't in this case. If a player is not sure how their game is progressing in the endgame, getting a win/draw/loss adjudication from a computer wouldn't be helpful to them in any significant way. Especially for higher-rated players, who would likely already know the expected outcome of the game. Also, the computer adjudication only affects the tournament standing, the games can still be finished normally. |
||||||
|
tobiasverhulst 27-Mar-13, 13:42 |
First of all, it is very much possible that a small advantage in an endgame will be converted into a bigger, possibly decisive, one. Especially with strong players, even the slightest slip in a difficult to defend endgame will likely result in a loss. There are many examples of this, even from the strongest tournaments (like the candidates happening now), where a strong players keeps 'milking' a small advantage and manages to win after the slightest of missteps by the defending player. It is precisely in these situations where a better endgame technique is significant. In fact, a small error in a somewhat worse endgame is more likely to result in a loss than a small mistake in the opening, because the latter might still be remedied by some creative work in the middlegame. Also, I disagree with the statement that the computers aren't influencing the games. Every information given to the players is an influence. Imagine an OTB game where all of sudden someone comes to tell the players who the computer think is better! It is certainly not true that players already know the expected result of their game, not even with very strong players but certainly not with lower rated ones. There are many, many instances of even grandmasters playing for a win when they should have gone for a draw, or the other way around, because they wrongly assessed the position to be winning for them when they were, in fact, worse. |
||||||
|
So, yes, in general, when taken out of context, getting a computer adjudication can certainly influence the result of a game. However, once you account for all the specific conditions of this particular case, the probability of that happening approaches zero. How likely is that the player can use the computer adjudication to help them? A higher-rated player, who is more likely to be able to do that, is also much more likely to correctly know how the game is progressing, so they won't learn anything new from the adjudicating. A lower-rated player, who is more likely to be mistaken about the possible outcome of the game, and thus to be in any position to take advantage of the new adjudication information, is also much less likely to be able to turn the game around because they would have to be on par with the chess engine's strength. What are the chances of the player mistakenly thinking they can't win, when they can in fact win the game if they play it right? What are the chances that the computer adjudication happens at a crucial point in the game, when the game can actually be turned around? Knowing that you were winning the game 3 moves ago is a nearly worthless information as you could've already made 3 mistakes since then. What are the chances of the player being able to see the same 16-or-more-moves ahead (as the computer engine) to play that tricky combination of 16 moves to win? It is of course all hypothetical, but even if 1 in 100 tournament games can end up being influenced (according to our estimates, it is actually closer to 1 in 1,000 games), we are still talking about saving months of waiting time for thousands of players waiting to advance to the next round. A small price to pay, if anything. Also, don't forget, the rating system works in such a way, that as more games are completed, the result of any given past game has less and less influence on the player's current rating. So if the computer adjudication does influence some of the tournament games, it will only be a problem if it happens all the time and for the same player. Otherwise, if a player happens to win a game that they should have lost otherwise, after they complete a few dozen more "uninfluenced" games, their rating will end up being pretty much the same either way. And it actually doesn't matter why they happened to win that one game -- because of the computer adjudication or for some other reason. It will literally won't change anything if a player's rating is arbitrarily increased by, say, 100 points. If they continue playing more games, their rating will eventually end up being the same, compared to if we didn't give them 100 points before. It is all built into the rating system -- it automatically adjusts for any sudden/unexpected changes in one's rating. Please see our post on 20-Oct-12 here for a related example: gameknot.com |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
tobiasverhulst 28-Mar-13, 03:35 |
I get that there is a problem with long waiting times between rounds when the next round can only begin if all games of the previous round have ended. I don't have that problem since I'm a paying member and can therefore play in multiple tournaments concurrently, thus every two months a new first round can be entered. However, I understand you want to alleviate this problem for free members too. Now, there are other possibilities to do this, and I wonder what you think of the following two suggestions: 1) Many games in a group are irrelevant in the decision as to who progresses to the next round. For example, if one player has already scored six points (meaning he has won all his games in a four player group), possible unfinished games between the other players can no longer change the first place in the group. Note that in this example case no less than 50% of the games are irrelevant for the tournament progression. Especially in the early rounds of a tournament, groups are often won with 5, 5.5 or even 6 points because of the large variations in ratings of participants. The next round could be started when all ongoing games have become irrelevant. It is quite possible that this happens well before 99% have finished. There are exceptions of course, I recently had a very relevant game still going on when the 1%-rule hit. This could also be combined with the 99%-rule, in a 'whichever happens first' procedure. 