Clan System Request for Proposals

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

True, the number of games I have played at RHP is small. The number is irrelevant to the validity or invalidity of my suggestions for improving the site's clan feature. Given that good players have left the site in frustration over the state of the clan system, I think Russ might like to hear what it would take to draw in paying customers. If he is to draw in my custom, for example, I expect a higher level of professionalism than at present. Maybe this is just the wrong chess portal for me; if so, my bad--I'll go elsewhere.

Speaking as one who was himself once a 'mere mortal' and who still has a long way to go to play an evergreen game of his own, the road to improvement in chess is to be defeated by stronger and stronger players. You will learn more from the games you lose than from those you win. That is why it is important that ratings accurately reflect a player's true strength. Counting checkmates and timeouts, but not counting resignations, in the ratings would break the rating system and render it useless.

Players up to about 1100-1300 should play out games to checkmate; that is how they learn basic mating patterns. Players in my rating range recognize a bit earlier when a game is lost and resign out of respect for the other player.

Some people here are wildly over-reacting to three people who have evidently abused the system's weaknesses. Fix the weaknesses--which simply means, put the system on a more professional basis, in line with internationally acknowledged standards in competitive chess--and that sort of abuse will stop of itself.

Originally posted by moonbus
True, the number of games I have played at RHP is small. The number is irrelevant to the validity or invalidity of my suggestions for improving the site's clan feature. Given that good players have left the site in frustration over the state of the clan system, I think Russ might like to hear what it would take to draw in paying customers. If he is to draw i ...[text shortened]... ionally acknowledged standards in competitive chess--and that sort of abuse will stop of itself.

I didn't start playing chess competitively until I retired so I am probably not going to get much better and I still make the same mistakes as when I first came on this site
Not so often now but I do
I expect to be given an honest game not one which my opponent has manufactured
I bow to your superior knowledge about the game and would like to suggest from what you have said the following that anyone under 1400 does not get a reduction in their rating for a resignation
It might appear to you and Bigdoggproblem that I am fixated on this issue but no more than Bigdoggproblem is about people over 2000 who according to him are all engine cheats
I would like to have an honest game whether that be tournament or clan
There are probably more than the three I mention who are sandbaggers ,they are just the ones I have found out about and will do my best not to play them
Of the three two should be above 1400 rating and will make sure their rating does not go over 1350 the other one is some sort of idiot who even though he does it would probably not get a much higher rating anyway

Originally posted by padger
I didn't start playing chess competitively until I retired so I am probably not going to get much better and I still make the same mistakes as when I first came on this site
Not so often now but I do
I expect to be given an honest game not one which my opponent has manufactured
I bow to your superior knowledge about the game and would like to suggest from ...[text shortened]... some sort of idiot who even though he does it would probably not get a much higher rating anyway

I don't mean to seem patronizing and would like to see the clan feature made fun and fair for all rating bands.

EDIT: raising the bar for how the system functions need not exclude lower-rated players from taking part and having fun too. One of the appealing aspects of a clan system, if it is done right, is that a clan with lower-rated players can achieve a high clan ranking; the winners are not necessarily the clans with highest-rated players (as in the Chess Olympiads, for example).

Originally posted by moonbus
I don't mean to seem patronizing and would like to see the clan feature made fun and fair for all rating bands.

EDIT: raising the bar for how the system functions need not exclude lower-rated players from taking part and having fun too. One of the appealing aspects of a clan system, if it is done right, is that a clan with lower-rated players can a ...[text shortened]... e not necessarily the clans with highest-rated players (as in the Chess Olympiads, for example).

you failed in your attempt not to sound patronising 😀

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
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 ...[text shortened]... y avoiding such rating increases, but then, guess what you would be? That's right, a sandbagger!

Admit it you are skull cruncher
You live for the day when you can see a skull that you can crunch
You have not been in a tournament when a player who is probably 1700+ but because of some event either accidentally or deliberately has been down rated due to time outs to 1000 or below decides to enter
He then spends the next six months or so wiping out everybody in tournaments which if he were honest wouldn't enter
What if every body you are currently playing decided to time out their games with you
You would end up with a rating that you had to play your dreaded 2000 + engine cheating opponents
What I an suggesting is no different to having a floor which has been proposed several times since I have visited these forums and apparently is in use in other chess sites and OTB
My difference is that you wouldn't go up either

Originally posted by roma45
you failed in your attempt not to sound patronising 😀

You have to admit that the level of discourse at RHP forums, especially where clans are concerned, is often vulgar. A one-eyed man is king among the blind.

