Current Rating System needs a change

@DeimosRuhk said in #27:

If there is merit for overhauling the existing points system then that is kinda a different topic, as this thread is primarily about creating a new category for casual play that doesnt use points.

I can read and understand. I certainly realised this but was responding to another member I didn't agree with. I intended to answer later when I have a little more time. Sorry for the off topic.

Of course there are always valid math reasons but that doesn't mean the algorithm is suitable.
While the Elo system allows players to sit on their relatively high rating for many years, the Glicko system does the radical opposite which is also not great.

Online chess generally allows "gaming the system" by cherry picking your opponents too much.

First topic starter shows what the system is for and then says he wants to get rid of it.
Neat.
Then he thinks that if you replaces numbers by words something is going to change.
And third he wants to seduce a women by, secretly being much stronger, crushing her on a chessboard.

If the chess is as good as the reasoning she might have won

Seriously, I couldn't judge the system but it seams to work fine for me.

@ColossusChess said in #31:

I can read and understand. I certainly realised this but was responding to another member I didn't agree with. I intended to answer later when I have a little more time. Sorry for the off topic.

Of course there are always valid math reasons but that doesn't mean the algorithm is suitable.
While the Elo system allows players to sit on their relatively high rating for many years, the Glicko system does the radical opposite which is also not great.

Online chess generally allows "gaming the system" by cherry picking your opponents too much.

Oh, sorry for misunderstanding. I was mass replying didn't realize you were replying to someone else.

@pet59 said in #32:

First topic starter shows what the system is for and then says he wants to get rid of it.
Neat.
Then he thinks that if you replaces numbers by words something is going to change.
And third he wants to seduce a women by, secretly being much stronger, crushing her on a chessboard.

If the chess is as good as the reasoning she might have won

Seriously, I couldn't judge the system but it seams to work fine for me.

Because it {would} make a difference to use words instead of numbers.

Ex. Everyone under 1200 is almost certainly a beginner or very casual player. If a player is rated 600 {s}he will probably be intimidated by an opponent rated 1000, and if both players equate rating with skill/intelligence then the lower rated player would be inclined to see the 1000 rated player as 'smarter' or 'better', when in fact, the rating and intelligence are apples and oranges in this example.

However, if all you had to go by was both players being in a "Beginner" player pool then there would be little/no intimidation. The pool would just keep track of wins/losses like in a tournament, disregarding the quality of opponents as all the opponents would have the same 'quality', ie "Beginners'.

If a player wants to move up they can choose to play in the next level, say Casual Intermediate or something, to find a better challenge if that is what they want.

but you just passes by the fact that a player has the right to be intimidated. And, depending on their personality, on their feelings for that day, etc. wanting to play or not.
The key problem is that you, for personal reasons, deny them that right

It is an instrument and like all instruments everything depends how and when you use it. They are using that instrument to say to you, I do not want to play.
Oh , but I don't like that, I want forcing them to play with me. So let's get rid of the instrument.

Words can smooth things(if that's the right word), dissimulate a bit, but doesn't really change anything.

I do understand what you are saying, but that's no solution.

Zen mode solves all these problems. It's really good.

At least for people who don't want to mainly play against weaker players.

https://www.youtube.com/@4PlayerChessFFAModern

@DeimosRuhk said in #34:

Because it {would} make a difference to use words instead of numbers.

Ex. Everyone under 1200 is almost certainly a beginner or very casual player. If a player is rated 600 {s}he will probably be intimidated by an opponent rated 1000, and if both players equate rating with skill/intelligence then the lower rated player would be inclined to see the 1000 rated player as 'smarter' or 'better', when in fact, the rating and intelligence are apples and oranges in this example.

However, if all you had to go by was both players being in a "Beginner" player pool then there would be little/no intimidation. The pool would just keep track of wins/losses like in a tournament, disregarding the quality of opponents as all the opponents would have the same 'quality', ie "Beginners'.

Right from the beginning of this thread, every response you have given to each of the sub-topics has shown a profound lack of thought about the laws of unintended consequences. It's as if you are unable to see the contradictions you pose with nearly every sentence you have typed. I honestly have no idea what problem you are trying to solve, or think you are trying to solve.

So let's say we lay some groundwork here. It's not even possible to discuss this without agreeing on some conditions first. So...

Do you think both players should be able to enjoy the game? I say yes.

Is there some benefit to either player in a game where the rating gap is 400 points? I say no, I think it's nothing more than a function of not having enough players to choose playing against. Aside from a coaching situation the game will be largely pointless.

In your example above, you would be arbitrarily pairing two players with the pretense that they are within one of your pools of players. According to you, both are beginners, and most of us, myself included, would agree with that. The difference being you think they should play together and I think they should not. Now every statement you've made so far has been from the point of view of the stronger player. Have you even considered your ideas from the point of view of the weaker player? I haven't seen a single statement where you have.

So the questions here are, why are you trying to pair these players?
And what do you think will happen with the players in your above example where one of them doesn't have a one in 10 chance of winning a game. I say they will very quickly decide chess is not for them because they will be made painfully aware of their inability to beat this person 400 points higher, in spite of supposedly being considered in the same group. I also say that very quickly the rating Gap will increase strictly due to the tilt of the weaker player having been curb stomped so much that they no longer are psychologically capable of being the 600 player they really are. Your very paring idea may well have at least temporarily turned them into a 450 or 500. What do you say to that?