https://github.com/ryankirkman/pyglicko2
Leechers of chess.com
Sort:
Dec 17, 2022
0
#103
Sadlone wrote:
-100 to +100 should be the default setting implemented by the site
Nah, that's a little too boring. It's fun to play someone +200 or higher now and then. If you only play +/- 100 you probably wouldn't improve as quickly either, since you're not exposed to people much better than you.
Dec 17, 2022
0
#104
GraveMurky wrote:
llama36 wrote:
Sadlone wrote:
-100 to +100 should be the default setting implemented by the site
Nah, that's a little too boring. It's fun to play someone +200 or higher now and then. If you only play +/- 100 you probably wouldn't improve as quickly either, since you're not exposed to people much better than you.
This is just another form of rating maniuplation.
Incorrect.
Dec 17, 2022
0
#105
GraveMurky wrote:
SFLovett wrote:
GraveMurky wrote:
35 k banned for cheating for the month of November. That is an EXTRAORDINARY AMOUNT, EXTRAORDINARY!!!
35 thousand out of more than 20 MILLION active users
0.175%
1 in 571
None of those 35,000 accounts were banned for manipulating ratings
Incorrect (again).
Dec 17, 2022
0
#106
GraveMurky wrote:
llama36 wrote:
GraveMurky wrote:
llama36 wrote:
Sadlone wrote:
-100 to +100 should be the default setting implemented by the site
Nah, that's a little too boring. It's fun to play someone +200 or higher now and then. If you only play +/- 100 you probably wouldn't improve as quickly either, since you're not exposed to people much better than you.
This is just another form of rating maniuplation.
Incorrect.
You seem to not really understand how the rating system works.
Playing someone rated 200 points above or below you is not rating manipulation.
Dec 17, 2022
0
#107
GraveMurky wrote:
llama36 wrote:
GraveMurky wrote:
SFLovett wrote:
GraveMurky wrote:
35 k banned for cheating for the month of November. That is an EXTRAORDINARY AMOUNT, EXTRAORDINARY!!!
35 thousand out of more than 20 MILLION active users
0.175%
1 in 571
None of those 35,000 accounts were banned for manipulating ratings
Incorrect (again).
Why would they be banning 2nd accounts in rated matches
For lots of reasons.
For example if the user didn't ok it with chess.com first, or if the accounts played against each other.
Dec 17, 2022
0
#108
GraveMurky wrote:
llama36 wrote:
GraveMurky wrote:
llama36 wrote:
GraveMurky wrote:
llama36 wrote:
Sadlone wrote:
-100 to +100 should be the default setting implemented by the site
Nah, that's a little too boring. It's fun to play someone +200 or higher now and then. If you only play +/- 100 you probably wouldn't improve as quickly either, since you're not exposed to people much better than you.
This is just another form of rating maniuplation.
Incorrect.
You seem to not really understand how the rating system works.
Playing someone rated 200 points above or below you is not rating manipulation.
when you are playing someone 200 points above you and the other player has no option to reject the game without being penalized. that is unfair to them, period.
Incorrect.
Dec 17, 2022
0
#109
GraveMurky wrote:
llama36 wrote:
GraveMurky wrote:
llama36 wrote:
GraveMurky wrote:
SFLovett wrote:
GraveMurky wrote:
35 k banned for cheating for the month of November. That is an EXTRAORDINARY AMOUNT, EXTRAORDINARY!!!
35 thousand out of more than 20 MILLION active users
0.175%
1 in 571
None of those 35,000 accounts were banned for manipulating ratings
Incorrect (again).
Why would they be banning 2nd accounts in rated matches
For lots of reasons.
For example if the user didn't ok it with chess.com first, or if the accounts played against each other.
And what about all those 2nd accounts they turn a blind eye too and make exceptions for? How many thousands are those? lol
That's not germane because your statement is incorrect either way.
Dec 17, 2022
0
#110
GraveMurky wrote:
llama36 wrote:
GraveMurky wrote:
llama36 wrote:
GraveMurky wrote:
llama36 wrote:
GraveMurky wrote:
llama36 wrote:
Sadlone wrote:
-100 to +100 should be the default setting implemented by the site
Nah, that's a little too boring. It's fun to play someone +200 or higher now and then. If you only play +/- 100 you probably wouldn't improve as quickly either, since you're not exposed to people much better than you.
This is just another form of rating maniuplation.
Incorrect.
