Proposal for automatic + points for 2nd place

FFA Top rated players tend to lose points even though it landed second place.

+0.01 or +0.1 should be automatic whatever your rating is. This would be much more appreciated most especially the top guys than having a negative points.

Good example in game #398188 

For now, we have a small pool of players though its improving, resulting high rated guys to choose and play/matched automatically with lower rated players while waiting for much more high rated players to log in. Most of the time you need to secure first place to have a positive points, 2nd-4th would result to negative.

Playing FFA is a risky one and much more riskier on the lower boards especially having those high rating. Even though you got the skill, tactics etc., you cannot beat 3 players ganging up on you, LOL or 2 guys gunning directly to you while the other one is ignorant (your opposite).  In FFA, sometimes all you need is luck or maybe mostly. LOL.

But really it would be a good improvement having that positive points in 2nd place!

There is an opinion that only the 1st player should get +points and other 3 -points, even if their rating is low:

https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/ffa-ratings-like-risk-on-gambit-com

Winner takes all is absurd. This game will be unpopular if you will implement it.

Bill on the thread struck his own idea. But he got some other interesting ideas.

+0.01/+0.1 is not that hard to give to 2nd guys who played well. Maybe the developer can just do some tweaks on the scoring. He can do it.

Given these you might see more players playing on lower boards. 3 players with 1300 and one 1650+ etc.

Also to stabilize the pool of high rated player from 1600+++ while waiting for other guys to soon join the pool.

I just want to see more high rating players playing than just spectating because their waiting for other 1600+ to get online and play. That's why other players who waits got bored and do some stuffs.

Better to see results of 2 positives and 2 negatives automatically.

@STOPpromotion, I am not a fun of "the winner takes it all" system. I showed it to @12_15_14 as an example of a recent (1 week old) rating system related idea from our forum.

Now the system is:

1st place: guaranteed +, calculated using a Glicko formula, depends on player rating
2nd place: + or -, calculated, depends on player rating
3rd place: + or -, calculated, depends on player rating
4th place: guaranteed -. calculated, depends on player rating

@12_15_14 wants it to be:
1st place: same as now
2nd place: +0.01 (or +0.1) whatever the rating is
3rd place: same as now
4th place: same as now

So, we should remove a fair calculation (pure Maths) for the 2nd place (which is special for some reason). The idea is to lower a risk for top players (which are just 1% of all players).

@Bill13Cooper offered (but changed his mind):

1st place: guaranteed BIG+, calculated by some formula (Glicko? ELO? other?)
2nd place: guaranteed -, calculated
3rd place: guaranteed -, calculated
4th place: guaranteed -, calculated

The current system and Bill13's system do not have artificial privileges for 1% of players. I don't say they are perfect! I say they are not biased. No privileges, no discrimination.

At least give credits to high rated players 1600+++ playing in lower boards who ends up in second place and got a negative points. Not a good standpoint in a psychological aspect. Positive is much better to see than a negative one.

What I want is if ever they got that negative in second place, there should be an automatic algorithm/application to convert it to +.01 or better +.1

Proposal

1st place: +
2nd place: if the system detects a negative result = it automatically convert it to (staffs/admins your choice) +.01/+.1
3rd place: -/+
4th place: -

This would somehow improve the moral/psychological aspect of the game result to players, because it's not all about the exact math. Played well, you got a second place and you ended up having a negative points which is so frustrating/sad/whatever (math cant compute your emotions). If its a positive result what would be the impact. You tell me.

Better to see results of 2 positives automatically and a possible 3 positive results.

Recently I found this text in a description of one outdoor sports game:

> Actions such as intentional fouling, cheating, dangerous plays, disrespectful conversations, and other ‘win at all costs’ behavior are contrary to the Spirit of the Game.

There is an opinion that some 4PC Players (including some Top players) try to win at all costs and care about their rating too much. They forget about the Spirit of the Game and about getting fun from the game process, not from the win only.

If we will implement your suggestion those players will be spoiled even more. Is this what we want?

Nice description!

4PC

Win at all cost = mostly its the the mentality of a competitive players especially the top guys. Don't get me wrong I'm talking about clear and fair win. So are you saying you play to lose or just enjoy the game. Don't you want to win???

Care about the rating too much = of course we care, why don't you??? If not then why bother putting the rating calculations, right?

Well, personally I care but saying it too much is No and it is somewhat redundant or gives negative implications. Too much is not a good thing to say. For me, I just want to be on the LB to prove something and someone and oh yeah I did it. Now, I can just chill.

Spirit of the Game = winning is fun, right? Yeah! The game is fun that's why we come and play, if were not enjoying the game why bother come here, right?

Players will be spoiled? = I think its more on improving the game morally/psychologically. If ever your in the same situation and got that second place and have that negative points, what do you feel??? As if your time playing the game is somehow wasted or not well recognized.

Recently, I just thought of this:

The most important thing that WE your players/customers offer to your site is our TIME. 

Look at my recent game https://www.chess.com/4-player-chess?g=399753 I needed just 2 moves to capture the king, then Claim Win and be the 1st. In this case, I would get a good + to my rating, because Gustav is 1671. But I resigned and became 2nd.

You should accept that people have different views, mentality and priorities. The question "Care about the rating too much = of course we care, why don't you???" can be answered, for example, as: Because it is just a game.

> why bother putting the rating calculations ... For me, I just want to be on the LB to prove something and someone and oh yeah I did it.

Yes, of course. It is one of the reasons the leaderboard and rating calculation exist. But it is not the only reason. If players have some (relatively fair) rating, we can separate them to "leagues/levels/tiers" and they will play with opponents of similar level.

We can remove the leaderboard and/or make ratings hidden during games (or completely hidden and visible to chess.com admins only - for algorithm tuning), the players will still be matched with opponents of similar level, but no one will know who is "the best". And, believe me, less than 5% of players will be frustrated by this change.

> Don't you want to win??? ... If ever your in the same situation and got that second place and have that negative points, what do you feel???

I want to win. It doesn't mean I feel bad, when I get -5 for the 2nd place. I know, that it was calculated by an algo, using a formula, not just assigned to me by some subjective judge(s). If other players didn't cheat, it is fair -5. Why should I feel bad if something fair happened?

Your game your decision.

Yeah we have different views . . . , I did not say otherwise.

Yes it’s just a game. And Yes, in games there is always a competition. Again we have different approach in a game. We are unique individuals. Some play for fun, others want to compete well, just learn the game, meet new friends etc …

separate them to "leagues/levels/tiers" and they will play with opponents of similar level = IMO, I think the Matchmaker Rating Range does that already.

For me, I just want to be on the LB . . . = To be honest this is directed to 4PC admins to prove that I can win and be on the leader board fair and square. No offense.

We can remove the leaderboard . . . 5% of players will be frustrated by this change = Well if that’s the consensus of the group, so be it. We will still be here.

Be on the 1700 and play against 3 1500 players. If ever you ended up 2^nd and got that negative and you played well . . . do tell me the feeling.

We will have different reactions, we’re unique but we do have something in common (just talking here generally)

Why should I feel bad if something fair happened? = Well you don’t need too and would you feel much better if it gives you an incentive/recognition/a positive reward? I think and hope you got me here. It depends on how we see things.

Think Positive, an old but powerful quote, love this one.

> ... IMO, I think the Matchmaker Rating Range does that already.

Rating Range Selector cannot work without rating system. You asked "why bother putting the rating calculations", this is one of the reasons: If there is no rating, you cannot detect, who is on which level. It does not matter if you filter players using Rating Range Selector or an algorithm, both these ways need some numbers to be calculated.

Those numbers are just numbers and they are neutral. But we can add some meta- to them and consider those numbers as a measure of our characteristics (chess skills, luck, charm, intelligence, patience, ability to concentrate, the will to win, ability to learn, ability to find and exploit flaws in the rules, ... , or their combination).

And if you do so, it can become really important to you to get those numbers higher and higher. Which may lead to both good and bad actions and consequences. If you remember (or just remind yourself time by time) that "it is just a game", you can avoid those bad consequences.

> Be on the 1700 and play against 3 1500 players. If ever you ended up 2^nd and got that negative and you played well . . . do tell me the feeling.

