Vote Chess Ratings???

According too you , thats why you want this rating system.  So admins can decide if they want a 900 rated vc player on their team.  Or if they are a rebel.  Thats what you have said.

It *could* be a good idea, but that's certainly not a "rating" in the sense of "indicative of performance".

You don't need a brain to follow the majority vote, yet a thousand perfectly disciplined morons (who are going to have an excellent such "rating") don't make a good vote chess team without at least one person to do the thinking (and even then, that's not really the point of vote chess).

I assume there has to be more to declaring a 900 rated VC player as a 'rebel' than just the rating alone. What if there are some 'rebels' with a 1300, 1500, 1700, or even a 2100 VC rating? Some of this could simply be the result of a clashing of egos in which one thinks he/she is a smarter or better player than the rest of the team and don't feel obligated to work with the rest of the team...which may be true, but still a rebel.

Instead of having C.c put something in place, why can't the SAs & Admins just have some rules/guidelines set in place for their respective group(s) to:

1. Limit/restrict the number of drifters/renegades/rebels that sometimes land in groups...basicically set the bar higher for more quality players (although renegades exist across the entire spectrum of ratings); and
2. Have a policy posted regarding how VC works in your group(s) and the consequences if repeatedly disregarded (can't be done by those existing as an SA or Admin in name only or otherwise with his/her head in the sand and disconnected from group).

Besides, some groups love playing VC in this 'rogue' fashion as described in previous posts. Personally, I don't care for it; but in those environments, it would be considered (albeit twisted) playing as a team. For them, it presents a degree of fun and excitement. So it may be a bit unfair to place that label on C.c members because it will not apply to all groups and how they operate with regard to VC.

Of course nothing is foolproof (keeping it real). There will always be rebels; but members can't be held to any particular standard unless that standard is established by those managing the group(s). It's even more difficult establishing that standard after the fact but not impossible. At least in this way, they have no excuse to say they did not know and should not be surprised if removed from VC games or even dismissed from said group(s) as a result.

~DW

(1) It sounds like you did not read the OP's suggestion. Under his proposition, the vote chess "rating" will be made especially to reward majority-followers, regardless of how stupid the majority moves are, so vote chess ratings and other ratings have no real reason to be correlated in any way. That "rating" would not measure any kind of chess-related skill (except maybe understanding algebraic notation).

(2) If some groups don't care about compliance to the discussion, they would not care about this "rating" either. However, it is true that players who want to play in some "rogue" groups might get their "VCR" dive even if they behave in the "policed" groups, and be refused in those "policed" groups.

No matter how you guys see it, I think voting should be anonymous if chosen so by a person, cheating and offensive language are not allowed on chess.com and those who do it get marked but voting for the wrong or minority move isn't and people should not be stygmatised for it. People with low "VC rating" would be seen as criminals yet they haven't broken any chess.com rules...

I do not support the idea.

Granted by the time I became aware of this forum, it was already three pages long. I did read many of the posts, but may have easily missed some outlining how those would be "rewarded". For that I apologize.

However, it just seems like a proposal to label people just because they are thinking their own way. Granted VC requires a degree of teamwork; but to label someone because they don't go with the status quo and reward those who do? The only problem I have with VC is with those who never suggest/discuss the moves and cast votes that were never presented to the rest of the team.

Usually there will be multiple choices to consider for each move (unless forced), and it will be unfair to dictate to everyone which one move to vote for. The excuse of not understanding algebraic notation can be resolved by the end-users in their profiles to simply show the coordinates on the board.

Sorry, but I can't support this either.

