Site Ideas
01 Feb 07
14 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorDaraJust a question from a new subscriber, if you are participating in the Forums, why do you have your vacation flag up for playing chess???
Useless. You pay for the service, you can play as many games as you like.
EDIT: P.S. Not that here is anything wrong with it, I had just assumed that the vacation flag up, meant the person was actually on vacation.
14 Feb 07
Originally posted by DoctorDaraA limit on games would keep the ratings more stable one would assume. Of course it has already been pointed out in this thread that a person could control where their ratings are as easily with 20 games as 500 games. I personally don't see how, but I suppose where there is a will, there is a way!
I've never seen someone do this before, drop so many games at once, but then as previously stated I try to keep my own game load around the low to middle 20s. I have noticed a number of players fluctuate, including myself. It is sometimes frustrating to lose a game that costs 20 points which takes 2-3 games to win back. Or the fact that a higher rated pl ...[text shortened]... t we don't seem to get this option. It's too bad they don't have 2 ways to rate wins/losses.
15 Feb 07
Originally posted by Very RustyIf I resign 20 games I could change my rating by quite a lot. But each successive game resigned would change my rating less. So resigning 40 games doesn't reduce my rating twice as much as resigning 20.
A limit on games would keep the ratings more stable one would assume. Of course it has already been pointed out in this thread that a person could control where their ratings are as easily with 20 games as 500 games. I personally don't see how, but I suppose where there is a will, there is a way!
15 Feb 07
Originally posted by Very RustyRead my vacation note. It says that my brother is getting married this week and there may be a delays due to family though I'm not in danger of timing out. I sent notes to all the players involved and have moved regularly. I put it up because I normally try to move every day during the week and I'm only moving 1-2 times this week. It's a courtesy to the people I'm playing. It annoys me when people dissappear without explaining for a couple of days. Even if they not in danger of timing out. It's easier to write a post than think through some of my more complicated games, especially middle game since I'm still just learning the game.
Just a question from a new subscriber, if you are participating in the Forums, why do you have your vacation flag up for playing chess???
EDIT: P.S. Not that here is anything wrong with it, I had just assumed that the vacation flag up, meant the person was actually on vacation.
15 Feb 07
Originally posted by Very RustyAs previously pointed out, I believe it depends on your free time.
A limit on games would keep the ratings more stable one would assume. Of course it has already been pointed out in this thread that a person could control where their ratings are as easily with 20 games as 500 games. I personally don't see how, but I suppose where there is a will, there is a way!
15 Feb 07
Originally posted by DoctorDaraI see, makes perfect sense to me, and quite thoughtful of you to do so.
Read my vacation note. It says that my brother is getting married this week and there may be a delays due to family though I'm not in danger of timing out. I sent notes to all the players involved and have moved regularly. I put it up because I normally try to move every day during the week and I'm only moving 1-2 times this week. It's a courtesy to the p ...[text shortened]... my more complicated games, especially middle game since I'm still just learning the game.
15 Feb 07
Originally posted by GalaxyShieldWow, that's amazing. I'm so inspired seeing that. How long have you been playing to get up to juggling that many games at once? I see you've been on the site for 2 years.
I can't help feeling slightly guilty after reading this thread...
😞
🙂
15 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by GalaxyShieldYou are one of those rare amazing People who not only can handle more than 500 games, but at the same time maintain a rating within at least 200 points of your highest rating. Simply Amazing, and you have nothing to feel guilty about. You should be proud actually of quite an accomplishment!!! You certainly are an exception to what I have been talking about.
I can't help feeling slightly guilty after reading this thread...
😞
🙂
15 Feb 07
A better solution is rating floors. Once you've played 50-100 games and maintained a certain rating, a floor is set 100 points below your established strength (rounded down to the nearest hundred). For example, a player who stays 1800+ for 50 games would have a floor of 1700.
This could be implemented instantly, and made retroactive.
It's not a good idea to take features away from customers once they're used to having them.
15 Feb 07
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemWulebgr had also suggested a rating floor, which indeed does sound like a great idea. The next thing would be where to set it? What amount of games would be enough to accurately arrive at someones rating strength? It is much better than my idea of "Limit Subscriber Games", as some have pointed out they could control their rating as easily with 20 games. As you said: "It's not a good idea to take features away from customers once they're used to having them."!!
A better solution is rating floors. Once you've played 50-100 games and maintained a certain rating, a floor is set 100 points below your established strength (rounded down to the nearest hundred). For example, a player who stays 1800+ for 50 games would have a floor of 1700.
This could be implemented instantly, and made retroactive.
It's not a good idea to take features away from customers once they're used to having them.
16 Feb 07
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemThere are some issues that need to be addressed (some of which could only be addressed by simulation). Will the rating floor result in rating inflation (say an 1800 player resigns [or times out in] 100 games so the last 90 will have him sitting on his rating floor unable to go any lower, however every player he resigns against still gains the points for beating a 1700 player adding perhaps 1800 points to the rating pool)? Will the rating floor eventually adjust if you constantly play at a level below it (i.e. play 100 games and never actually get more than 20 points above your floor)?
A better solution is rating floors. Once you've played 50-100 games and maintained a certain rating, a floor is set 100 points below your established strength (rounded down to the nearest hundred). For example, a player who stays 1800+ for 50 games would have a floor of 1700.
This could be implemented instantly, and made retroactive.
It's not a good idea to take features away from customers once they're used to having them.
Also by retroactive I assume you mean that everyone who has an established rating would be given a floor immediately NOT that we would recalculate every rating on the site as if the rating floor had existed always.
16 Feb 07
Originally posted by XanthosNZEvery time a new player joins, he brings at least a thousand more points into the rating pool. This seems like it would cause much more inflation than a few people beating someone on the 'floor'. I doubt it's much of a worry, although I haven't run the numbers.
There are some issues that need to be addressed (some of which could only be addressed by simulation). Will the rating floor result in rating inflation (say an 1800 player resigns [or times out in] 100 games so the last 90 will have him sitting on his rating floor unable to go any lower, however every player he resigns against still gains the points for be ...[text shortened]... OT that we would recalculate every rating on the site as if the rating floor had existed always.
Thanks for the clarification on 'retroactive'. That is indeed what I meant.