- Joined
- 26 Apr 03
- Moves
- 26771
It's tricky to define where someone should join "by rating" since the ladder order is not necessarily rating order. One idea seen in squash ladders and the like is:
"The first time you join a ladder, you get one free challenge to anyone available on that ladder, if you win that you take their place and that player and all the others beneath him shuffle down one. If you lose you enter the ladder at the bottom."
If we implement that, to be fair to people like atticus, we should perhaps give everyone currently on the ladder one free challenge to anyone above them.
This is not in replacement of Russ's idea, which sounds good to me, essentially the lower in the ladder the more the "churn" should be. Perhaps it should be a smooth scaling though:
Challenge_range = ceiling (challengers_pos / 10)
Originally posted by iamatigerThis make anyone with a fairly good rating to seek his own probable position and get there in one go if he wins. It's not a good idea to aim to the 1st position because you have just one go for it. It's equally not a good idea to aim too low, because then you get that position and is stuck with it and must climb from there.
It's tricky to define where someone should join "by rating" since the ladder order is not necessarily rating order. One idea seen in squash ladders and the like is:
"The first time you join a ladder, you get one free challenge to anyone available on that ladder, if you win that you take their place and that player and all the others beneath him shuffle do ...[text shortened]... ld perhaps give everyone currently on the ladder one free challenge to anyone above them.
Only one go? Yes, as long as you're in the ladder. Get out and in a gain and you get another free ride.
If I'm a member of a ladder and see that in position 5 there is someone who hasn't move for 50 days. In 10 days he is out. Then I quickly resign all games I have in the ladder in question, and get out of it. The second later I'm back in the latdder, now only to challenge the 5th place member. Wait for a while and get a free ride to the near top!
So, by a little strategy and thoughts, you can get to the top very easily, if you only have your eyes open. Is this good? Or has it to be prevented?
Originally posted by iamatigerPersonally, I like this idea. It provides a remedy for 'bad luck' - that is, for the 'bad luck' penalty incurred by newcomers who join the ladder after it has started. They are allowed to back themselves to win a 'rightful' place on the ladder from their start; and if they get it wrong, they suffer the quite serious consequences.
One idea seen in squash ladders and the like is: "The first time you join a ladder, you get one free challenge to anyone available on that ladder, if you win that you take their place and that player and all the others beneath him shuffle down one. If you lose you enter the ladder at the bottom"
So, to take my example, I could bid for a place in the top 20 but risk losing to someone rated c. 2000; or I could bid more cautiously for somewhere in the top 50. Either way, I'm only 4-5 games off my rating rank if I win. That's a far better incentive than facing an unrealistic 50-game slog.
OK, now someone is going to say this arrangement could be manipulated. I could for example challenge David Tebb, and strike a deal whereby he throws the game. The 'cost' to DT is merely one place. But he then challenges me, and the deal requires me to throw that game. So DT resumes top spot and I drop down one - order restored 🙂.
For sure, all sorts of tricks are possible. But they won't happen in practice. The ladders aren't that important; they don't define one's standing in the universe; they are merely devices for a cartoon competition. So if we are here to play chess, let's at least design competitions that are fair and useful. Let's adopt the initial 'open challenge' idea proposed by 'iamatiger' and the accelerated challenge model proposed by Russ.
I agree. Plus, it can't be too hard to code in that you really only do get one free throw of the dice here - regardless of how many times you join & leave a ladder. All it takes is some background code to remember the uid & the ladder & permit only one challenge against any level.
We do see this in sport - weightlifting & pole vaulting are an example. You can set the bar or weight as high as you like - it's your gamble.
We all like to think that we are all on this site at the same time & were all privy to joining the ladders at inception but it is a fact new, strong players will join and they have to be accomodated.
Originally posted by iamatigerOkay, first time only. Only once. But I still don't like the idea.
That's why I said the [b]first time you join the ladder. Not the second, third fourth etc times.[/b]
It is good as it is now. Or I support Russ' idea. I don't think we should complicate things.
OK so far. Now a few more 'issues'.
(1) an initial challenge leading to a draw: what then? Presumably a re-challenge is allowed, But the same opponent, or a different one? Leaving open the option of a different (presumably weaker) opponent causes no harm, and allows an over-ambitious but drawing challenger to lower his sights a little.
