Not your level of kindness.
Solution for dastardly conduct
Sort:
Your rating is supposed to represent your chess skill.
Not your level of kindness.
Not your level of kindness.
Gregorybuser wrote:
robbie_1969 wrote:
If anyone has any better suggestion then let it be heard.
OK.
It seems to me that skill rating should try to measure the strength of one's play, not of one's character. OP is looking for two different things in an opponent- somebody with an appropriate skill level and at least a modicum of sportsmanship. Why mix the two into one rating?
Sunlight being the best disinfectant, one good way to reduce unwelcome dastardliness would be by a system of public shame and reward- a "sportsmanship" rating alongside your skill rating. Like Uber drivers, plumbers and brain surgeons get review ratings, you get a "sportsmanship" rating based on feedback from your opponents after completing a game.
This way, if I care how dastardly my opponent is (and personally, I could not care less), then I avoid those with poor ratings.
It's not perfect, for sure. There's all sorts of issues with public rating systems, but as a rough guide, it works. I dont eat at many restaurants with 1000 ratings and a 1 star average on Yelp...
A sportsmanship rating is a bad idea. It wouldn't be like the ratings of drivers, plumbers and surgeons. Those ratings by customers or patients are based on the quality of service received. If the the customer or patient is satisfied with the service, he has no incentive to give the person a low rating. But the guy you're playing isn't called your opponent for nothing. You're not providing a service to him. You're playing to beat him. Some defeated opponents might graciously give you a high sportsmanship rating but many others will give you a low one just for having the audacity to beat them.
wanmokewan wrote:
All your idea does is make it easier for people who want to sandbag to get into lower rated tournaments.
meh sandbaggers gonna sandbag
On further reflection and having subjected my reasoning to falsification it appears that there should be two ratings, One for actual chess strength and one for sportsmanship, a chess karma rating. This chess karma would be determined by the community. Upon winning a game you could send your opponents comments for a karma rating. If they were gentlemanly and gracious in defeat you could recommend them to the community as throughly spiffing fellows, If on the other hand they were dastardly and a cad and engaged in boorish behavior you could recommended them to be publicly shamed by exposing their comments to the community for them to be mocked even further and assigned a negative karma chess rating. All we need is a dedicated thread and a 'post opponents comments', button to instantly send the text to the heroes and zeros forum.
LM_player wrote:
Your rating is supposed to represent your chess skill.
Not your level of kindness.
Not your level of kindness.
Problem solved. Panic over.
FBloggs wrote:
Gregorybuser wrote:
robbie_1969 wrote:
If anyone has any better suggestion then let it be heard.
OK.
It seems to me that skill rating should try to measure the strength of one's play, not of one's character. OP is looking for two different things in an opponent- somebody with an appropriate skill level and at least a modicum of sportsmanship. Why mix the two into one rating?
Sunlight being the best disinfectant, one good way to reduce unwelcome dastardliness would be by a system of public shame and reward- a "sportsmanship" rating alongside your skill rating. Like Uber drivers, plumbers and brain surgeons get review ratings, you get a "sportsmanship" rating based on feedback from your opponents after completing a game.
This way, if I care how dastardly my opponent is (and personally, I could not care less), then I avoid those with poor ratings.
It's not perfect, for sure. There's all sorts of issues with public rating systems, but as a rough guide, it works. I dont eat at many restaurants with 1000 ratings and a 1 star average on Yelp...
A sportsmanship rating is a bad idea. It wouldn't be like the ratings of drivers, plumbers and surgeons. Those ratings by customers or patients are based on the quality of service received. If the the customer or patient is satisfied with the service, he has no incentive to give the person a low rating. But the guy you're playing isn't called your opponent for nothing. You're not providing a service to him. You're playing to beat him. Some defeated opponents might graciously give you a high sportsmanship rating but many others will give you a low one just for having the audacity to beat them.
Its not a bad idea if its based on empirical evidence and peer reviewed.
Nov 27, 2017
0
#48
Further to my previous post some time ago on Richard Milhous Dastardly (Dick Dastardly), it has since been brought to my attention that he shares his first two names with a certain Richard Milhous Nixon. I suspect this was not mere coincidence. Given that Wacky Races first aired in 1968 and Watergate occurred in 1972 this would seem to be a case of life immitating art (or cartoons at least).
chess is war therefore you have to keep in mind that there are casualties and injuries in any battle I think you are looking at it wrong with the immature taunting you should know that your enimies have been totally out played and are trying to return the horrible feeling that has swept over them so now you know this for a fact I don't want to hear about it anymore
Nov 27, 2017
0
#50
Gabriel451 wrote:
chess is war therefore you have to keep in mind that there are casualties and injuries in any battle I think you are looking at it wrong with the immature taunting you should know that your enimies have been totally out played and are trying to return the horrible feeling that has swept over them so now you know this for a fact I don't want to hear about it anymore
Punctuation is a powerful weapon in any war.
Strangemover wrote:
anymorepunctuation is a new word to me.... punctuation is a formality put in place by stupid people who need street sings to direct them down a one-way street and I have the sinking feeling this you good day sir
Gabriel451 wrote:
chess is war therefore you have to keep in mind that there are casualties and injuries in any battle I think you are looking at it wrong with the immature taunting you should know that your enimies have been totally out played and are trying to return the horrible feeling that has swept over them so now you know this for a fact I don't want to hear about it anymore
Punctuation is a powerful weapon in any war.
robbie_1969 wrote:
Its not a bad idea if its based on empirical evidence and peer reviewed.
Really? There have never been any bad ideas that were based on empirical evidence and peer reviewed?
macer75 wrote:
robbie_1969 wrote:
Its not a bad idea if its based on empirical evidence and peer reviewed.
Really? There have never been any bad ideas that were based on empirical evidence and peer reviewed?
You have an alternative method?
Strangemover wrote:
Further to my previous post some time ago on Richard Milhous Dastardly (Dick Dastardly), it has since been brought to my attention that he shares his first two names with a certain Richard Milhous Nixon. I suspect this was not mere coincidence. Given that Wacky Races first aired in 1968 and Watergate occurred in 1972 this would seem to be a case of life immitating art (or cartoons at least).
A rather astute observation.
Gabriel451 wrote:
chess is war therefore you have to keep in mind that there are casualties and injuries in any battle I think you are looking at it wrong with the immature taunting you should know that your enimies have been totally out played and are trying to return the horrible feeling that has swept over them so now you know this for a fact I don't want to hear about it anymore
Perhaps there is some truth in this. However there is a fine line between good hearted banter and being downright rude, I believe our American cousins term it 'trash talking'. I have noticed outside my own culture that it doesn't really happen or when it does they have no sense of propriety, making deeply cutting personal remarks is not the same thing as teasing.
I liken it to duelling. In Scotland we held duels. It was a display of swordsmanship and only lasted until first blood was drawn and was never intended to be fatal. Alas others did not have such sensibilities and took it personally, the result being many fatalities that could have been avoided with a little decorum.
This is one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard, to be honest (-10).
I'd like my rating to reflect my skill, and be paired up with people of a similar level. I might just queue up against a GM who's my rating, if they were also an @$$.
Areliae wrote:
This is one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard, to be honest (-10).
I see and yet the internet is littered with persons who criticise the efforts of others while they themselves never really make any contributions other than to spread some negativity. A rather interesting phenomena I suspect because its simply the easy way out.
It's not perfect, for sure. There's all sorts of issues with public rating systems, but as a rough guide, it works. I dont eat at many restaurants with 1000 ratings and a 1 star average on Yelp...
But apparently a lot of other people do... or where did the 1000 ratings come from?