Sandbagging and Collusion

Originally posted by Mctayto
Yet another example of being brow beaten by the blight of the site.
Stick to your guns and don't be fooled by their assertion s that others follow their cheating ways.

Unlike you, Dave has a brain and can understand logic.
You should stick to your cheating.
So far, it is the only thing I can see that you are good at.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Clearly you are too dim to understand why an ELO system would do away with the advantages of collusion. Russ has explained it, I have explained it, moonbus has explained it, please be reasonable on yourself, this is not the thread for you, you are simply too dim to grasp anything being discussed here. Its not a personal insult its, just that you are, you cannot help it.

I will keep repeating this until someone can show me any errors in my reasoning
I hope everyone comes to their senses and realises what adopting ELO will mean for the future of the clan challenge
Far from curing the ails of the clan challenge it will make it worse
It will result in the top clans fearing being challenged from those below ( because a loss will mean a plunge into the depths )
It will promote sandbagging to gain an advantage over other clans
The only way it could work is if everybody was honest
Small chance of that from what I have seen so far
ELO may work for individuals but not for clans
It was not meant for clans and should therefore be thrown out

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
bwahaha its freedom fighters like me that have brought about a change to the system that has seen the last days of your nefarious sandbagging ways hopefully gone forever.

Back of da net! nom!nom!nom!

Freedom fighters ??
On a chess website ??

Wouldn't it just be cheaper to get you some therapy ??

Originally posted by mghrn55
Freedom fighters ??
On a chess website ??

Wouldn't it just be cheaper to get you some therapy ??

yes I'll ask my wife for a relaxing Indian massage, thanks for the suggestion.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes I'll ask my wife for a relaxing Indian massage, thanks for the suggestion.

Pretty hard to get a massage if you're in a straight jacket. 😀

The post that was quoted here has been removed

thanks from some one as dim as you i can simply dismiss the claims as those of a dimwit.

Originally posted by mghrn55
Pretty hard to get a massage if you're in a straight jacket. 😀

not in India, they have ways. 😵

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
not in India, they have ways. 😵

All kidding aside ......
You do have a problem with delusional tendencies and obsession.

Tell us.
What is your metric for determining the success of Russ's changes to the clan feature ?

Is it a tangible improvement to the feature ?
Or is it how much the new metric moves Metallica down in the standings ??

Your motives are embarrassingly transparent !!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Proposals are good but limiting two challenges in a twelve month period is not good. There is a limited pool as it stands and some clans simply refuse to give you a gig. I cannot get a challenge with IVV or with Danger Mouse or The Hollies because of their allegiance to a certain clan so I play those clans that will give me a gig.

As Russ poin ...[text shortened]... ers more and decrease the incentive for playing lower rated players. Panic over problem solved.

Maybe there are other reasons why some clans won't play you. C'mon, give it a think.

I'm willing to negotiate on the number of same-clan-same-player challenges, so long as they don't end up looking like foregone conclusions.

Originally posted by moonbus
Maybe there are other reasons why some clans won't play you. C'mon, give it a think.

I'm willing to negotiate on the number of same-clan-same-player challenges, so long as they don't end up looking like foregone conclusions.

Ok I thought bout it and yes its because we are too awesome. I should have thought about that before. 😛

If there is an ELO based system with rich rewards for playing those close to or above ones rating and scant and meagre pickings for playing those below ones rating then there will be no incentive to accept lopsided challenges. A clan can collude all they like but they will get nothing for doing it, it will be simply a waste of time.

If I (1800) play you (1926 ELO) and beat you up I will get a rich reward, maybe 20 or 30 rating points. If I (1800) play malingerer55 (allegedly 1751) and beat him up i will get maybe 10-15 rating points. If I play Romadrool (1605) and beat him up I may only get (5 rating points) and if I play say podger (1210) I will get nothing and my time will be wasted.

Clans that want to win will be forced to take risks. This is the opposite of issuing and accepting lopsided challenges at present. Some of the challenges I get sent to me from other clan leaders I think they are outrageous and are quite frankly an insult, but they are just trying to hedge their bets. The system as it stands is seeing how much you can get away with. As it stands its in a clans interests to issue challenges that are clearly lopsided in its favour, take this incentive away and collusion will no longer be a problem.

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

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Ok I thought bout it and yes its because we are too awesome. I should have thought about that before. 😛

If there is an ELO based system with rich rewards for playing those close to or above ones rating and scant and meagre pickings for playing those below ones rating then there will be no incentive to accept lopsided challenges. A clan can collu ...[text shortened]... arly lopsided in its favour, take this incentive away and collusion will no longer be a problem.

There is only one problem
Go and have a look in the mirror

Originally posted by mghrn55
Site administration has already shut down 2 clans for collusion.
Precedent has been set.

As to resigning games in decided challenges, there is nothing wrong with that.
The objective is to win the challenge !!
Period !!

I ask you this.
Would you punish a player who has won a tournament for resigning his remaining games ??
He entered the tournamen ...[text shortened]... rocess that had their own motives for changing the clan feature.

You do see that. Don't you ?

As to resigning games in decided challenges, there is nothing wrong with that.
The objective is to win the challenge !!
Period !!

You already know I don't buy this. You already know several others in this discussion don't buy this. Your continuing to assert it without addressing our objection isn't going to change anything.

I ask you this.
Would you punish a player who has won a tournament for resigning his remaining games ??

If they were not lost positions, yes, I would punish them!

This may come as a bit of a shock to you, but some of us still like interesting games of chess on their own merits, regardless of the score in the tournament. We don't want our opponent to resign when we've not actually beaten them.

And on the same topic, no one talks about people like McTayto who enter the same tournaments and then resign their games en masse.

I've talked about this behavior and condemned this behavior. I don't like game throwing. Period. If I were running the site, anyone who did this so blatantly would get banned. McT ruins the tourney experience for other entrants.

As for the rest, I would not have been opposed to fixing the net points system, but it appears that the site owner's been convinced to try this ELO thing. So I am going to try to work with that direction for now.