@Morozov In the full explanation above, I outlined that the use of the term hyperinflation was perfectly appropriate as:
(1) a cautionary nod towards historical incidents we would be wise to avoid
(2) an accurate quantitative descriptor where both
- [i] a strict criteria of 5% hyperinflation per day is used.
- [ii] two players choose to exploit the inflation algorithm for maximum self benefit.
Your counterargument relies upon:
- (A) A partial reading, since your rebuttal ignores the reasons for word choice that were explained fully in part two of my hyperinflation exposition.
- (B) An ad hominem attack referring to part one of my exposition as "wikipediaesque" or to be "copypasting", where [i] the reason for part one of the exposition was to compassionately remind everyone of historical precedent that we are liable to forget. It was not as a reason for the use of hyperinflation as a purely quantitative descriptor, and more importantly [ii] the term hyperinflation was justified as a quantitative descriptor in part two of the exposition.
- (C) You state that you prefer the definition of >50% per month.
- (D) You focus upon the historical average inflationary rate with respect to the whole pool, whereas I focused upon the potential for inflation where individual (or small groups of) players are incentivized to maximize self benefit as they are in any rating or monetary system.
Points (A) and (B) can be ignored as irrelevant or as requiring you to re-read the full exposition.
Addressing point [C], your preferred definition of 50% is much more modest than my >5% per day criteria. 5% per day converts to a 332% increase per month. Your 50% per month would only require a 1.36% inflationary rate per day. In the example in my previous post where 2 players choose to play each other exclusively to maximize inflation gains, Player A would only need to play Player B for 240 hyperbullet games per day to meet this rate, compared to my stated 1040 games for the stringent 5% per day rate.
Addressing point [D] in a monetary or rating system, players will always be incentivized to exploit the conditions for maximal self benefit, if they are aware of them. Incidentally, this awareness factor is also likely to be the reason it was wise not state publicly that the inflationary algorithm had been implemented or how it worked. While it is true we only meet the criteria for "inflation" rather than "hyperinflation" in terms of historical pool average, it is better to look at worst case scenarios given the incentives at work (an average chess players significant emotional investment exploiting the conditions to maximize his own rating). As an example in regular society, most people don't commit violently acts, but we still need systems in place as preventative measures as well as systems of justice to reach fair consequences when if they do. Likewise, in the glicko2 system it is equally important to take preventative measures against those players who may seek to exploit the system by accumulating 1vs1 match derived hyperinflation points and unashamedly peak sitting with them.
However, since all of this was an intentional adjustment that is about to stabilize, none of the above is relevant.
Warm regards, Burrower 🙏
(1) a cautionary nod towards historical incidents we would be wise to avoid
(2) an accurate quantitative descriptor where both
- [i] a strict criteria of 5% hyperinflation per day is used.
- [ii] two players choose to exploit the inflation algorithm for maximum self benefit.
Your counterargument relies upon:
- (A) A partial reading, since your rebuttal ignores the reasons for word choice that were explained fully in part two of my hyperinflation exposition.
- (B) An ad hominem attack referring to part one of my exposition as "wikipediaesque" or to be "copypasting", where [i] the reason for part one of the exposition was to compassionately remind everyone of historical precedent that we are liable to forget. It was not as a reason for the use of hyperinflation as a purely quantitative descriptor, and more importantly [ii] the term hyperinflation was justified as a quantitative descriptor in part two of the exposition.
- (C) You state that you prefer the definition of >50% per month.
- (D) You focus upon the historical average inflationary rate with respect to the whole pool, whereas I focused upon the potential for inflation where individual (or small groups of) players are incentivized to maximize self benefit as they are in any rating or monetary system.
Points (A) and (B) can be ignored as irrelevant or as requiring you to re-read the full exposition.
Addressing point [C], your preferred definition of 50% is much more modest than my >5% per day criteria. 5% per day converts to a 332% increase per month. Your 50% per month would only require a 1.36% inflationary rate per day. In the example in my previous post where 2 players choose to play each other exclusively to maximize inflation gains, Player A would only need to play Player B for 240 hyperbullet games per day to meet this rate, compared to my stated 1040 games for the stringent 5% per day rate.
Addressing point [D] in a monetary or rating system, players will always be incentivized to exploit the conditions for maximal self benefit, if they are aware of them. Incidentally, this awareness factor is also likely to be the reason it was wise not state publicly that the inflationary algorithm had been implemented or how it worked. While it is true we only meet the criteria for "inflation" rather than "hyperinflation" in terms of historical pool average, it is better to look at worst case scenarios given the incentives at work (an average chess players significant emotional investment exploiting the conditions to maximize his own rating). As an example in regular society, most people don't commit violently acts, but we still need systems in place as preventative measures as well as systems of justice to reach fair consequences when if they do. Likewise, in the glicko2 system it is equally important to take preventative measures against those players who may seek to exploit the system by accumulating 1vs1 match derived hyperinflation points and unashamedly peak sitting with them.
However, since all of this was an intentional adjustment that is about to stabilize, none of the above is relevant.
Warm regards, Burrower 🙏