~DW

I read the posts, I hope I did not miss read something. Anyway i think the poster does not like the idea of those voting for bad moves on purpose or ruining the majority vote. I was in a 10 min vote game and there was a little difference between Rae1 and Rfe1, although the differences were not that big, we went worse after the move voted for and the discussion of the move was ignored. Also sometimes players flood in for a vote chess game to vote for a bad move to lose the game. Adding a rating to this would just be wrong, like prevoiusly said someone can vote for a very good move and not be with the majority and lose rating points. So say Mr NM votes for the best move, just no discussion and some 1600 adds some analysis and everyone goes for him, when u see his account with a high or low rating it will not be according to his strength (which is why ratings are there). I think if this was to work they would need to add a vote chess accurate percentage (like your timeout percentage). This would be based on the best move from the voted moves, for this a good engine analysis would have to be used and if there were moves voted that are about equal then the highest one voted for will be the correct choice. This could also be added to vote chess games, so no one with lower then 40% vote chess accuracy. This is not a rating so no one is competing with a high number. It only indicates that guy follows the best move or best move according to the analysis for the move. But using a engine on every single vote chess game can be time consuming and long, also there can be banning for this, cause it will be quite obvois if there are engine voters. 100% voters all the time with no discussion. Anyway I hope I made sence, I can explain more if anyone is interested.

May I ask, what gave you this idea Glorax?

The idea seems reasonable as long as it is accurate. Boundaries probably need to be set on what constitutes the rating, and what the basis of that rating should be. I would want to make sure that the rating would work and is quite accurate before people start being "labelled" with the rating either positively or negatively.

Some groups can be very subjective - some groups don't play vote chess and purely are there just for discussion. Other groups don't have regulations in place for vote chess. I like the idea of the SA/admins of the group being able to see the vote chess members attitude/participation towards vote chess - however I prefer this to be restricted internally within the group rather than externally to all groups as it would have great limitations.

"I read the posts, I hope I did not miss read something. Anyway i think the poster does not like the idea of those voting for bad moves on purpose or ruining the majority vote. I was in a 10 min vote game and there was a little difference between Rae1 and Rfe1, although the differences were not that big, we went worse after the move voted for and the discussion of the move was ignored. Also sometimes players flood in for a vote chess game to vote for a bad move to lose the game."

Thats the impression I am getting. Had a few cases of the above - even moves that were very obvious that they were detrimental to the game which were voted for.

Oh.. You know

Vote Chess

Yes, i do want that, however it will also give other players:

• A sense of certainty (if they are new to Vc) that someone knows how groups think and have shot to predict accurately the opponent's moves
• If a high rated player also has a high rated Vc rating, you can see that he is really active here and that you are in good hands

"So say Mr NM votes for the best move, just no discussion and some 1600 adds some analysis and everyone goes for him,"

Talking is Key. I doubt anyone with half a brain would go with 1600 instead of a NM! If he doesn't talk or go after and make sure people understand his thinking. The Vc rating will show that. Granted admins won't look at a Vc rating when it is a NM. But this is an extreme circumstance anyway.

Did you read my whole post? And yes I was just using a example, but I have seen cases like that one more then once.

In that case Mr. NM can play the game by himself because basically anyone else's input has been invalidated solely because of his 'titled' status. So he calls all the shots and everyone just go along basically.

~DW

Yes, I did and  I do like the idea with the "accurate percentage" that can help instead/also the groups.

Have you played with a NM before?

 If he says Nxc4 is better than Bxc4. You can be sure he is 90-100% right. Here is when learning comes into hand. You ask questions and suggest moves and if he actually cares (I assume he will if he is Vote Chess anyway) he will answer them. At this point, it it is not about making your move, it is learning the ins and outs of an NM

Can also give more confidence for members that want to play vote chess without silent voters - meaning that non silent voters are more likely to participate in a game when there isn't any silent voters. More opportunities to have your voice heard so to speak.

True, NM (or any 'M's for that matter) may be right almost all the time; but that's no reason for him to snub the questions/suggestions of others on an '...if he actually cares basis'. They are still human and are subject to oversights (albeit rare).

The reaction of others may be, 'he knows where he can put that VC game.' He has to work as part of the team just as everyone else...maybe moreso as a facilitator and not a dictator. Right or wrong, people want to know that their input matters...even if it doesn't yield voter support.

This would no longer be a VC game in its truest form. It becomes a 'coaching tool'. I guess the benefit is that everyone can benefit from a free coaching lesson.

~DW

Vc will always be a coaching tool no matter what, anybody can learn something new or learn a new opening by just play Vc

"Right or wrong, people want to know that their input matters"

Never said you couldn't ay anything

I said "You ask questions and suggest moves and..he will answer them." That is how that Vc game will go, people suggest move, NM shows why it is good/bad and the process repeates itself

why not??? i would like it