Right, the ladder would be to determain the "top dog" in that game. Everyone starts on the bottom and gets paired up. The winners move on to the 2 step of the ladder and get paired up and so on and so forth. your games would still count for BKR, but the ladder would have a different page so to speak, kinda like a never ending tournament.

Now if the "ladder" system was a seperate things from the rating system, then I would like to see that. If you join the ladder, and then do not accept a challenge, then you just go down a rung of the ladder, and the challenger goes up.

I think a ladder (check my post 200-300 back) would be a great idea.

actually this idea was brought up before in the form of a seperate ladder system

sorry that you think those are "lame" excusses

But to clerify myself in case you can't read, I was not whining - I was giving some example of why I personally do not think the idea would work. I love to see new and different ideas - and I would be happy to talk about any other idea (or more about this one).

So Chuc, you are saying if you are at 50 games, and if are unable to accept more games - you would be OK with losing rating points. That is fine, that is your choice. But please don't accuse me of whining for trying to point out some example of why I do not think it would work too well.

(it's called a discussion - to just say "i don't like it" without explaining why would not help anyone.) Do you understand now?

Sounds like a lot of hot air to me. All Scooter suggested was to accept one game per month from a player lower rated within 200 points of yourself. Not wanting this type of system is one thing. But some of the excuses I have seen here make no sense. Worrying about a pawn, or that you don't like to play certain people. One game a month, surely you could find one player you don't dislike... Quit all the whining.... Just say you don't like it, and leave the lame excusses at home :)

I don't like the idea of a "challenge" system since I really only play tournament games.

Plus then you get into the problem of a pawn with 20 games who can not accept the challenge because they are at their game limit, and then you come to the part where some people just don't like others - and would not want to be challenged by then (let alone play them)

so if im playing someone in a tournament ect that is around the same bkr , would i still have to accept a challenge from someone else ?

there's probably 75 people within 200 points of me, how many would I have to accept, I just accepted 2 tonight

Seems like we've had this discussion before. I've suggested something before and I still think the best answer is to incorporate some type of challenge system, whereby, a higher rated player, if challenged, has to accept to play a game with a lower rated player (say up to a 200 point difference) at least once a month. If he/she does, thats fine. If he/she does not accept the game, then he/she forfeits the game. Note that he/she would only be required to play if challenged. If there are not challenges, then he/she doesn't have to play, and can keep her/his rating indefinitely and play with whomever he/she wants, no big deal. So if no one cares, then its no big deal and he/she can keep their rating as high as they have earned it as opposed to some rating degredation mechanism, which has so many problems and issues associated with it.

Also I think this would only apply to individuals rated in the top 10 or something like that. Its kind of like something we had on my high school chess team... (although I hate playing chess now... so slow)

or is anyone else having problems with making a move on a game then it still being on your turn to move when it's actually your opponents turn?

PREPARE YOURSELF FOR A BLOCKBUSTER
Questions to me for Harley please here by message or to Isaiah63v5@aol.com....

Any last minute questions for Bumble before I send him the interview questions? you have about an hour!

Dont eat me Fencer but Jason has a point...
I was trying to work ot how a player could in a very short time go from unrated to a greater than 2K rating (not provisional) and found loads of one day players who basically contributed BKR and departed...
We also no of the KM scam...
May I suggest we identify these privately and let you filter Fencer?
I know a membership of 9000 sounds good ... but is it real?

well i wish someone would explain to me why any have to decay at all i cant see it achieving anything at all , as long as people are active in playing some games then there should be no problem . inactive accounts after a period of time should be removed (which i dont think has been happening)

Just replying as I read 'em, so forgive if I haven't reached the reply yet. ;)

Steve (and Fencer, too)(: Some pawns are pawns because they only get to play now and then at the library or somesuch, and purposely set their moves to the max time limit in case they can't make it before then. (I know of one case quite personally, as I won't let her touch my machine. ;)

RogueLion: This is a good point. Anti-backgammon games, for instance. I've had some go on for over a year (at another site), and even then only finished because of a timeout. :/

Interjection to conversation: Personally I'm not sure I like the idea of BKR decay at all, as it will likely not affect the abusers at all. Like spammers, they'll just find ways around the gates. That said, what if only game types where none were in progress -and- none had been finished in the past, say, 90 days had the BKR affected?

I have to say I was being very parochial and only considering chess. Games like backgammon with an element of chance mean that the ratings have less significance (I know skill level should mean "more likely to win").
And not all ratings boosters are bad players!
One thing i have found though.. playing honest players the relative rating positions work in regard to win loss ratios....
Last point .. players who occaisionally make really dumb moves are clearly not relying on help!

I think vacation days should suspend any timing clocks just as they do for a game ... and maybe it is just a requirement to move in any game (thereby showing taht you are active) would suffice, but once the time is up (30 days if only a move required) then the decay begins. Of course there could be special circumstances for suspending accounts and ratings but Fencer is such a great bloke I am sure these few cases could be dealt with adequately.

What matters is for the ratings to be relevent so effectively none of the catagories of "cheat" is important as they are inactive, playing themselves or providing practice for the lower ranks. What I think is more important is inflation caused by the floor, to balance this the decay may need to be tied in with the number of different opponents.

OR another suggestion - "flag" ID's that do not finish a game (in 30 or 60 days), and in the rating list - have 3 different settings.

Provisional - established - active (with active just being the people who had finished a game within the last 30 or 60 days)

That way if a player takes a vaacation, or takes a break from the games, he will not lose nothing plus his "true" ratng can still be seen.

Fencer's idea sounds like a good solution! "Hidden" BKR of inactive player's again becomes "Displayed" BKR when, and if, they become active again.

