On games resigned early if a challenge has been decided

Interestingly, this appears under Help > Clans > Clan Challenges:

"Each participant in a clan challenge will be required to play 2 games, one as black and one as white. Clan games are rated, and eligible for timeout even if no move has been made. They cannot be deleted ? so once one has been created it must be played to completion."

(emphasis mine)

@caesar-salad said
Interestingly, this appears under Help > Clans > Clan Challenges:

"Each participant in a clan challenge will be required to play 2 games, one as black and one as white. Clan games are rated, and eligible for timeout even if no move has been made. They cannot be deleted ? so once one has been created it must be played to completion."

(emphasis mine)

At the risk of being picky, isn’t a resigned game “completed”?

@divegeester said
At the risk of being picky, isn’t a resigned game “completed”?

A hypothetical scenario.

Round 1

Clan A fields 8 players in a challenge against Clan B. Five games are won with three games still undecided. The three games still running are resigned by Clan A as soon as the match is decided; let's say the players involved are A1, A2, and A3.

Round 2

Clan A fields 8 players in a challenge against Clan C. Five games are won with three games still undecided. The three games still running are resigned by Clan A as soon as the match is decided; let's say the players involved are A4, A5, and A6.

Round 3

Clan A fields 8 players in a challenge against Clan D. Six of the players are A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, and A6, all of whose ratings were artificially deflated in rounds 1 and 2. Clan A cleans up in a lopsided match.

Round 4

Go to step 1, repeat until season title is in the bag.


Is every game played to completion? Yes, but only if each resigned games is considered in isolation from the circumstances. Taken in the context of the above hypothetical scenario, some of the games are not played out according to what the board position might have merited.

Is this fair? No: it artificially deflates some players' ratings and artificially inflates their opponents' ratings, thereby skewing the rating system. The motive for resigning games in this hypothetical scenario is irrelevant; the effect is the same: it skews the ratings.

Such a large and complex argument from one who made 2000 moves in seven years...

@d4v said
Such a large and complex argument from one who made 2000 moves in seven years...

Don't make it personal. Stick to facts.

@d4v said
Such a large and complex argument from one who made 2000 moves in seven years...

So what is your claim?

Is it that by playing more games in challenges, that somehow the effect mentioned by moonbus is somehow magically evened out, or muted?

No, simply by playing more challenges, the effect is increased.

@moonbus said
A hypothetical scenario.

Round 1

Clan A fields 8 players in a challenge against Clan B. Five games are won with three games still undecided. The three games still running are resigned by Clan A as soon as the match is decided; let's say the players involved are A1, A2, and A3.

Round 2

Clan A fields 8 players in a challenge against Clan C. Five games are won with t ...[text shortened]... ing games in this hypothetical scenario is irrelevant; the effect is the same: it skews the ratings.

If the points awarded for each clan challenge were fair so that each game counted this wouldn't arise

@divegeester said
At the risk of being picky, isn’t a resigned game “completed”?

If we look at the etymology of "complete" and its connotation of fulfillment, I would agree that a game resigned in a lost position has been completed.

But the game would be merely "terminated" if resigned in an equal, unclear, or winning position.

@caesar-salad said
If we look at the etymology of "complete" and its connotation of fulfillment, I would agree that a game resigned in a lost position has been completed.

But the game would be merely "terminated" if resigned in an equal, unclear, or winning position.

It seems to me that there is some significant ambiguity.

@divegeester said
It seems to me that there is some significant ambiguity.

No, there isn't. There is a clear distinction to be made between resigning a game which is clearly lost, and resigning a game, which is part of a challenge, which might yet be won or drawn, once a challenge is decided.

@caesar-salad said
If we look at the etymology of "complete" and its connotation of fulfillment, I would agree that a game resigned in a lost position has been completed.

But the game would be merely "terminated" if resigned in an equal, unclear, or winning position.

Have a look at the 10-man Misfits - Metallica challenge from June 2017.

On board one, Zumdahl (Metallica) had timed out and Paul Leggett claimed his skulls on Jun 22 2017 15:05 and Jul 13 2017 15:44.

The lower boards scored wins for the Misfits on the following days/hours:

Jun 11 2017 14:27
Jul 20 2017 18:39
Jul 20 2017 21:46
Jul 21 2017 18:27 *
and finally
Oct 24 2017 04:31

* This is the key date: the challenge was already decided on Jul 21 2017 18:27 with six wins in the bag for The Misfits. Then my2sons 'terminated' both his games against me in superior positions. On the same day, at the same minute: Jul 23 2017 01:54.

