1. Subscribermoonbus
    Über-Nerd
    Joined
    31 May '12
    Moves
    8142
    05 Feb '17 10:312 edits
    Originally posted by padger
    It would also stop people dumping games as the two I mentioned in an earlier post
    one who dumped 30 games and one dumped 15 games and of course you have Lemondrop who dump 20 games in the first 6 days
    If they didn't benefit by resigning games they would have try to lose them
    Harder done than said
    The number of people who are allegedly benefitting from dropping games is very small compared to the number of people who play on the level. Altering the system as you suggest, to prevent three cheaters from colluding, would require the other thousand or so players who are on the level to play out all their games to either checkmate or a draw in order to count. This is not desirable.

    Those who are determined to lose games intentionally can certainly contrive to 'blunder' them away if they are prevented from resigning them. It's called "help mate."

    No longer changing ratings for resigned games would also mean that when one found oneself in a winning position, and one's opponent resigned, the winner's rating would not be incremented -- which is hardly fair to the winner.
  2. Here
    Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    416756
    05 Feb '17 11:26
    Originally posted by moonbus
    The number of people who are allegedly benefitting from dropping games is very small compared to the number of people who play on the level. Altering the system as you suggest, to prevent three cheaters from colluding, would require the other thousand or so players who are on the level to play out all their games to either checkmate or a draw in order to cou ...[text shortened]... nt resigned, the winner's rating would not be incremented -- which is hardly fair to the winner.
    Are you deliberately misreading this
    Only the player who resigns will not have their rating changed
  3. Subscribermoonbus
    Über-Nerd
    Joined
    31 May '12
    Moves
    8142
    05 Feb '17 13:292 edits
    Originally posted by padger
    Are you deliberately misreading this
    Only the player who resigns will not have their rating changed
    Are you saying that the player who wins a resigned game has his rating increased, whereas the rating of the player who resigns stays the same?

    If so, this will stop sandbagging, but it will produce something worse: runaway rating inflation. Every player who found himself one move away from checkmate would simply resign and thereby incur no drop in rating. Whereas every game won, whether by checkmate or resignation or timeout, would increase ratings, endlessly upwards. No one would ever have to see his rating drop, just resign before checkmate.
  4. Here
    Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    416756
    05 Feb '17 17:02
    Originally posted by moonbus
    Are you saying that the player who wins a resigned game has his rating increased, whereas the rating of the player who resigns stays the same?

    If so, this will stop sandbagging, but it will produce something worse: runaway rating inflation. Every player who found himself one move away from checkmate would simply resign and thereby incur no drop in rating. ...[text shortened]... endlessly upwards. No one would ever have to see his rating drop, just resign before checkmate.
    I do not think this will lead to a runaway rate increase there will still be genuine losses
    If their rating were to go up by doing this it would mean that when they did get a loss it would be larger than it normally would thus keeping a balance
    It might only stop a few sandbaggers ( there are probably more than the ones I have mentioned ) but it would benefit 100 times more players in tournaments and clan challenges
  5. Subscribermoonbus
    Über-Nerd
    Joined
    31 May '12
    Moves
    8142
    05 Feb '17 18:381 edit
    Originally posted by padger
    I do not think this will lead to a runaway rate increase there will still be genuine losses
    If their rating were to go up by doing this it would mean that when they did get a loss it would be larger than it normally would thus keeping a balance ...
    What "balance"? The rating system does not work by balancing anything. It works by increasing ratings for wins and decreasing ratings for losses.

    If losses due to resignation cease to decrement players' ratings, whereas losses due to checkmate and time outs do decrement the ratings, then the rating system ceases to reflect players' true strengths and becomes meaningless for matching up clan challenge opponents.
  6. Here
    Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    416756
    05 Feb '17 19:26
    Originally posted by moonbus
    What "balance"? The rating system does not work by balancing anything. It works by increasing ratings for wins and decreasing ratings for losses.