(2) there is a case for a challenge limit by rating. For example, David Tebb is #1; I'm #600 & rated 2300. A challenge from me is fair enough. BUT if I'm #600 & rated 980, a challenge from me is 'expensive' for DT because it wastes his time & blocks up a challenge slot. So some rating limit seems in order - not more than, say, 300 above one's own rating - to cut down on time-wasters & those who are just 'having a laugh'
(3) if the rule changes were offered from midnight, they would apply to all newcomers. But that would leave someone like me 'in limbo', neither an initial entrant nor a newcomer. What is to be done, short of starting the ladders afresh? This is important in practical terms. I have just won my second game on the 1-day ladder. The net effect is that, after two weeks and two wins, I've advanced three places to #210 😀. At that rate of progress & success, I'll reach my rating rank of #1 after 140 games in 35 months time 🙄. No thanks. I'm out of it. But if the rules change, and I re-enter, am I now a 'newcomer'?
Originally posted by iamatigerWhere would you put someone like User 129166 in the ladder? Is it fair that they get the opportunity to "jump" say 400 places because they challenged and beat a 1800/2000 rated player?
It's tricky to define where someone should join "by rating" since the ladder order is not necessarily rating order. One idea seen in squash ladders and the like is:
"The first time you join a ladder, you get one free challenge to anyone available on that ladder, if you win that you take their place and that player and all the others beneath him shuffle do it should be a smooth scaling though:
Challenge_range = ceiling (challengers_pos / 10)
Is it fair on the 2000 rated player who gets beat (who cannot refuse a challenge) to lose 24 points or more to someone of a similar ability, just because the player had suffered multiple timeouts?
As far as I know, every subscriber received an email about the ladders starting so everyone had the same opportunity to join at the same time and would have "slotted" in at their level.
Late entrants lose this. Thats tough.
If a game takes an average of 30 moves per player then joining the 21 day ladder could take nearly 2 years for one game to finish. Thats not going to be a quite ladder to rise up.
The 1 day ladder should move much quicker and if you challenge someone above you that is challenging someone above them, etc etc, you could move up significantly quicker if you all win your respective matches.
- Joined
- 26 Apr 03
- Moves
- 26771
Originally posted by atticus21) Very good point about the draws (which don't happen in squash or weightlifting), as you suggest maybe the "challenge all" option should not be used up in that case, on the other hand, the challenger should pick someone he can win against
OK so far. Now a few more 'issues'.
(1) an initial challenge leading to a draw: what then?
(2) there is a case for a challenge limit by rating.
(3) if the rule changes were offered from midnight, they would apply to all newcomers. But that would leave someone like me 'in limbo', neither an initial entrant nor a newcomer.
On the other other hand, a draw could move you to the half way point on the ladder between you and them, hmm.
2) I aqree there is a good case for a fairly relaxed limit by max rating difference. A silly challenger would use up his one chance playing a hopelessly good player, but there might be a lot of silly challengers out there.
3) As I tried to explain in my suggestion, I think if this rule changes then, all existing people on the ladder should get a free "challenge all", to make it fair.
- Joined
- 26 Apr 03
- Moves
- 26771
After some thought, I think the best set of changes might be:
a) Adopt Russ's suggestion, about challenge range. Assuming the top player is at position 1 this can be stated as:
Challenge_range = round_up( (challengers_pos-1)/10 )
Which gives a fairly smooth increase in challenge range with position.
b) Currently if there is a drawn ladder game then there is no change in positions, change this to the following:
If a challenge ends in a draw, the challenger moves to a position half way between the two players in the ladder (rounded down if there are an odd number of players in-between). The defending player's position does no change.
c) Add a rule that when joining a particular ladder for the very first time, a player goes in at the bottom of the ladder but is given a "long range challenge" with a range of:
Challenge_range = round_up( (challengers_pos-1)/(10/9) )
This for instance lets someone coming in at position 1000 have a one-off challenge anyone lower than position 99.
d) When c) is implemented, to be fair, give everyone currently on the ladders a free long range challenge on all ladders they are on.
rule b) makes rule c) work better as a challenger still gets some benefit from a long range challenge that results in a draw.
Originally posted by atticus2When you first joined the site you were provisionally rated at 1200 and had to play the lower rated "cannon fodder" to achieve your current rating.
