|
|
|
Author
| Message |
|---|
|
|
Player known as Queenalice==> You sent me the following message: "Hey you think that's bad read curret [sic] Chess disscussion on unfair rating let others see it too....". Why?
I am a mathematician. I work with Statistics and facts every day to either support or disprove some assertion someone says IS TRUE or ISN'T
TRUE. My biases, feelings, prejudices, or personal views NEVER enter into the problem.
When this happens, I lose my objectivity, and
therefore my overall perspective suffers. When
the results of my work are used by others in
the production of a product, my answers must
be correct.
Why? Quite simple really---because someones
life may be at stake.
As for the feelings of georgiaflag, deepthought_4_u,
Queenalice, and Chessman2005, your words belie
your convoluted logic, and do not change what Miguel
has just posted.
You four Junior-Fischer-Wannabes need to brush
on basic algebra. Case in point, georgiaflag
gives two facts that have no bearing on the
rating system he is demeaning: #1 game lasted
eight moves, and #2 the opponent Time Forfeited.
These facts are not germane. Maybe eye color
and weight should be addressed as well; this is
just as superfilous.
The game could have last six months with eighty-eight
moves made---it makes not one whit of difference.
The ratings at Queen Alice are provisional
until after the 25th result---what's the
problem?! The US Chess Federation has used
this same system for decades.
One small suggestion for Miguel: you may
wish to add some code that segregates
Provisional ratings from Established ones.
What no one has played up yet is a point I like very much. After a certain rating
spread, then the only "point" on the line
is the game point for W--D--L. This allows higher rated players the chance to play lower ones with out "risking" those hard earned points. It also allows higher rated players
to try new moves against all types of
competition.
What's the BIG deal anyway, study your books,
practice, and play often!!
Better yet, why don't you follow what I am
having to do. This will be explained more
fully at a more appropriate time. Just go to
my PLAYER PROFILE page and read what I have
posted about playing Black.
:-(
|
|
|
> One small suggestion for Miguel: you may
> wish to add some code that segregates
> Provisional ratings from Established ones.
He already has this, it's the little "p" at the end of a persons rating.
---
To the others:
Can we all agree not to bitch and moan about anyone's "provisional" rating?!? Pretty please? If there's a legitimate gripe about someone's established rating then fine, but let's all read the rating information easily accessible on this site and let's all realize that a player's rating is NOT an accurate representation of their playing strength until AT LEAST their 10th game and after only their first game it OBVIOUSLY means JACK DIDDLY SQUAT. Hey, to be even safer, let's assume a rating doesn't mean much until after their 25th game. That's what the USCF recommends and if it's good enough for the USCF, it's good enough for you. If it's not good enough for you, go complain to them.
And another thing, I see absolutely NO REASON to post the same message to two different forums. Miguel (and I suspect everyone else, including, apparently, you) read all the forums so at its very best it's unnecessary, and quite frankly I find it rather annoying.
--p
|
|
|
Your opinion is respected, so my understanding then if an unrated player plays someone who is high rated provisional and wins, that provisional player risk losing alot of points, then why should any rated provisional take the chance until they are established then? DO THE MATH LADY!.
|
|
|
I would love to "do the math lady", but I think I should get to know her better first.
Anyway, if I read the rankings info correctly, neither winning nor losing a game against an unrated player will affect your rating, regardless of whether your ranking is provisional or not. So, no, the provisionally ranked person does not risk losing a lot of points by losing to an unrated player.
The unrated player has no rating until after his/her first game, so there is no opponent's rating available to modify your own rating. Confused yet? Look at it this way, the first game for an unrated player is to merely establish a beginning rank. It has almost no effect on the rated player. This is precisely what was done, as best I can tell, in the screambaby vs. georgiaflag game.
So the only down side there might be for high ranked players (provisional or established) to challenge unrated players is that the unrated player gets a high initial ranking. Even in losing, screambaby got georgiaflag's rating minus 400. Though this should fix itself after a couple dozen more games. If screambaby doesn't return to Queen Alice, he will be listed as inactive and he will drop off the charts.
--p
Edit: I thought of another risk. If you have a provisional rating and start playing an unrated player, and during the course of your game they become rated, then losing to them could damage your rating. But then again, both your ratings probably needed that adjustment anyway since they obviously weren't accurate. Also, the more games you've played, the less any such effect would be. A provisional rating for a player with 20 games fluctuates by a win or a loss much less than does the rating of a player with only 2 games.
With an established rating, your rating is protected, so unless the unrated person finishes 25 games before yours finishes, you couldn't be hurt.
|
|
|
What follows is just my opinion, but in thinking about all these ratings questions that appear in these forums from time to time, it feels to me like the point of ratings is often forgotten. Ratings shouldn't be something to be protected, and games shouldn't be accepted only on the basis of whether they're safe or not. I play chess to the best of my abilities and let the rating take care of itself.
Do you want a surefire way to get a 2500 rating? Play people ranked 500 or lower one thousand times and beat them each time. You'll get 2 points a game and eventually you'll have a high rating. Will you deserve that rating? You'll have to turn down all other challenges from more competitively ranked players. If someone actually did this and you discovered it by looking at their games, would you take that high rating seriously?
Any rating system will have some exploitable mechanism to be discovered by someone interested in doing so. The only consistent way to combat this is to play chess to earn your rating, not to protect it or falsely inflate it, and don't worry so much about what the other guy does. His game records are just as publically accessible as yours. You'll know if his rating is deserved or not. If you don't like the way someone got their rating, ignore them. Better yet, play them. See what they've got.
--p
|
| Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next |
|
|
|