    If losses due to resignation cease to decrement players' ratings, whereas losses due to checkmate and time outs do decrement the ratings, then the rating system ceases to reflect players' true strengths and becomes meaningless for matching up clan challenge opponents.
    You obviously are in favour of sandbagging although I don't know why
  7. SubscriberWycombe Al
    greatest site
    or just a tribute
    Joined
    05 Jan '05
    Moves
    679399
    05 Feb '17 19:27
    the key is to have seperate ratings for general games, clan games, and tournament games, currently it is tournament games that are being used to sandbag

    If i enter a tournament i enter to win, when it becomes clear i can't get out of the group stage i often resign games early that i'm going to lose, some have callled this sandbagging to cover their tracks ie. those that enter tournaments with the intention of resigning or losing all their games right from the start, too often i enter tournaments and come up against players who are 300 or more than me in rating and they throw their games, anyway of no concern of mine anymore, i just hope it gets sorted out
  8. Subscribermoonbus
    Über-Nerd
    Joined
    31 May '12
    Moves
    8142
    05 Feb '17 19:48
    Originally posted by padger
    You obviously are in favour of sandbagging although I don't know why
    I am not in favour of 'solutions' which make things worse.
  9. Subscribermoonbus
    Über-Nerd
    Joined
    31 May '12
    Moves
    8142
    05 Feb '17 20:161 edit
    Originally posted by Wycombe Al
    If i enter a tournament i enter to win, when it becomes clear i can't get out of the group stage i often resign games early that i'm going to lose, some have callled this sandbagging to cover their tracks ie. those that enter tournaments with the intention of resigning or losing all their games right from the start, too often i enter tournaments and come ...[text shortened]... and they throw their games, anyway of no concern of mine anymore, i just hope it gets sorted out
    I don't believe anyone objects to resigning a game you genuinely believe to be lost and which you believe your opponent knows how to win. No one expects you play out every lost position to checkmate, and that is why Padger's suggestion (that resigned games should not decrement the loser's rating) won't work.
  10. Here
    Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    416756
    05 Feb '17 22:11
    Originally posted by moonbus
    I don't believe anyone objects to resigning a game you genuinely believe to be lost and which you believe your opponent knows how to win. No one expects you play out every lost position to checkmate, and that is why Padger's suggestion (that resigned games should not decrement the loser's rating) won't work.
    So then it is perfectly legitimate to enter tournament after tournament with the pure intention of resigning those games in order to have a reduced rating
    This gives them the chance to enter tournaments below their true rating and spoil it for others who want to enter them but can't
    They also screw the clan challenge system where they play people well below their real rating
    I often resign games where I have no chance of winning but I do not expect to get a lower rating because of it
    You should only get a reduction when you lose a game not just dump it
  11. Subscribermoonbus
    Über-Nerd
    Joined
    31 May '12
    Moves
    8142
    06 Feb '17 03:24
    So then it is perfectly legitimate to enter tournament after tournament with the pure intention of resigning those games in order to have a reduced rating.

    Now look who’s deliberately misreading what was perfectly clearly expressed. Resigning a game one knows to be lost is a perfectly legitimate way to end a game; resigning masses of tournament games regardless of board position in order to artificially reduce one’s clan rating is not. That is another kettle of fish entirely.

    They also screw the clan challenge system where they play people well below their real rating.

    Yes, it skews the clan system, and that is why the practice of resigning masses of games for the purpose of artificially reducing one’s rating must be rendered harmless or irrelevant. The way to do that is not, as you suggested, to break the rating system by ceasing to count resignations as losses; your supposed cure would kill the patient. The way to eliminate the problem of dumping masses of tournament games to artificially lower one’s clan rating is to decouple clan ratings from all other ratings at this web site.

    I often resign games where I have no chance of winning but I do not expect to get a lower rating because of it.

    Whoa, reality check: losing drops your rating. If you expect something else, maybe you should be playing some other game than chess.


    You should only get a reduction when you lose a game not just dump it.

    Of course you should get a reduction when you lose a game. And there are three ways of losing a game: resignation, timeout, and checkmate. The motive is irrelevant.
  12. Here
    Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    416756
    06 Feb '17 09:40
    Originally posted by moonbus
    [b]So then it is perfectly legitimate to enter tournament after tournament with the pure intention of resigning those games in order to have a reduced rating.

