@ sk8ndestroy

the only problem with your system is that it is going to be easy for people to abuse it by forming clicks.

if a group of people decides to team up and then they only play one another and nobody else then they are going to benefit. This will mean that the more games they play against one another the higher their rankings are going to be.

This is because yahoo's reward for winning far outweights it punishment for losing. The amount of points one gets for winning far exceeds the amount of points one drops when one loses.

This will favour any group of people when they form clicks. By playing one another many times over in their click they build up one another's points.

Sure they may agree to play the others now and then but even if they lose it wont matter since they can always go back and rebuild their ranking after a loss to someone outside their team.

That is why I am in favour of force and limit. You just have to play everyone. And you can only play any one person twice.

This way people will be discouraged from teaming up as it they would not gain as much from just two games against each other as they would from say a hundred games.

The whole problem is the way yahoo punish and reward defeat and victory. Your idea would have been good if yahoo had subtracted as heavily from someone who loses as yahoo gives to someone who wins. just try it. take someone with a rank similar to your own and see how little is subtracted from the loser but how much is gained by the winner.

That is absolutely untrue. The losers lose just as many points as the winners win. Cliques wouldn't help anyone.

well then, lets use yahoo ponts system, but limit the games played by each player... as in a league...

that way it is fair for everyone... everyone plays the same quantity of matches, and the one with the highest score, wins...

I've explained like five times why that doesn't work. That's more a measure of how many games you've played than of how good you are. You need to lose points when you lose the game and yahoo's system is the most appropriate one.

how can it be a reflection of how many games you have played? in a round robin tournament everyone plays the same number of games?

I've explained like five times why that doesn't work. That's more a measure of how many games you've played than of how good you are. You need to lose points when you lose the game and yahoo's system is the most appropriate one.

really? how can it be a reflection of how many games you play if everyone plays the same number of games?

and why is losing points so important? if you lose a game and get no points you will still be forced down the log by those who win and draw games. those who draw will be in the middle and those who win will be at the top. what more can be required?

but if losing points is so important then why not do the round robin with yahoo point system. that way serunsen gets his wish. i get mine in that no one can dodge or ask his buddy for help. you get your wishes, the losing of points plus no "reflection of how many games you have played". and nichito has suggested this already so he will probably agree.

I just want everybody to have the exact same chance. That is why i want every one to play everyone else twice. to play white is an advantage. black first have to equalize the position before he can attack. by plaing everyone as both colours things are one hundred percent fair.

@ sk8ndestroy

you apear to be right about the amount of points lost and won. but it is still not very clear. there still seems to be something convoluted about the points awarding system.

nevertheless i concede the point. i spoke too soon. but that still leaves the problem of those who might want to dodge stronger players. i still think a round robin tournament where everyone plays everyone twice with yahoo's points system is best.

Why don't we do a vote in a new poll, to see which points scheme we should adopt?
It would be an easier method.

Why don't we do a vote in a new poll, to see which points scheme we should adopt?
It would be an easier method.


Not yet. People still don't understand all the ideas expressed yet. People are only listening to part of what I'm saying so I'll try some of this again. The idea of zero points for losing only indicates how many games you've played IF you can play an unlimited number of games which was proposed by me. We ARE NOT organizing another tournament right now and that was established a long time ago. If you only play two games against each person that's just boring. In my method, people can join at any time, can play whenever they want, can't find any loopholes (argue if you must but there aren't any) and we can have rankings that truly reflect how good we are. We don't have to worry about losing a lot of points to the big guys because when you lose to someone with a lot of points you only lose a little (and they only win a little). If you win against someone with a lot of points you win a lot of points (and they lose a lot). The number of points lost and points won in a single game is always equal. Draws do not award points. This way we can keep playing for as long as we want and play as many games as we want.

I hate the idea of the two game per person system because it's over as soon as it starts. This isn't a tournament, as we've explained earlier. We'll have tournaments later.

it's not two games per person... it's two games per opponent... suppose you have 9 opponents, that means you play 18 games... and that way, we get to play against everyone in the tournament...

That's what I meant. Either way, you are still limited. And AGAIN, it ISN'T a tournament.

ok... so lets do both... lets use your system as a ranking table, and lets use the other one to make a tournament...

Okay that sounds fine. But just to make things easier and to encourage more people to join the tournament, let's use just the ranking table for right now and then a little bit later start this tournament.

OK i too like that. then we have three (or four if some one wants to add one more event) events a year or whatever period we decide on.

one is the elimination type tournament we already had. the other is the ranking table ladder system as to what sk8ndestroy wanted. and the last one is the round robin tournament.

now about the ladder system. let me see if i have this right. correct me if i am wrong.

we go to yahoo. we create our own game room. we each create one new yahoo id with DW as a prefix. then we play one another as we please.

in the mean time i shall start to work on something for the round robin tournament. i am reasonably sure that i will come up with something good.

but hosting is going to be a real problem so i am going to have to impose on someone to help out with that. or i am going to think. perhaps i can find a way which makes hosting not compulsory.

Yep, you have the ladder system right. The time we use that for can be indefinite. You can chooses to us the DW prefixed-name in the tournaments or not, but if you do it will count towards the ladder system as well as the tournament and your opponent must use their DW prefixed-name as well. I don't really know what you mean by hosting, if you can please explain what you mean by that. I think it would be easiest for all of us if we used a password for each game so people outside of Daniweb won't try to play games with us. The password would always be the same: Daniweb. One last thing, wins and loses should be reported on this thread so we know if someone's ranking is what it should be.

So, I guess if we're all ready to start the ladder system we can get started with it. It should be the easiest of these to get started. I already created my name DWsk8ndestroy14. Whoever wants to play me in the first game let me know. And don't let the loss of points discourage anyone from playing. Remember it's all about just having fun, so don't get stressed about it.

Anyone who wants to play, let me know when and what room.

I can play whenever i am online really!

How about tomorrow 10pm? I'll be in Social: Walrus Rock. I might be on earlier.

er is that 10pm ur time (USA)
or 10pm England time?
I can do 9:30pm GMT easily.

Sorry, I forget about the time change sometimes. I might be on around 10 am tomorrow which is 3pm gmt (Unless daylight savings time screws that up). I can't guarantee anything though.

good we got this thing started...

Good idea... love Chess ... just average player .. in for FUN

he he, i sure you can participate!
Sk8 and joshSCH made up the tournament last time, and i think Sk8 is doing it this time around. Don't trust me on that though.
@Sk8 Sorry i miessed that match i was uber busy with homework and the like so PM me or add me to msn so it is a bit quicker!

That's fine. I got sick that day and didn't even get up until later anyway. (And by the way I think I am -4 gmt either way I'm on eastern time). Yeah, I'll probably be organizing this one too unless I get extremely busy for whatever reason in which case I might be out for a day or two. I'm going to see if yahoo will let me create a room called Daniweb. If they do the password will be Daniweb.

I'll play, although I fear I'm easy pickings for more advanced players :)