Originally posted by mghrn55
We are just about on the same page.
Actually my proposal for using individual rating change came from some of your ideas.
Using individual player ratings change to add to a net point system allows other issues to be dealt with.
That would work off a clan rating separate from the general site rating.
Examples:
- any games that don't reach a certain n ...[text shortened]... stem.
We would not be entirely eliminating the net scoring system.
But rather improving it.
Yes, we are approaching a feasible list of issues and solutions. I do believe that most clans can get most of what they want, if we institute some sensible improvements. I realise that we'll never be FIDE- or USCF-approved, but a return to the honour system does not seem feasible either, so some new policies are necessary to regulate collusion and sandbagging.
Flagging suspicious games is a good idea; I'm not sure what effect treating them as unrated would have though. Someone else once proposed that dropped games not drop the player's individual rating, which would have wrecked the rating system if implemented. I will have to have a good long think about treating games which terminate or timeout within 5-moves as unrated, whether this is effectively the same as the previous proposal with a different name. Treating games dropped within 5 moves as unrated might simply lead some players to drop them on the 6th move; nothing gained. As we saw last year, some games were played out to mate-on-the-move, and
then resigned; any unbiased player would recognize that as suspicious and such games should also be flagged as such.
Maybe you meant "unrated" in the sense that those games would not be counted as having been part of the challenge at all. This might work. The devil's in the detail, and we're still waiting to see what Russ's proposed clan rating is actually measuring.
Inevitably there will be some element of human judgment required to distinguish games resigned after a blunder from games dropped (or timed out) in a playable position, however many or few moves were made. From my own few clan games, I know that even good players sometimes make awful blunders in the opening, and there is no reason to deny resignations in those cases or treat them as suspicious.
Some sort of a bonus for large challenges, if premised on a ratings-based ranking system, could work.
Cheers,
moonbus