2) Start the next round of a tournament when 99% of the games have finished, but have all players that can still qualify, if they win all there games, progress to the next round. That way players aren't robbed of there chance to qualify thanks to better endgame technique and computer evaluations wouldn't be needed. I suspect that on the total number of progressing players this will not make much difference. A third possibility would be to combine suggestions one and two: the next round starts when either all ongoing game are irrelevant or 99% has finished, in the latter case all players that can theoretically still qualify progress to the next round. This would make the time between rounds shorter or lave it the same, without having any deciding factors apart from the games themselves, all while only having in some cases a few more player progress. |
||||||
|
The current system strikes me as being very sensible. If you want to be sure you progress to the next round, the best way is of course to play good chess and make your moves in good time... |
||||||
|
tobiasverhulst 28-Mar-13, 06:03 |
One of the reasons I do not like the current system is that I also depend on my opponents to play quickly. Even if I don't use postponements during a tournament, if one of the other players does it my games might still end up in the final 1%. Also, I don't follow the completion percentage of the tournaments I play in (although I realize this is possible). If I knew in advance when the adjudications are going to happen, I could switch from trying to technically outplay an opponent to a desperate attack beforehand. But even if I would always check this percentage it's still difficult to predict when all of the other games will end. |
||||||
|
Thinking about it there was something that annoyed me a few tournaments back, one player in the group timed out against the other 2 in the group, but not against me. So I was at a big disadvantage and eventually failed to qualify. Again that's not really fair, but there isn't really a foolproof way round it - whatever solution GK come up with, somebody will fall foul of it somewhere, but the main thing is to keep those cases to a minimum. |
||||||
|
I do feel that they have tried to minimize the effects of giving a draw, not sure how many people are really affected, certainly it couldn't affect the same player that many times. Maybe different rules could be used for later rounds, I would be upset if I missed advancing because of the rule, say advancing to the finals, after playing 4, rounds. The tournaments having been going on for sometime, I doubt much will change. I do have a question about tracking individual games in the GK monthly tournaments. When you open another players game and click on the tournament link, it doesn't take you to the grouping/pairing number that the player is playing in, like it does for yourself. If you don't know what group number they are in it takes a lot of looking. It seems it should take you to their pairing. |
||||||
|
tobiasverhulst 28-Mar-13, 08:00 |
|
||||||
|
tobiasverhulst 29-Apr-13, 05:23 |
 game, I was thinking I was trying to make a draw. Now, the GK computer adjudicated the game to a win for me. Also important to note: this game was irrelevant to the tournament anyway, since another player had already scored 6/6. Gameknot, any comment on my earlier remark regarding relevant vs. irrelevant games? Would it be faster or slower, based on historical statistics, to start a next round at the moment all relevant games have finished, rather than adjudicating the final, possibly irrelevant, ones? |
||||||
|
How to end a game? 4. You may not artificially manipulate your rating. It includes (but not limited to) resigning games with equal or winning positions, intentionally letting games time out, offering to draw (or accepting a draw offer) in superior positions, and purposefully losing/drawing games to lower your rating in general. |
||||||
|
Also, this rule only applies if there is a pattern of resigning/drawing/etc. games to artificially lower one's rating (i.e. a significant percentage of finished games fall into that category). A couple of games resigned for no clear reason over a long period of time (a month) won't be a problem. |
||||||
|
tobiasverhulst 03-May-13, 23:58 |
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
tobiasverhulst 04-May-13, 10:00 |
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
tobiasverhulst 05-May-13, 00:22 |
|
||||||
|
Can you possible shed some light on as to why the club "Club Captain" is listed as inactive? If it has to do with the founder of the club not being on line for an extended period of time, can someone else pay the club fee and the club continue on? What would be the process to salvage the club? |
||||||
|
gameknot.com Please allow up to 2 business days for the payment to be processed as it will have to be handled manually. |
||||||
|
I have messaged the club founder with no reply yet. Is there any way, after the club fee is paid that one of remaining moderators in the club can promote a club member to a moderator position, or can the club decide by vote for a new founder/ or person who can assign new moderators? It doesn't have to happen right away, but if the door can be left open for such action as needed, just in case the existing founder doesn't return. |
||||||
|
start a 2500+ mini tournament. |
||||||
|
Ineedaname gameknot.com |
||||||
| |||||||
Log in 