So in your model, it's OK to be ranked by rating if you join before the start, but not if you join later for whatever reason. Why is this the case? Will you be saying the same in a year's time when many higher-rated players may have quit in frustration, but highly-rated newcomers will have been forced to join at the bottom? Or maybe no higher rated players ...[text shortened]... kly I don't think such a player would think that a useful or enjoyable way to spend his time.
You, however, knew at that time that you were much better player than most of the players on the site and should have been in the top 20 immediately.
Did you complain at that point that you needed to play in excess of 100 games to reach a rating of 2,000? You managed to stay and play these games so why should the Ladder be any different?
I think the original Ladders should have been started based on when you joined and not fiddled with to put the higher rated players at the top. Had this happened some lower ranked players could have achieved Boasting rights that they were 1st, in the top 10, 20 etc.
The ladders were meant to be a fun addition to the site, however the serious players, are taking them too seriously!!
- Joined
- 26 Apr 03
- Moves
- 26771
Originally posted by adramforallMy suggestions are following the scheme that a ladder should is an independent ranking technique to rating, and will rank players in a different but equally valid order. It must be a fun addition too of course.
When you first joined the site you were provisionally rated at 1200 and had to play the lower rated "cannon fodder" to achieve your current rating.
You, however, knew at that time that you were much better player than most of the players on the site and should have been in the top 20 immediately.
Did you complain at that point that you needed to ...[text shortened]... to be a fun addition to the site, however the serious players, are taking them too seriously!!
Originally posted by adramforallQuite simply, the 'economics' of the efficient use of time. When first joining the site, I can plough my way up the rating list quite quickly by entering faster tournaments. After two or three months, and 100 or so games, I reach 2000+.
When you first joined the site you were provisionally rated at 1200...You knew at that time that you...should have been in the top 20 immediately. Did you complain at that point that you needed to play in excess of 100 games to reach a rating of 2,000? You managed to stay and play these games so why should the Ladder be any different?
But the Ladders impose constraints. I can challenge only in a limited range, and only one at a time. To reach a rank commensurate with my rating, starting from the bottom, will take years, assuming an average rate of play. Under such conditions, it ceases to be a meaningful competition for certain players.
i must say I'm with adram and trev on this one, I don't think this ideia would bring any advantage to the ladder system, I mean everyone has some kind of pride in their ability (I was proud when I first reached 1400, 1500, 1600 and just now with 1700), I'm proud of my position on page 4 of the 7 day ladder, and I think those on page 6 and 7 will be just as proud (though the positions don't mean any thing yet), why ruin it for them?
Besides if we are going to make it messy at the end of the table, with challanges for 50 places and constantly higher rated players zooming throgh, why even bother having places below 100? they won't mean anything anymore, and so the system will be ruined for those who aren't good enough to enter the top places. In the end there would only be ladders with good players.
Let me ask you, were is the fun in seeing higher rated players zoom by constantly? It's just as little (none) as having to beat hundreths of weaker players on your way to the top.
Furthermore weak players pay just as much for this game as strong players do, and so have just as much rights as the strong players have.
I think this is a bad and very unfair idea. I vote NO! (if I there is to be a voting that is 😉) This is not the solution so instead I suggest you keep looking for alternative solutions that are fair and equal.
@orion25
You can have a Ladder as you describe. But strong players won't join it if they act rationally; and those that have will quit. All your model does is favour highly-rated players when the Ladder was first formed. Thereafter, highly-rated players are punished by being required to play way below their rank. Moreover, if you don't like higher-rated players 'zooming past', that is a reflection of prejudice, not merit. Higher-rated players gravitate upwards because they can. If they can't, they won't. Slowing the process down does not improve its fairness; it merely increases annoyance. Under those conditions, stronger players will quit. You may prefer this.
To the argument that a random allocation of rank is preferrable, I ask why? What good is achieved by a player rated 1200 being placed No. 1? If that place has been gained on merit, fine. But by arbitrary allocation, it's pointless. Does one truly believe that a Ladder will rank players over the long-term irrespective of their rating achieved outside the Ladder? Of course it won't.
So if you want stronger players to remain, best facilitate a different system - unless of course you are content that some will remain who apparently take pleasure in beating far weaker players.