The games were not 'terminated' to "cash in points" just before the season ended. It was July.

The clan captain at that time, ShortCircuit, stated in public forums that he considered this a legitimate clan practice; "freeing up resources for other challenges" he called it.

You want a smoking gun? There it is.

Cheers,
moonbus

@moonbus said
Have a look at the 10-man Misfits - Metallica challenge from June 2017.

On board one, Zumdahl (Metallica) had timed out and Paul Leggett claimed his skulls on Jun 22 2017 15:05 and Jul 13 2017 15:44.

The lower boards scored wins for the Misfits on the following days/hours:

Jun 11 2017 14:27
Jul 20 2017 18:39
Jul 20 2017 21:46
Jul 21 2017 18:27 *
and finally
Oct ...[text shortened]... rces for other challenges" he called it.

You want a smoking gun? There it is.

Cheers,
moonbus

By this time, the maximum 3 in progress challenges between 2 clans was already in place.
This was a decided challenge, won or lost.
My philosophy is to get the challenges out of the way for new challenges with that clan.

Metallica didn’t make that bed. Easy Riders and their collusion partners did in 2016.
Now we have to live with it.

A separate clan rating will get rid of the cheating on your rating.
My position is that ratings will not be that easily manipulated using clan games alone.
Like I said in a previous post, a player loses one game against an equally rated player, he/she will win the next one and bring their rating back to where it was.

And as per the formula in the FAQ’s, the rating change in a won/lost game against an equally rated opponent is +/- 16 ratings points.
Now to say that you get an inferior opponent when your rating goes down 16 points is stretching it a bit.
I consider 2 opponents 100 points apart to be roughly equal.

In my early going as a clan leader, I consistently see opposing clan leaders throwing matchups at me with players as much as 300 points below their 5 year high.
(Yes, I look at 5 year highs. They could be as recent as 1 year + 1 day ago).
If clan leaders spot this, they have done their homework.
If not, they haven’t.
It is up to the clan leaders to do their homework.
If they don’t, they shouldn’t blame clan leaders who do.
And I don’t expect Russ to throw a lot of time/resources/$$ at putting in functionality that does the homework for you.

I have always maintained that clan competition has always involved 2 sets of skills:
1- on on the chess board between 2 players
2- clan leaders’ analytical skills in setting and evaluating challenges.

That combined with clan leaders putting in the time to create a lot of challenges over the course of a year (you have to play a lot to win) will lead to a successful clan.

Let’s come up with something for Russ without overthinking the issues.
A separate clan game rating will eliminate much of the problems.
I don’t think dwelling on one of my players resigning a game in a decided challenge and lowering his rating by 15-20 points is that big an issue if that player gets matched with an opponent 100 points below him in the next challenge because the opposing clan leader doesn’t do their homework.

@moonbus said
No, there isn't. There is a clear distinction to be made between resigning a game which is clearly lost, and resigning a game, which is part of a challenge, which might yet be won or drawn, once a challenge is decided.

Other than your post above, where might I be able to read about this "clear distinction" please?

Thanks in advance.

@mghrn55 said
By this time, the maximum 3 in progress challenges between 2 clans was already in place.
This was a decided challenge, won or lost.
My philosophy is to get the challenges out of the way for new challenges with that clan.

Metallica didn’t make that bed. Easy Riders and their collusion partners did in 2016.
Now we have to live with it.

A separate clan rating will get r ...[text shortened]... 0 points below him in the next challenge because the opposing clan leader doesn’t do their homework.

That's a long-winded way of saying that you, like your predecessor, believe that throwing games is acceptable.

I would like to hear what some other players think about that.

@mghrn55 said
By this time, the maximum 3 in progress challenges between 2 clans was already in place.
This was a decided challenge, won or lost.
My philosophy is to get the challenges out of the way for new challenges with that clan.

Metallica didn’t make that bed. Easy Riders and their collusion partners did in 2016.
Now we have to live with it.

But it seems there is only one clan feeling hindered by that limit.

Why would any clan need more than three concurrent challenges against another given clan?

Your arguments often seem reasonable, but of course I'm aware that anything you defend or propose is something that you find benefits or would be favorable to your clan [perhaps a third aspect of being a clan leader] no matter how presented as something beneficial to all.

Thank goodness Russ hasn't stopped in to clarify that by "played to completion" he did not intend to include early terminations, eh? ;-)