You CAN choose not to win on time (except in tournaments) by switching off Auto-Win on Time in your Online Chess settings.
Online Chess: accept or decline rating change when winning on time.
Sort:
thanks artfizz, I did not know this.
But I guess team matches are tournaments.
Aug 11, 2012
0
#4
DD605 wrote:
thanks artfizz, I did not know this.
But I guess team matches are tournaments.
No, I don't think Team Matches are treated in the same way as tournaments (so your Auto-win on time preference SHOULD apply to Team Matches).
However, you can't select it on a game-by-game basis - except by continually changing the global option.
time is a factor in the game of chess, its your opponents responsibility to move on his time if he flags so be it, its the same rules in otb.
@ artfizz:
I think it should be great if we could dicide on a game-by-game basis to claim victory when time runs out.
@ 2200ismygoal time is a factor in the game of chess...
I basicly agree. But some games go on for a long period (months), and there are multiple games to watch over and not everybody has 'always' access to internet and ...
-kenpo- wrote:
...
I suppose the real concern here is playing team matches where the pairings will be messed up as a result and this won't benefit the team as a whole.
Where I was only thinking on personal interest -kenpo- pointed out an other reason why it should be great if we could dicide on a game-by-game basis to claim victory when time runs out.
the point of " time limits " is TIME , not ratings. If your playing at a chess tourn. the clocks is what counts... a winning position and time runs out means u lose.
-kenpo- wrote:
he's saying that a large amount of time wins in online chess can inflate a rating. this can happen if two or three of your opponents suddenly close their accounts, have their accounts closed for them, or they just disappear from chess.com world for whatever reason. while this is true for the short run, the rating will eventually stabilize and it's, objectively speaking, a good thing to play people who are stronger than you.
...
-> 'this is true for the short run, the rating will eventually stabilize ' yes, it will stabilize. But it not for the short run...
Let us see:
- my rating is increased by 120 extra. (winning on time against 3 people ~ 2 board/person = 6 games)
- it will take about 3 months to stabilize? (losing 6 games @ 3 day/move)
- in this 3 months: how many team-matches will start (where I'm overrated)?
->' a good thing to play people who are stronger than you.' Correct, if the gap is not too large.
eddysallin wrote:
the point of " time limits " is TIME , not ratings. If your playing at a chess tourn. the clocks is what counts... a winning position and time runs out means u lose.
as I mentioned when you run out of time you should lose the game and your rating should be decreased. but the winner should decide I he/she claims the rating change
Aug 12, 2012
0
#11
i hope one day to be able to see in my stats my real rating adjusted for time i.e. my actual rating based on games won and not those won or lost through time outs.
So... let me see if I understand this. Under your plan the losing player would always lose points, but the winning player would sometimes have the option of not gaining points.
At present, isn't it generally true that the number of points lost by the losing player is equal (or nearly equal) to the number of points gained by the winning player?
If the losing player ALWAYS loses points, but the winning player does not: wouldn't that take points out of the pool (all the points of all the players) and result in the 'average' player not being a 1500, but some lower number? Wouldn't this lead to a situation, eventually, of having Masters with an 1800 rating?
I mostly make my moves 1-2 times a day. according my stats thats 13hr/move. but some people take the hole 3 days (no blame here, when you get 3 days, you can take 3 days...)
a calculating:
a 'fast' game
- each player takes 13hr/move: that is about 1day/move ( move + response)
- a game of 30 moves => 1 month
- a game of 60 moves => 2 months
a 'slow' game:
- each player takes 3 days/move: that is about 6 day/move ( move + response)
- a game of 30 moves => 6 month
- a game of 60 moves => 12 months !!!
and here we leave out vacations.
so 3 months is not overrated.
note:
i'm still in the running for 'Autumn Tournament 2010 of Team Belgium' 
KillTheHorsie wrote:
So... let me see if I understand this. Under your plan the losing player would always lose points, but the winning player would sometimes have the option of not gaining points.
At present, isn't it generally true that the number of points lost by the losing player is equal (or nearly equal) to the number of points gained by the winning player?
If the losing player ALWAYS loses points, but the winning player does not: wouldn't that take points out of the pool (all the points of all the players) and result in the 'average' player not being a 1500, but some lower number? Wouldn't this lead to a situation, eventually, of having Masters with an 1800 rating?
what about a 2300 leaving chess.com? his/her gained point are gone too...
a rating should represent the player's skills as close as possible. The possibility on a game-by-game basis to claim or reject a rating-change (only for the winner) could help to achieve this.
your system would cause a deflation of rating points, since you are taking points out of the pool. While winning on time against a higher rated opponent may result in your rating being temporarily too high, the pool of rated players has the correct amount of total points and should eventually correct itself.
artfizz wrote:
DD605 wrote:
thanks artfizz, I did not know this.
But I guess team matches are tournaments.
No, I don't think Team Matches are treated in the same way as tournaments (so your Auto-win on time preference SHOULD apply to Team Matches).
However, you can't select it on a game-by-game basis - except by continually changing the global option.
just won a Team match game on time: my rating is auto increased even though Auto-Win on Time is switched off in my settings.
So Team matches seem to be tournement games
It can't be arbitrary, sometimes you gain, sometimes you don't, or even worse, some players always choose to gain, other always choose not to. It should be obvious that this would damage the accuracy of ratings over the whole pool.
The point is is, your rating does not get inflated if your opponent times out, because it happens to everybody. If you choose not to take rating points for you win, you are actually DE-flating, and not on accurate rating
blake78613 wrote:
your system would cause a deflation of rating points, since you are taking points out of the pool. While winning on time against a higher rated opponent may result in your rating being temporarily too high, the pool of rated players has the correct amount of total points and should eventually correct itself.
Chess.com looses players every day. There gained or lost point are 'gone' too. And accounts are closed daily for cheaters, most of theme have(had) a high rating: point are lost in space.
your rating correcting itself takes about 3 months! (read #17)
rooperi wrote:
It can't be arbitrary, sometimes you gain, sometimes you don't, or even worse, some players always choose to gain, other always choose not to. It should be obvious that this would damage the accuracy of ratings over the whole pool.
The point is is, your rating does not get inflated if your opponent times out, because it happens to everybody. If you choose not to take rating points for you win, you are actually DE-flating, and not on accurate rating
you have a point
Online Chess:
OK, when losing on time your rating should be decreased, always!
But I think we should have the possibility to decline the rating increasement when winnig on time.
Why? I play many team-matches where pairings are done by rating, and that is fine. But now I won 6 games on time against higher rated players. (I would loose 5 of theme) So my rating is increased by more then 100! Fun, nice!? No, not really. Now I have to play against even higher rated players! And this makes poor games...