    Now look who’s deliberately misreading what was perfectly clearly expressed. Resigning a game one knows to be lost is a perfectly legitimate way to end a game; resigning masses of tournam ...[text shortened]... are three ways of losing a game: resignation, timeout, and checkmate. The motive is irrelevant.[/b]
    Having visited your home page I can see you are one of the more gifted players on this site
    You would therefore be unable to see what a sore point this is with us ordinary mortals
    Being unable to enter tournaments because when you do and you see a sandbagger you know that they are either going to win it because their rating is too low or they will play just enough moves to get a reduction in their rating and skew the whole thing up
    The three I have mentioned have resigned more games in the first month of this year than you have played since you joined the site
    I also notice that 97% of your games have finished in a resignation either for or against
    So I can see your concern however seeing as you do not play that much I do not think it would affect you that much in the long run and you could always finish a few to see if you really did win or lose it
  13. Subscriberroma45
    st johnstone
    Joined
    14 Nov '09
    Moves
    416035
    06 Feb '17 15:34
    Originally posted by padger
    Having visited your home page I can see you are one of the more gifted players on this site
    You would therefore be unable to see what a sore point this is with us ordinary mortals
    Being unable to enter tournaments because when you do and you see a sandbagger you know that they are either going to win it because their rating is too low or they will play just ...[text shortened]... t much in the long run and you could always finish a few to see if you really did win or lose it
    if you look through the games of higher rated players on here, more resignations than us low rated players, i suppose they will see they are beat before we can, same for draws.

    i think it would be impossible for the site to get a solution to stop resigning other than ban those who continually enter tournaments only to mass resign all games after 3 or 4 moves, a very small percentage actually do this to ruin tournaments in an effort to sandbag, i wont name who i mean as this post will vanish but you know who.

    there should never be pressure on a player not to resign it would drag out tournaments far longer plus would the sand bagger just not get timed out instead.

    first two improvements by russ are great, stopping the dead player from being used,a separate clan rated should cut down on sand bagging impossible to stop it 100%

    the main issue, how to stop collusion? points removal and suspensions are the only way i can think off, all that ELO rubbish will not stop a few on here losing on purpore
  14. Here
    Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    416756
    06 Feb '17 17:11
    Originally posted by roma45
    if you look through the games of higher rated players on here, more resignations than us low rated players, i suppose they will see they are beat before we can, same for draws.

    i think it would be impossible for the site to get a solution to stop resigning other than ban those who continually enter tournaments only to mass resign all games after 3 or 4 mov ...[text shortened]... the only way i can think off, all that ELO rubbish will not stop a few on here losing on purpore
    Yes I can see that, however it has got to be based on those lines so that they cannot use it as a weapon
    Perhaps limit the number of times used in a month or a 10% of a reduction
    Time outs should not affect rating changes in any way not up or down
    Why should someone suffer because of some thing beyond their control
    It could be an illness or an accident
  15. Standard memberBigDogg
    Secret RHP coder
    on the payroll
    Joined
    26 Nov '04
    Moves
    155080
    06 Feb '17 19:05
    Originally posted by padger
    Time outs should not affect rating changes in any way not up or down
    Why should someone suffer because of some thing beyond their control
    It could be an illness or an accident
    If someone has an illness or accident, they don't give a toss about a few lost chess games. [At least, I wouldn't.] The illness or accident would be what's causing the suffering, not the timeouts. [Duh!]

    You have tunnel vision. You are so intent on stopping the sandbagging that you cannot see that your proposals would utterly ruin the rating system. [Or, you do not care about such concerns, as long as you get your way on this one issue.]

    Timeouts must be rated the same way as checkmate losses. If they are not, then sore losers will time out when they know they are beaten, to avoid losing rating points.

    Resignations must be rated the same way as checkmate losses. If they are not, then sore losers will resign when they know they are beaten, to avoid losing rating points.

    Your proposals would actually stand a fair chance of inflating your own rating, thus lifting you up along with all the other players you are trying to avoid playing. Sure, you could work on carefully avoiding such rating increases, but then, guess what you would be? That's right, a sandbagger!
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree