Why the FFA rating system should change

But one caveat, how did it affect 2100-2400? Was that negative as well. Martinaxo? / In the mid-low level categories, the impact of the update was not negatively affected, the negative impact occurred in the higher categories. I refer exclusively to the low audience, And I'm not talking about the quality of the game.

Change it tomorrow then / I have made the formal request to the hierarchy, so that they can proceed to carry out some action or execution, since it has been a widely prudent time for a final decision to be determined. For my part, I have already presented all the background information acquired through surveys and opinions of the active players forum, we have discussed this extensively with expert players and administration colleagues, We are waiting for its Execution and start-up.

Were the lower rated positively effected? Do we know? It probably doesn’t matter, but I am curious.

Glad to hear we are moving to a better place!

Were the lower rated positively effected? Do we know?/

Many of the players I know by sight, others who are my friends and I place them better, all of them who are on my radar, have continued to play normally, I have also seen many new names.

But there is no computational system of measured player tracking available to use, the only thing that exists or what you can only see is one by one, and confirm how long ago each player played their last game in their profile.

I mention this to you, since I am compiling a deep analysis of the frequent and active players that are traditionally seen on the platform, where I am highlighting their player qualities and level of play by category.

Which I hope to present to you soon. No more questions for today, tomorrow is another day, good night. 

You are right with a lot of what you are saying.

+3 +1 -1 -3 is very good for low elo but runs into problems in high elo.
+3 0 0 -3 sets the wrong incentives.
+3 -1 -1 -1 can be very frustrating if there are weaker players in the game. It's the best-suited rating system for world championship level, but therefore we are basically talking about less than 50 people who enjoy this rating format. No wonder people are not playing anymore.

So die Idea to slowly let the rating change from FFA to Solo makes sense although I don't like that high elo has a different rating system than low elo. Because what fascinates people about sport is that you can watch the best of the best, and you are technically able to copy them.

Theoretically, you are able to make the same moves as Magnus Carlsen, because you play the same board with the same rules. This is not true for 4PC with the rating change we have...

But if we want to stick with that, I suggest that we adjust it a little bit, so that full solo does not start before an elo average of 2800. 

The Board is quite big. I don't wanna lose a game because I go into a R+K v K endgame and am not able to mate in 20 moves.

I failed the QvN endgame once in 50 moves as well, but I am sure that it was possible and Ijust failed.

I wonder why no one listens...it can't be your sarcastic and condescending manner...

+3.85 -1 -1.25 -1.6

Can I be hypocritical and mention that I was 10 seconds ahead of someone in an endgame and lost by 50 move rule / insufficient material

I agree Michael that in 1 on 1 should be 50 moves rule. My suggestion was for 4 and 3 players stage ( I'm sorry I wasn't more precise - I try to be as short as possible in the posts so ... )

What about K vs K vs K + R? That is also technically 3 players. No matter where you draw the line, there are always plenty of scenarios where it doesn't work. 

@empty_K3     

The Board is quite big. I don't wanna lose a game because I go into a R+K v K endgame and am not able to mate in 20 moves.

I failed the QvN endgame once in 50 moves as well, but I am sure that it was possible and Ijust failed./

 The second example you named, I've seen it twice in this life, and it's very hard to get away with a win from there, it usually ends the game in 50 moves. 

There is still no one who has managed to win that ending, otherwise send me a game and show me.

That usually never happens, the player who can't play for the win or is 3rd place guaranteed, 99% of the time that player resigns. More common is R+K vs K and a DKW (player that resigned, a bot king)

@Typewriter44 What about K vs K vs K + R? That is also technically 3 players. No matter where you draw the line, there are always plenty of scenarios where it doesn't work. /

It is indeed a 3-player scenario, but incredibly it takes even more than 50 moves to be able to take victory, it is really complex, but it is more feasible to achieve, in comparison of 2 players with a QvN ending.

I honestly think it should be 75 or 100 move rule. Some endgames are just unwinnable with the current rule.

Well, the same discussion again and again. 

The problem is fundamentally that the decision-making process IS NOT CLEAR NOR TRANSPARENT and Admins just to not deign to communicate.

I already said elsewhere, we MUST also take into account the EFFECTS that this or that system generates.

I've said numerous times why I believe that to have 0 as result for ANY place; to have a significant difference between 2nd and 3rd; to have a huge loss for the 4th, etc. generate perverse effects and would make the overall quality of the game much lower.

I believe that:

a) there is NO ideal system.

b) players should be encouraged to play to WIN, i.e. to be 1st.

c) it's easy to get 4th sometimes despite of having played very correctly, just because you have an incompetent player as opp.

d) the difference between 3rd and 4th is not relevant, and shouldn't exist really.

e) it is NOT stupid to have different systems for different layers. Because contrary to 2p classical chess, here there is a group dynamic and a lot of psychology (like in poker) and the experience of the 4 players is critical. Therefore I personally do like the current system (but maybe it should be more Solo from a significantly higher level than now, probably from 2200/2300).

Another way to address that is to consider that Top 100 players are the world elite at any given moment, and therefore it could be for instance FFA when there are 0 or 1 player like this, and in case there are 2, 3 or 4 VIPs, it becomes automatically Solo. (Very different from the old WTA system from some level, where the average ELO was taken into account). 

Otherwise, +4 -1 -1.5 -1.5 could be interesting maybe.

I agree that it is possible to get 4th because of a bad opposite, but it is much more common to get 2nd/3rd because of a bad player in the 3 player stage. Quite a lot of games 2500-2800 end in someone throwing the game. With FFA, that was less of a problem, since the good players who got to the 3 player stage would never lose rating from it. But now, if you eliminate a side player, just for the remaining side player to give the game to your opposite, you lose points, often 10-15 points. To me, that is just ridiculous, and why I heavily prefer the old FFA system. 

Thrown games and unfair 4th places are both an issue, but when nearly half of the games end in one player throwing, meanwhile only ~1 in 10 end in getting 4th because of a bad opposite, clearly one system is less flawed than the other. 

Q v N is relatively easy to win in fifty moves. The often impossible ones are B and N vs king and Q v R and sometimes R vs K if there are to many dead pieces. 4 pc would certainly be more interesting if there could be an increased move rule.

It is for this reason alone that I think 2nd place should, at the very least, lose zero points (or even gain points). Maybe it results in some people "playing for second," but at least you aren't powerless to the suicidality of one player who keeps attacking you when the third player is clearly stronger. Point loss for 3rd place checks for such oblivious strategies.

Otherwise, 2nd and 3rd gaining and losing nothing, as was the case in the previous system, may check for such suicidal play.

@indipendenza I inform you that the test exercises are being carried out for the new ranking system, which will be modified soon.

Good day!