Thanks for the exercise.
Vote Chess Ratings???
Sort:
Well, technically (yes, i am going with the technicality) it isn't, admins can invite them/ they can ask to join any group. But admins should now if they are team player are not. If the admin doesn't care at, then nothing really is stopping him.
I have every intention for chess.com to consider it, but I realize that it has a very low chance, if not 0%. But I do want them to consider it hence forth why I said "I don't really expect".
But I am hoping none the less that they do! :)
Okay, tell me this, say your on a team that has been say in a 40 move game, on the 41st move you see a place to move a peice that seems to go into a good spot but missed a simple move, the other team sees it and causes you to lose the game due to a missed checkmate move. You lose the game. What you are telling me is that no-one that made the majority vote will get nothing but points due to the team effort and getting the winning vote for the move. When the majorty votes lost the game, while others who may have put a move up that would have stopped the mate and could have kept you going would lose points for putting up the correct vote, only to be pushed aside by the majoriy and be made to feel inferior without penlty to those who went with the majoriy and lost the game, but had the vote to cause them to lose. Thats not a real relible rating system is it? That would seem to me that the majoriy lost the game, and made all the wrong moves durning said game. Why are they be rewarded for losing the game and making all the wrong moves that caused the loss?
This kind of rating would then be an index of player's willingness to go with the majority. So in theory, even if the move voted by majority is bad a player would have to go with it in order to increase his rating.
Not sure of your definition of team player. Want to elaborate? Since the only team game is vote chess.
Another thing, it's easy to see what the players before you voted for... you would then just base your vote on what others voted for. I doubt that the proposed VC rating system would result in the quality of discussion of moves.
Songyu123 wrote:
This kind of rating would then be an index of player's willingness to go with the majority. So in theory, even if the move voted by majority is bad a player would have to go with it in order to increase his rating.
True, you would be good even though you are part of a majority that loses a game. Thats not a relible rating then. Like lemmings going to the sea just to be drowned cause thats what everyone is doing..
"When the majorty votes lost the game, while others who may have put a move up that would have stopped the mate and could have kept you going would lose points for putting up the correct vote, only to be pushed aside by the majoriy and be made to feel inferior without penlty to those who went with the majoriy and lost the game, but had the vote to cause them to lose."
In a proper vc game, the high rated players make the big moves, lower rated players then are there to learn. If they lost, it would because miscalution for the high rated players,but we won't throw stones, people make mistakes, even small ones. So to say the majority of weaker players taking over and playing what they want to play as a team ignoring the higher rated players. Sounds like a broken team
Songyu123 wrote:
Another thing, it's easy to see what the players before you voted for... you would then just base your vote on what others voted for. I doubt that the proposed VC rating system would result in the quality of discussion of moves.
No, it wouldn't addjust to the quality and you have a point, people can take adavantage of it. BUT people can take advantage of anything. Also, Rogue voter most likely won't even wait that long!
like I said before, it's easy to see what the players before you voted for, I'm sure many people would just check that and act accordingly. Most of the people care about their rating and that would be an extremely easy way to obtain a high one. This system could even increase the number of "silent" voters.
No it won't, if they are sensitve about their ratings they will make sure they vote for the right move, as you said "easy to see what the players before you voted for, I'm sure many people would just check that and act accordingly". So at the end of the day, the move that is discussed by players who actually care is vote for mostly and the rogue voter follow through to make sure their rating rises.
There is no such thing as a rogue voter, nor a drive by voter, just a voter that disagrees with you, which is their right if the truly have a vote and not have to go with majority. Thats like saying all the Republicians were wrong for not voting for Obama last election when he had a majority. But I hear that democrats are sorry he got a 2nd term. The majoriy isnt always right, but we go by majority vote, and even those who disagree has their vote to cast as well, even if they disagree. To the minority, you are rouge as well.
NOTE:Please do NOT bring up politics, even for an example, I have no wish for this to locked/deleted
So a person who voted to resign/draw/a CLEARLY bad move in a wining position is not just voting to vote? But actually cares about the game?
exactly, most of the lower rated players will not learn anything, the temptation of an easy obtainable high rating is too big. It's almost like cheating which is not punishable.
Talking about rogue voters, they are impossible to decide a move in an average team, the teams where rogue voters actually manage to decide a team's next move should change their administration.
Just as a Majority can lose a game in a winning posistion by missing a move but is just voting to get points. Are they just not voting to vote? But, actually care about the game? Hard to tell what a person sees or whats on his mind when he votes isnt it? If they turn out to be the majority vote, they still win points. That what this exercise is all about, getting points and looking good to admins. It's not the game surley, is it?
Lower rated player will not learn anything through rogue voting anyway. A high rating for what? Vc? The only thing that will be used for is the fact it will make it easier for admins to get the right people that they perfer. Are they really going to brag over a Vc rating?
"Talking about rogue voters, they are impossible to decide a move in an average team, the teams where rogue voters actually manage to decide a team's next move should change their administration."
LOL! Yes they should!
But that is not the danger, the danger is that when in tight situation, two moves are thought to be best, but at the last few hours (>15) it is found one is wrong in the next 10 moves! All you need is one more vote, but you can't pull it off and the bad move is put through by that one vote.
Yes, the people that voted for that bad move gets points, but it wouldn't have happened if there wasn't a rogue voter, who in fact either gained nothing OR lost points themselves!
When a VC game is lost, it's always the majority votes that took them there, not one or 2 votes that disagreed. When a VC game is won, same thing took them there. It's never the one or 2 odd votes that disagree.
The majority is either victorious, or, loses the game. Now, tell me how many of times, the odd voter has lost a game for the team without being in the Majority to do so? None, if they arent in the Majority. So, why when they disagree, and the game is lost due to the vote of the majority, can they be accused of anything except disagreeing with the majorty? For surley he didnt cause the win or loss of the game...
knightspawn5 wrote:
Just as a Majority can lose a game in a winning posistion by missing a move but is just voting to get points. Are they just not voting to vote? But, actually care about the game? Hard to tell what a person sees or whats on his mind when he votes isnt it? If they turn out to be the majority vote, they still win points. That what this exercise is all about, getting points and looking good to admins. It's not the game surley, is it?
helping the admins
No, it is not, and I would have a more appropiate response if my computer hadn't shut down, I am so annoyed at this computer right now, I am logging off now, before I break it.
Good conversations, hope we can pick it off tommorow!
It really doenst make sense if you had no intention of asking chess.com to consider it. But, true, you did get to speak you mind.
Thoughts? Now I don't really expect it to be put into chess.com. But I just wanted to speak my mind anyway and see where it went.
It cant really go anywhere if you didnt mean it too.