You seem to not really understand how the rating system works.
Playing someone rated 200 points above or below you is not rating manipulation.
when you are playing someone 200 points above you and the other player has no option to reject the game without being penalized. that is unfair to them, period.
Incorrect.
Absolutely not incorrect, because again they are risking much more rating points then the lower rated player. Hardly fair. Yiou might just be playing to "have fun" others might be more competitive then you. You should learn not to be so selfish.
There is exactly as much risk as playing an equally rated player as there is playing someone rated 200 points above you... and that can be shown mathematically.
Dec 17, 2022
0
#111
GraveMurky wrote:
Erik thinks in 10 years chess is going to be shown on TV like other sports? Not when general society realizes this is the type of community he built
Ah yes, all those skeletons.
But intrepid investigative reporter coolie is going to blow the case WIDE OPEN.
Dec 17, 2022
0
#112
GraveMurky wrote:
Even more so when a community of players like you defend such acts.
Aww yeah, players "like me."
The filthy underbelly of the chess world... good thing you've uncovered the truth, and will share it with the world.
GraveMurky wrote:
llama36 wrote:
There is exactly as much risk as playing an equally rated player as there is playing someone rated 200 points above you... and that can be shown mathematically.
I think we are arguing semantics here. I don't know the exact math but there is a point where it is extremely unfair.
You need to look up the word "semantics", and it's clear that you don't understand the math at all, let alone the 'exact' math..
GraveMurky wrote:
llama36 wrote:
GraveMurky wrote:
Erik thinks in 10 years chess is going to be shown on TV like other sports? Not when general society realizes this is the type of community he built
Ah yes, all those skeletons.
But intrepid investigative report coolie is going to blow the case WIDE OPEN.
There is nothing to blow wide open. I'm trying to shine the light on ignorant eyes, what is already known and why its disreputable and detrimental to their future.
stop being cringe
GraveMurky wrote:
SFLovett wrote:
GraveMurky wrote:
llama36 wrote:
There is exactly as much risk as playing an equally rated player as there is playing someone rated 200 points above you... and that can be shown mathematically.
I think we are arguing semantics here. I don't know the exact math but there is a point where it is extremely unfair.
You need to look up the word "semantics", and it's clear that you don't understand the math at all, let alone the 'exact' math..
Just remember that filthy underbelly of the internet, the anonymous smurfing like your favorite streamers do, is the main reason why online gaming will never be as respected or as popular as athletic sports. Erik doesn't realize that in 10 years nothing will change if that doesn't.
please explain one thing to me:
if higher rated players don't want to play lower ones, why not adjust match settings so they don't get paired with them?
Dec 17, 2022
0
#116
Why the face palm reaction?
200 points higher is roughly 75% chance of winning and 25% chance of losing. You also win (roughly) 5 points for a win and lose 15 for a loss.
So on average you win 75% * 5 = 3.75
And on average you lose 25% * 15 = 3.75
So on average you win nothing and lose nothing... which is obviously how the rating system has to work. When you perform exactly as well as your rating then your rating stays the same.
And since this is true for any rating, it means you risk the same no matter who you play.
Dec 17, 2022
0
#117
Now, in practice it doesn't work as intended for very large rating gaps (around 400 points) and chess.com rounds down to zero instead of awarding small fractions of a point meaning you do risk a non-zero amount when the gap is very large... but playing someone 200 points above (or below) you is not a problem.
GraveMurky wrote:
llama36 wrote:
Why the face palm reaction?
200 points higher is roughly 75% chance of winning and 25% chance of losing. You also win (roughly) 5 points for a win and lose 15 for a loss.
So on average you win 75% * 5 = 3.75
And on average you lose 25% * 15 = 3.75
So on average you win nothing and lose nothing... which is obviously how the rating system has to work. When you perform exactly as well as your rating then your rating stays the same.
And since this is true for any rating, it means you risk the same no matter who you play.
Your talking about a potential 400 point difference. A 200 point difference is a noticeable difference of skill level, That is the rubicon we feel a difference when crossed and imo it should not be more then that. The goal of a rating system is to aid in matching competitively. Why undermine that, why even have a rating system at all if competitive matches are not the goal?
You already got checkmated here bro, shutup and resign
35 k banned for cheating for the month of November. That is an EXTRAORDINARY AMOUNT, EXTRAORDINARY!!!
35 thousand out of more than 20 MILLION active users
0.175%
1 in 571