Thought about it some more and I think 90 days should start the decay process and it then continues each 30 days ... and percentages are a better option.

If someone is playing, and they are "bottom feeders" (never heard the term before but I think its great!!!!) then so be it ... they eventually plateau anyway and how interesting can they be! For those who use programs, variants often sort them out as only rudimentary programs exist for things like atomic chess and I have never heard of a game engine for tablut or tank battles. Looks like I am saved from fritz (but not myself :)

how about games like anti backgammom ect these games can take forever to finish a game , i dont really understand the point to all this really , it would mean me playing every type of game on my list all the time or i would lose ratings , it would be ok if i only played a few types of games but i play quite a few ,, if i have got all this right it would discourage (sp) me from starting any new type of game

I'd say 90 days is far too long and agree with the suggestion that games in progress suffice.

Those who have many games going in which both players move fairly often would, of course, have no complaints. However, those who legitimately play few games in which both players move infrequently would be adversly effected. Some games are set at 30 days per move!

BBW: That's very good idea. I can lower the player's BKR but keep the original value for later use, when he finishes another rated game.

Well I personally don't think there is anything that can be done to help against people who use programs - (unless they admit to it - then their rating should be removed or something)

For people that "sit" on their standings when they get so high - well 30 days to complete a game seems like a short time since all it takes is the other player to purposly play slow. But maybe after lets say 90 days... that would make more since. (Or possible rating lower on "paper", but when a game is finished, the old "correct" rating is once again put in place.)

The general discussion is revolving around the issue of accuracy in ratings, standings, and averages. In the end people who use Fritz to mess with things may be more of a problem than multiple i.d.'s, bottom feeders, and those who sit on their standings when they get unrealistically high.

I think that 30 days would be a very short amount of time.

... but I'm not sure what this discussion is really about. Are we worried about players on the rating list who have not played for awhile, or ???? (i'm sort of lost)

I would not want to feel compelled to finish a game per month to protect BKR. This may also hinder players of many game types. Maybe "hiding" inactive players is a good idea. Ratings boosters are probably not worth worrying about unless flagrant and disruptive. Just beat them and live with the few extra points you probably didn't deserve. I would like to think most of us, as Noholdsbarred stated, simply use BKR as a means of engaging opponents of a desired skill level. Someone who only plays lower rated opponents should have that option, if they are that afraid of equal opposition they are probably not THAT good and will drop many points every time they occasionally lose.

its down to one day now ;o)

I like the idea of rating decay but am a little concerned for pawns who may play a number of types of games but overall not many games of each type ... I think the decay period probably needs to be longer and possibly logrithmic, say 100BKR if nothing in 90 days, and additional 200BKR if nothing in next 90 days, 400 for next 90. There would also have to be a consideration of the minimum rating. Another idea would be for the decay to be percentages of BKR ... 90 days 5%, 180 days 10%, 270 15% ...

I think the details still need to be worked through but I like it!

I think its a good idea, Filip, but that would mean possible problems with high rated pawns, who have slow moving games, there is a slight chance they wont have a game finish in one month.
Yet, I suppose that would be a good incentive to upgrade and have more games and so to have at least one game finish.

Also maybe require that games be under way rather than completed as a person's opponent can stall, use vacation days and dictate the pace of the game if they want to.

I would say that a great idea Filip. How would you get round the problem of top rated players just taking on the very lower rated ones though ?

What about to subtract 100 points from BKR of user who didn't finish a rated game within a month? [or 30 days]

Rating decay is a great idea.

With a new game I can think of three methods,one is to use your beta testers (established players) to set the baseline. Another to use the system as is until a base is established. A third would be to log results for the startup period and run an offline analysis to baseline initial BKR's.
Going back a bit I also think Ratings should have a half life (decay) to make people work to keep them and to offset the influx (i believe the current algorythm has a positive bias) if not then it should have.

Or we could just bribe you for BKR :)

<So that when two unrated players compete (as any game would be on a new game) both player's bkrs could be affected. A couple two-game tournaments would soon supply a base of established ratings. :>

It could still be the same as now Fencer, just only affecting the unrated players hidden bkr and not the established players one.

noholdsbarred: Interesting idea, but when I add a new game [so nobody has a rating in it], how could anybody get a rating if only established ratings are counted for calculations?

I agree, maybe that suggestion noholds, should be brought up on the feature requests board now :o)

That might not actually be a bad idea.

Excel lies....no account has been taken of the players who played lost a few then departed fbefore ever entering the lists...
I wonder if changing the system such that unrated players did not affect the ratings of the people they played until they had established a rating for themselves. At the very least it would discourage the one day ratings boosting campaigns since they would have to compete and complete against 5 already rated players before being able to have an effect.
The time taken to establish such a net would surely discourage the more casual offender.
It would also encourage even the most sensitive ratings protector to play unrated players... thus giving them a genuine start value.

You must remember too, that the MIDDLE bkr, isn't necesarilly the AVERAGE bkr.., but probably pretty close..

Oh, I see Kevin figured out the average for chess.... and in this case, I guess it's pretty close..

I would also add, that the average is most likely different for most games. Depending on the number of skilled players as opposed to novices that are here on this site.

I just put the chess ratings on Excel, and came up with this:

Total rating points: 407834
Average Rating (252 players): 1618.388889
Total rated games played: 7227
Average games per player: 28.67857143

Not steve at backgammon :):):) Just ask the angels lol

I know there are different averages mode median and medium .I just wondered what we classed as an average player:o)

I find most of my ratings on this site are significantly higher than elsewhere, but that doesn't verify the inaccuracy of the system.

And you'd think there'd be more people towards the bottom of the average (especially provisional ratings) than above, so the median is not necessarily even close to the average.