Originally posted by moonbus
You have to admit that the level of discourse at RHP forums, especially where clans are concerned, is often vulgar. A one-eyed man is king among the blind.

a one eyed man could see the collusion and engine users on here and deal with them

looks like the blind actually rule on here

Originally posted by padger
It might appear to you and Bigdoggproblem that I am fixated on this issue but no more than Bigdoggproblem is about people over 2000 who according to him are all engine cheats

It's 2200. And no, I don't think that EVERY player over 2200 is a cheat. I just don't feel like losing a bunch of games to engines in an attempt to sort out which players are honest.

Originally posted by padger
Admit it you are skull cruncher
You live for the day when you can see a skull that you can crunch
You have not been in a tournament when a player who is probably 1700+ but because of some event either accidentally or deliberately has been down rated due to time outs to 1000 or below decides to enter
He then spends the next six months or so wiping out every ...[text shortened]... parently is in use in other chess sites and OTB
My difference is that you wouldn't go up either

Of course I'm a skull cruncher. Serious players enforce time limits.

Yes, I HAVE been in tournaments with extremely underrated players. Usually, it's because a player took a break from the site and timed out or resigned a ton of games. No, it's not fun to have to pay them. My rating takes a much bigger hit than it deserves if I draw, or lose. I have advocated rating floors to deal with this issue. These would cause SOME rating inflation, to be sure, but not nearly as much as your proposal, in which a player could ensure their own rating NEVER goes down by always resigning when they know they're lost.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
Of course I'm a skull cruncher. Serious players enforce time limits.

Yes, I HAVE been in tournaments with extremely underrated players. Usually, it's because a player took a break from the site and timed out or resigned a ton of games. No, it's not fun to have to pay them. My rating takes a much bigger hit than it deserves if I draw, or lose. I hav ...[text shortened]... r could ensure their own rating NEVER goes down by always resigning when they know they're lost.

You are going round and round in circles you haven't read all the posts and therefore I will not read yours

Originally posted by padger
You are going round and round in circles you haven't read all the posts and therefore I will not read yours

You have no basis for that statement. You reveal yourself to be a dishonest person.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
It's 2200. And no, I don't think that EVERY player over 2200 is a cheat. I just don't feel like losing a bunch of games to engines in an attempt to sort out which players are honest.

away off topic
this thread created by russ is for improving the clan system, personally i dont think there are many engine uses in the clans.
tournaments are off topic as well, unless a player is using then to sand bag, a clan only rating will stop that.
two changes so far
1] we have a graph to show players history, that is as much use as a chocolate ashtray how will not stop collusion, plus some clan leaders never refuse any challenge
2] closing the dead player loop hole, now thats a great idea i would add no points should be awarded if a player makes no move in a clan game,

now how to stop collusion? points removal and suspensions its happened before should happen again

once the clan system is fixed then we can fix the tournament flaws then gather the pitchforks and get the engine users

Originally posted by Russ
Sorry guys, I know it appears that I have abandoned you - this is not the case. My earlier efforts of trying to multitask this weren't that successful and very inefficient use of time. I'll be giving it my full focus soon.

Russ,

I am anxiously awaiting your decision on what is going to be done, especially about what has happened in 2016 concerning the collusion between four clans. It has come to a point where Paying Subscribers have been leaving, are leaving & will be leaving, or not re-newing their Subscriptions.

We are talking long time subscribers here. I know you have a hard task, but something has to happen. Not everyone will be in agreement. Doing something will be much better than not doing ANYTHING!!!

-VR

Originally posted by roma45
away off topic
this thread created by russ is for improving the clan system, personally i dont think there are many engine uses in the clans.
tournaments are off topic as well, unless a player is using then to sand bag, a clan only rating will stop that.
two changes so far
1] we have a graph to show players history, that is as much use as a chocolate asht ...[text shortened]... s fixed then we can fix the tournament flaws then gather the pitchforks and get the engine users

Whilst I agree that on the surface it appears to be off topic the trouble is that people are using tournaments to reduce their rating and so skew clan challenges as well as tournaments
So you cannot do one without the other
Engine users are for another time

Originally posted by roma45
away off topic
this thread created by russ is for improving the clan system, personally i dont think there are many engine uses in the clans.
tournaments are off topic as well, unless a player is using then to sand bag, a clan only rating will stop that.
two changes so far
1] we have a graph to show players history, that is as much use as a chocolate asht ...[text shortened]... s fixed then we can fix the tournament flaws then gather the pitchforks and get the engine users

Whether on-topic or not, if someone makes a false statement about me, I'll probably correct it.

There have been a large number of of off-topic posts in this thread, including your own about retroactively changing the 2016 clan results. You've no room to lecture others on making off-topic posts.