Losing on time

I've noticed that when a player times out lots of games in a row they only lose ratings points for the first few, then their rating stays the same. Why is this? I'm sure it contributes to the gradual inflation of ratings.

Perhaps this is the site's way of preventing a player from getting wiped out if they can't really play for long periods of time?

You would really have to ask Erik about this.

look at how many moves are made in the game, only games > a certain number of moves are rated, and I think the magic number is 3.

Look here for the maths of the rating system. It can be several answers, perhaps. How do chess ratings work?

When the ratings lower due to time outs, the difference increases. Hence, each loss lose less points.

The game only affects your rating if you have played a certain number of moves before time out. In a tournament you get the point, but no rating change.

Perhaps there are other mechanics as well, I don't know. But look at this fellow that was excluded due to cheating.

maestrogaffney

He as at least ten losses du to exclusion. He loses points for each. Of course, that is not time out, but anyway .

Well, I don't know. It is better to make your moves and do not lose on time, I guess

:)

It seems to be a chess.com policy rather than the mechanics of the ratings formulae. There have been several players whose progress I have followed who have suddenly gone AWOL, their vacation time has elapsed and they have lost all their remaining games on time. For the first 5 games their rating goes down, then suddenly it stops going down, but their opponents still get ratings points.

These guys might have lost a run of 15 or more games on time, so for 10 games people are gaining ratings points, but the system isn't losing any = ratings inflation.

I understand that the guy who lost the games may have some serious issue meaning he can't get to the computer, but that's not the point of this thread. If someone joins, builds a rating of 2000, starts 100 games and then leaves chess.com, losing all 100 games then there are going to be a lot of extra ratings points in the system that shouldn't be there = ratings inflation.

A consequence of NOT having a rating floor is that subsequent winners against a withdrawing opponent are unfairly penalised. The rating floor was introduced  specifically to overcome a massive series of time-outs (from He Who Cannot Be Named).

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/upper-limit-on-games-playing-concurrently

Ratings inflation occurs - but I don't see why it matters much - since chess.com ratings are independent of any other system of ratings (e.g. FIDE or USCF). It is generally acceptsed that chess.com ratings are already inflated by comparison with FIDE or USCF.

At the start of 2009 Mainstreet posted a thread asking what our targets were for 2009. I stated that I was aiming to raise my 2000-2050 rating to about 2200. The idea is that, through study of my chosen openings, work at tactics trainer and chess mentor, studying some other books on middle and endgames and a series of online games and tournaments, that I should push my ability another 10% or so. Ratings are an important part of measuring progress.

Since this, my rating has escalated more than my ability merits. I've also noticed that when I have played people who I last played about 3 or 4 months ago, their rating has also increased by 100 points or so and I haven't noticed a marked increase in their ability either. It makes it very hard to keep tabs on my actual improvement if the goalposts shift.

Clearly Chess.com ratings are inflated. That is neither good nor bad. And I am sure the policy of not penalizing (or sometimes rewarding) people for time losses has something to do with it. What amazes me is the number of games people play. I have enough trouble playing 4-6 properly with the time to devote to opening strategies as well as understanding many of the subtleties. Also I think people take these games with a differing degree of seriousness.

For instance Jonnyjupiter appears to take his game seriously based on his improvement goals. While many people just try and play as much and often as they can (almost at blitz speed)--this also alters the rating distribution.

One potential alternative is to have different playing pools. Just like  many topics are silly, many players do not care. So perhaps only having people who are paying members play against each other will make it more it a little more seriously. Or paying members would have a choice as to which pool they wanted to play in. For me this would encourage me to become a paying member.

sometimes if there not enough moves in the game and your oppenent times out they won't use any rating points.

Check out the profiles of

http://www.chess.com/echess/profile/kamasutra

http://www.chess.com/echess/profile/zigza

This is an example of the logical extreme the abuse of ratings floors can be taken to. There are several other accounts this player has setup as well, you can look through the game history.

I guess if you challenge them quickly, they accept and inevitably get banned for setting up multiple accounts, you could get a couple of hundred extra ratings points too!

Should chess.com ask for proof of identity when an account is created? (driving license no., passport no., social security no, national student no. , ...)

So, if you play someone who subsequently gets banned, any points you have gained should be taken away. That could have interesting implications.

Maybe a DNA sample should be submitted just to be sure.

artfizz wrote:

So, if you play someone who subsequently gets banned, any points you have gained should be taken away. That could have interesting implications.

I don't see how it can be implemented. Presumably these guys aren't going to want to accept challenges anyway, because it will expose them for what they are, so it should probably be self-regulating anyway.

I got a bit wound up by such flagrant abuse. Going to the green room to listen to some Brian Eno. Ah, the mellow vibes.

Such flagrant abuse and yet kamasutra's account still hasnt been closed......why? Need to close all his dupe accounts as well....what a loser !