What game would you like to play, Daniel? :-)

I live in Butler, Missouri... 55 miles south of Kansa city... Pick a game and send me an invite...
I always enjoy playing board games...

how will the bkr recalcuations and graph make things better? I guess I'm not clear on that.

Here is how I understand the upcomming BKR recalculations & graphs.

First is to go back to game #1, and go through all the game for all the players and recalculate the BKR for each and every game. So if at any time your BKR was messed up because of time outs, or other miscalculations - this should fix them.

How I understand the graph - it is more of a statistics type of thing, something like what LittleGolem.net has - if you seen their ratings. So if you go and look at my graph for Backgammon, you might see me start at 1300, maybe grow to around 1800 in Dec 2003, maybe a big drop back down to 1400 in a few month, etc..., etc... So you will also be able to hopefully quickly see what your "high" rating was in your past for a certain game, and "low" rating was.

Again, I have not seen it - so this is just how I understand this current project.

WHICH brings me to a question I asked awhile back, but never got an answer.

Why are ratings calculated with the rating at the time the game ends, and not the ratings when the game was first started?

before on-line turn based sites, ratings were almost always the same when a person started and completed a game, so there was never a question.

But with turn based sites, the ratings can be drasticly different from when you start a game and end a game. (I can not tell you how many Froglet games I have started with player rated 1300+, and by the time it ends - maybe they resigned many many games - my rating is calculated with their new 400 BKR, which I feel if really unfair.

Maybe I'm not thinking correctly, but wouldn't it be beter if ratings were calculated with the ratings that each player started with, rather then end it?

So for example, lets say I have a rating of 2000, and my opponent has a rating of 1000. We play a game, by the time the game is over, both our ratings are completly different.

I believe the ratings should be calculated with the original 2000, and 1000 ratings - and then add/subtract the results onto our current ratings.

that could go both ways,BBW..lets say your at 1700 and your opponent is unrated.the game takes 2 monthes to finish,your still at 1700 and your opponent is at 2000,and you lose.
*edited for spelling*

On Chessmaniacs.com... The rating system is changed... It used to be a sbwildman said...below... But it now sets at what rating you started the game with....

Yea, it could go both ways - but my thinking is if I start a game with someone rated at 1700, I should get scored with a win or lose with that same person with the 1700 rated (no matter if it's now 1000, or 2200)

I also think back to the KM which used the current system to hurt other players - that is they would start a game with someone rated pretty high, they would purposly get that rating as low as possible, so when they win their game against a player, their rating will drop a lot. (example - both me & opponent are rated 2000 - they would hurry drop the other players rating to lets say 1000, then when they win - it hurt my rating a lot more then when it was at 2000)

Hey the KM only did that to predators, programmers and pedophiles. And only then when we saw one of those going in for the kill.

so you did it and was aware it happened?

the KM did it to massage your ego.

The KM did that to boost their members ratings because the bigboss wanted it's fellowship to hold the top spots in checkers and have the highest average rating of any fellowship.

..of which you knew nothing. AS IF

... and see, if the recalculations was done with the rating when the game started (not ended), then it would be like erasing that "bad" part of BrainKing hitory. :-)

But now Brainking has a new generation of bad boys which gives meaning to the empty lives of the bullies who love to have someone to use to get the attention off of themselves. LOL

Can we keep this nice please :o)

he has a point the Harls.
Fact is, some members jump on every post a few other members make and it is becoming very tedious indeed

Sure, I'm not debating the point. I'm just asking that its phrased nicely so as to avoid arguments.

it's hard to foget the past sometimes. When you do crappy things to others, don't always expect everyone to forgive and forget. :-(

BUT - lets get back to the idea:

Should ratings be calculated by the rating when the game starts, or the game is over?

My vote: With the rating when the game started.

I agree BBW 100%
You should know what you are getting into at the start of the game and it should be set then

Wouldnt the programming possibly be easier for that too? Set up a table that is created at the start of the game

yes tedious...its terrible to drag up old memories of cheating good hearted members into paying for multi nic memberships...

let it go bwild
bringing that up is very childish

cheating people is childish.

maybe I'm wrong,wont be the first time....did you return the prize money you took for your Summerday account,LongJohn?...if so...I apologize,and wont bring it up again.

I agree bwild. Also I agree that ratings be calculated by the rating when the game starts.

I agree (I didn't 2 hours ago, but now that foul play has come to the table, I changed my mind). I also understand some other sites are changing their mind on this matter...

So, Fencer, how are the new ratings gonna be recalculated? We could be discussing this all night (or day) but you're still the only one who has the knife and the cheese in the hand (hope that doesn't get lost in translation)...

On a (maybe not so) unrelated subject:

What's the point of the polls link on the menu? Those poll results are there ever since I became a member (and I can only imagine how much more time before that). Maybe it should be hidden when there are no active polls (meaning one month after the last poll has closed, so people can still see the results for a while)?

Polls - I would love to see the Polls option used a lot more, even if it was for "fun" polls.

For example if Fencer could somehow put a user in charge of the Polls, i would take that job - try to put up a new "fun" poll a week, and also put up site polls when needed.

Fun polls are fun...;o))

I would like to see a vote on that LMAO

Yes,let's have a poll...

like?
do you like yer pets..
1..yes
2..no
3..well cooked
4..other
;o)

4

how many lips are best?


1.fourlips
2.threelips
3.Tulips

L
MAO

heheeee!!..neat!

what pants? ;oÞ

BTW Bwild, looks like you not gonna get your answer from LJ tonight LOL

with this new silly auto vcacation feature elongating games due to the inconsiderate gits who are abusing the sodding thing

for god sake, move for so we can actually enjoy the fricking games

is there any way you can tell on someones profile if they have auto-vacation enabled?

nope. which is why i suggested it on feature requests board and seemed like ignored

Do unrated games count towards your game total when getting an established bkr?

they are counted as played games on your total of games ,but not counted to get to the 25 for established rating .

Thanks. That makes sense...
I thought it was 20 games for an established rating?

Nope, 25 is correct.

Just to bring back up the conversation about what ratings is best to calculate the rating (the rating when the game first started, or ended)

As an example, I just got a rating in Anti-Froglet of 1337 - that is with 6 wins, no loses! Why so low? because by the time the games ended, the other players ratings were all under 800.

I played those games with good rated players (well unrated - probable around the default 1300 mark), but because of how the system is set up - my rating was calculated with their very low ratings.

Anyway, I was taking a vote:

Do you think ratings should be calculated with the rating that the game started with.

Or do you think it should stay how it is now, calculated with the rating that is there when the game ended.

So far I believe I read 3 people who liked the idea of it being calculated with the starting rating value.

You could always not play with people without ratings or with established ratings only. Or play faster games. Besides, the bkr is over rated, and often misleading anyway, and it doesnt really matter, since the object is to have fun, isnt it?

I vote make it what ever it is when the game starts.

So BBW, just to clarify: Are you suggesting that the rating INCREASE (or decrease) should be calculated based on the ratings at the beginning?

Like for example: Before the game, player 1 has a rating of 2000, and at the end of the game it's dropped to 1000. If, based on the 2000 rating their rating should increase say to 2004, should their new rating after the game be 1004?

so now Fencer just spent all this time,updateing and designing this graph....and you want to change it?

It would definitely not affect the graphs or history in any way. It would just change the way new ratings are calculated (very likely changing many ratings...)