I answered this question when said that I feel all right, because the rating 1) is not subjective and 2) it is just a game. If I am 1700 and I am the 2nd after a 1500 player in 4PC FFA, it can be for different reasons. And all those reasons (except playing vs cheaters) are fine.

> would you feel much better if it gives you an incentive/recognition/a positive reward?

No. Because it is unfair. I am not a child, so I want to get a real feedback. I do not want to get/hear flattery. If mathematically I should get -, but get +, it is a sort of flattery.

Yeah, the rating is there for a reason which has a lot of purpose.

That’s why I told you that I care about the rating in order to prove, you know. Rising and falling of my rating not too much. I already attained my objective. But for me, I rather see a positive one than a negative on the 2^nd spot. Share the love hahahaha.

The rating gives you information on how experience the player plays the game. He/She might be good but it does not represent the real chess skills that they have. But it shows you also that they have a slight advantage. Example 1650+ against 3 1300+(maybe he just want to play or been automatically matched because there are no more 1600++ players online). Though everyone can be beaten on that 4PC board no matter how high your rating is. Talk to hest1805 or Spaksi. But they are totally at best in this game and obviously they have a high rating.

may lead to both good and bad actions and consequences . . .you can avoid those bad consequences = the rating is there and it’s just a game of course, but also remember that its part of the game as a whole

I answered this question when said that I feel all right = There’s a difference between have done it and saying it than just saying it without doing it.

Try to journey to 1700 and maybe you’ll have a slight appreciation on my odd proposal hahahaha.

No. Because it is unfair. I am not a child= Really! But I know you’re a human. I know it will affect you

so I want to get a real feedback = I’ll tell you the feedback . . . well played/wp

I do not want to get/hear flattery = well said. By the way in your game 399753 you played well there.

If mathematically I should get -, but get +, it is a sort of flattery.= I’ll take that as a Yes

Seems like you stuck with math while I stuck with spreading positive emotion. Though it’s a good conversation. Hahahaha

Hopefully the top players who want some practice playing against lower rated players, will be able to do so without risking their rating, by playing custom unrated games with random opponents. @BabYagun said yesterday that this cool feature is currently under development!

> the rating is there and it’s just a game of course, but also remember that its part of the game as a whole

Yes, but it is still just a part.

1. Play.
2. Win.
3. Get rating points. (Try to increase your rating.)
4. Appear on the LeaderBoard.
5. Enjoy.
6. Learn.
7. Watch.
8. Discuss.
9. Analyze.

A person can like (prioritize) almost any combination of these things. And ignore (or even hate) other items. You can enjoy a game even if it is unrated or even if you lost (!), if that game was interesting.

@Skeftomilos that would be cool. Just hoping to have much more players

It is still just a part = I disagree with the word just. Yes others have priorities but every part of the game is important it is not just a part. Thus, it makes the game much more holistic.

By the way just want to add:

10. Drama(s) = I love this. To be honest I kinda hooked with it than playing at the moment. Human emotions overflowing, the rise and fall of players, the rivalries, and others. What a beauty!

I have never restricted matchmaker range and often face much lower rated players. Yes, it can hurt my rating, but it's an interesting change of pace and the games are often fun. 

Good for you, I have restricted it for 1600+ and still matched with 1500+ 2x, even though there were several 1600+ that time. Moreover, the game of top board just finish so I hit play. Surprise surprise, hahahaha.

But, Yeah its fun.

I am against tampering with Glicko rating calcs in unnatural ways.

The current ffa rating cals is done by playing 6 matches:

1 vs 2

1 vs 3

1 vs 4

2 vs 3

2 vs 4

3 vs 4

each match can be win, loss or draw. for each player the 3 rating changes are added up (and then divided by 2).

there are two ways to change rating calcs "naturally":

1) change the matches. for example play a different number of matches. or combine certain players to an avareage player and have the winner play that average player in a single match. this is basically what's done for teams. There are many options.

2) change the results. for example., 2nd-4th always draw amongst eachother.

of course you need to make sure that changes are balanced, as not to create rating inflation or deflation.

Old post but still relevent

if only dashes could work his magic

either + or 0 for 2nd