Standard Ratings Boost

Sort:
kleelof
Apotek wrote:

sandbaggers

Sandbagging so they can cheat with an engine?

Can you hear yourself talking?

Apotek

excuses or not the fact remains that cheating is quite common especially in standard tournaments.

kleelof
Apotek wrote:

excuses or not the fact remains that cheating is quite common especially in standard tournaments.

Perhaps so. But accusations are better supported with proof rather than faceless statements like 'the last 3 of 7 games had cheaters' or "1300's making error-free moves'. These must make the people talking sound like sore losers.

Apotek

it is not my job to play the cheater slayer.i guess if the site wants they can catch them and ban them.

kleelof
Apotek wrote:

it is not my job to play the cheater slayer.i guess if the site wants they can catch them and ban them.

Yeah, you're right.

But I do like the idea of a Cheater Slayer. Would you get to dress-up like Conan the Barbarian and carry a big-ass sword?

Jion_Wansu

???

Prudentia
Jion_Wansu a écrit :

???

Conan the Barbarian was T-H-E......M-A-N.  I feel bad for the grunting and groaning cheater in a ape-mask costume trying to hug him.  'Nuff said.

Newkidonadonkey

What?? You want to be dragged by your hair to start the year? He does not care about personal hygiene, his car probably is a dump and he shags chimpanzees.. Or was that Tarzan. I always confuse the two. Or are you called prudentia because you are looking for a dangerous life among these chess gangstas?

mcris
frontrunner78 wrote:

Still too many cheaters in Standard. I have had three cheaters in my last 7 games in standard, and now have just quit playing standard and stopped being a premium member. The last cheater that I reported, had won 64 games in a row before I reported him. There should be an algorithm that detects any statistical anomaly's like that

Of course. Myself I ponder on quitting turn-based games.

whallsey

Hi, can anyone clarify whether the live ratings boost has been affecting the TT ratings? I thought that the time it takes to do a puzzle (and therefore the scoring) is linked to solver's live ratings and their average solving times. Maybe I'm imagining that, but I thought I had read it some time ago. Thanks

baddogno

You do have a vivid imagination Whallsey.  The two ratings have nothing to do with each other.

Yeimsbf

cool

baddogno

I don't think so.  I wasn't about to wade through the whole thread, but I'm pretty sure Erik said this was a once and done affair.

Shafiqul96

webmaster wrote:

hello community!

today we will be "boosting" the standard ratings for all active standard players in live chess.

for multiple reasons, many of which we've narrowed down and some of which we can't even explain, the standard ratings in live chess are WAY too low.

on average, people's ratings are hundreds of points lower than their actual "over the board" strength. even our titled players are often unable to break over 2000 given that the pool of players (because everyone starts at 1200) is simply so low.

a scientific evaluation by our staff of our system has suggested to us that the best, most efficient way to fix this is "problem" to simply "inflate" (don't worry, we aren't printing money here Tongue Out) all ratings by an amount that we deem most reasonable for each rating class:

+150 for <1600
+200 for 1600-1700
+300 for 1700-1800
+400 for 1800+
and
+500 for titled players
 
We are fully aware that some players currently rated lower than 1600 will claim he/she is worth more than a 150 point boost Wink -- and in some cases, they may be right!
 
Likewise, we are also aware that boosting some titled players by 500 may be putting them at a rating 200-300 points higher than they should be.
 
But on average, this is what we came up with. And for those of you who feel you aren't getting enough and that some higher rated players are getting too much, well then you will have fun taking their "over-rated" points away from them as you climb the ladder, won't you Wink!
 
enjoy and have fun!
 
staff

hi

applemonkey3

ok

Metuka2004

If they EVER took somethin like how an Elo is calculated. For any game. And applied a polynomial equation to jus suddenly add X points to everybody. Then it explains a lot. And u know it wasnt very *scientific* like they claim it was. The original thread looks like BS and my math teacher wud flunk them.

Ziryab

I want a ratings boost. I think winning more games is the best way to get it.

gopal_1278

I am 900 rating

Stockfishdot1

I'm hoping they raise mine by a couple thousand, for public relations sake.