Sandbagging and Collusion

Originally posted by shortcircuit
So? Apples and oranges dude.

Clan chess is NOT the same as individual chess matches. Not in any sense of the word.
You sound like a Euro claiming their football rules are not the same as American football.
They argue one against the other, but they are two entirely different games.
Maybe you should think about this a bit more, because you are obvi ...[text shortened]... on, however, is not condoned in ANY sport or game. Therefore, it is easy to say they are cheats.

I figured you'd attack the analogy. Duh, clan chess isn't the same as individual chess. But the analogy is apt. You order your players to resign games to save their energy for challenges that are still in contention. That is exactly the same motivation as with the Russians vs. Fischer.

Originally posted by Silverstriker
How about making clan games unrated?

This only makes the problem of sandbagging outside the clan system worse.

Originally posted by padger
There is only one problem
Go and have a look in the mirror

please be quiet you are a drone of a thousand drones.

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.

C'mon !!
You would only play me if I joined Anti-Metallica and then agreed to resign after 2 moves. 😀

The post that was quoted here has been removed

you do otherwise why are you replying.

Originally posted by mghrn55
C'mon !!
You would only play me if I joined Anti-Metallica and then agreed to resign after 2 moves. 😀

I have played you before I think, it was a draw.

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.

Clan captains would be well-advised to regard lopsided challenge offers with caution under any ranking system, ratings-based or otherwise.

"As it stands it's in a clan's interest to issue challenges that are clearly lopsided in its favour, take this incentive away and collusion will no longer be a problem." It is obvious that clan captains would like to win as many points from a challenge as possible, and that issuing lopsided challenge offers increases the chance of winning more games per challenge, but only if the offer is accepted. Where is the incentive for the other side to accept a lopsided challenge? I don't see your point there.

It is interesting to hear under what conditions you think collusion would no longer be a problem. Please elaborate. I'm not following you there.

Originally posted by moonbus
Clan captains would be well-advised to regard lopsided challenge offers with caution under any ranking system, ratings-based or otherwise.

"As it stands it's in a clan's interest to issue challenges that are clearly lopsided in its favour, take this incentive away and collusion will no longer be a problem." It is obvious that clan captains would like to w ...[text shortened]... you think collusion would no longer be a problem. Please elaborate. I'm not following you there.

There is no incentive for a receiving clan to accept a lopsided challenge unless its in its own favour that is why there is usually a process of negotiation and challenges are bounced back and forth until a compromise is reached.

In an ELO based system the criteria will not be on disparity but on equality. Why should I accept a challenge when there is no risk of losing and nothing to gain? It will simply tie my players up fighting over measly spoils when I could be employing them in challenges that are at least equal or against slightly stronger opponents where the spoils are the greatest.

If for example I receive a challenge that is clearly lopsided in my favour as it stands at present I accept it with glee, but under an ELO system will I not be wasting my time pitting my players against those who are clearly lower rated. The entire challenge may be won but for measly points. I would much rather spend my resources fighting clans of equal standing where the risks are greater but the rewards too.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
There is no incentive for a receiving clan to accept a lopsided challenge unless its in its own favour that is why there is usually a process of negotiation and challenges are bounced back and forth until a compromise is reached.

In an ELO based system the criteria will not be on disparity but on equality. Why should I accept a challenge when t ...[text shortened]... d my resources fighting clans of equal standing where the risks are greater but the rewards too.

the answer is stagnation

Originally posted by padger
the answer is stagnation

what are you slobbering about now?

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
I figured you'd attack the analogy. Duh, clan chess isn't the same as individual chess. But the analogy is apt. You order your players to resign games to save their energy for challenges that are still in contention. That is exactly the same motivation as with the Russians vs. Fischer.

You are full of crap. Back up your argument.
I can back mine up as I have stated.
Let's have Russ check it and the one that is wrong leaves the site.
I can prove I never have instructed my players to resign ANY games.
Not a single one.

So what is your next unfounded assertion??

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
I figured you'd attack the analogy. Duh, clan chess isn't the same as individual chess. But the analogy is apt. You order your players to resign games to save their energy for challenges that are still in contention. That is exactly the same motivation as with the Russians vs. Fischer.

When I was playing for Metallica, no one ever ordered me to resign games. I played every game till I felt there was no hope to win no matter how many games had already been won in the challenge.

Originally posted by shortcircuit
You are full of crap. Back up your argument.
I can back mine up as I have stated.
Let's have Russ check it and the one that is wrong leaves the site.
I can prove I never have instructed my players to resign ANY games.
Not a single one.

So what is your next unfounded assertion??

Russ can't check personal phone calls, now can he?! 😏

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
Russ can't check personal phone calls, now can he?! 😏

He can if he knows your phone number.

But try to stay on topic genius.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what are you slobbering about now?

The only outcome from an ELO clan system is a form of a ladder
Where to play anyone beneath your clans rating is a no no
You have already said you would not play someone from beneath your clans rating
You will there fore end up with like playing like with no change
Hence STAGNATION