Is it a good idea to restrict a players game seek to a maximum of 200 points below their rating in rated games? No upper limit.
Lichess offers top 100 players trophy's. Their names get placed on a leader board. The "incentive" for such status can be overwhelming for a few. In order to achieve this status, I see players with 2000+ ratings only play new players (1500+) or lower rated players. They slowly chalk up the points to make a leader board.
Sure, they risk losing a lot of points to established players, but not nearly as many to 1500? provisional players.
There just doesn't seem to be any reason to play rated games with players -500 points on a regular basis. Can anybody provide one?
Also, this would eliminate another form of rating manipulation. New accounts, playing a known friend, who posses a rating >2000 who are willing to lose a game. The 2000 losses relatively few points while the new player gains +200. A couple of games like this and very quickly after only a few games, new players can reach 2000.
This idea is silly and penalises lower rated players by making it harder for them to play stronger opponents. Provisional ratings are just that - provisional. They could be a 2000 rated player or a 1000 rated player.
When I became a top 10 racing King player I promised to not pull the ladder up behind me. Of course I could do what Carlsen and other elite players do and just play other top players to preserve rating points, only gaining or losing one or two points a game, but instead I vowed to do everything I could to help others succeed. If a weakie beats me they gain a lot of points and I lose a lot. This is a risk I take in order to help others reach their full potential.
" New accounts, playing a known friend, who posses a rating >2000 who are willing to lose a game. The 2000 losses relatively few points while the new player gains +200. A couple of games like this and very quickly after only a few games, new players can reach 2000."
This is artificially increasing your rating and is already a bannable offense.
A very noble attitude, I gotta say.
Besides, I agree with your sentiment that, although OP's idea is well-meant, it would be too restrictive for weaker players and I also want to add that coaching or tutoring would be nigh impossible under these circumstances. People who manipulate their rating points represent a tiny minority, and implementing this new rule would far outweigh its benefits.
There are a couple points here:
1. Rating-based leaderboards are always subject to some sort of "gaming the rating system" since every known rating system makes assumptions. Unless advances in ratings science are made, there will always be a trade-off between ease of implementation/deployment/maintenance versus accuracy.
2. I apologize for the lack of openness but the developer team is currently discussing an improvement. Nothing drastic or exciting, but if successful it should help.
Coaching and tutoring are NOT rated games, but casual games. The restriction would not apply.
This "helping others succeed" is utter nonsense. Players want to play equal opponents or higher. They are not sending challenges to new accounts via messaging, as it is not possible to post seeks with a 2000+ rating to play only <1500 players.
Playing lower rated players is not manipulating your rating. If you win you get a tiny amount of points, if you lose you are severely penalised.
I present exhibit A:
I was crushing this guy and got complacent. My opponent played a very sneaky move Qd4!! ..... I took the Queen. I lose 22 points and my opponent gains 121
Where is the foul play?
"as it is not possible to post seeks with a 2000+ rating to play only <1500 players."
This is completely false.
Yes. An "improvement" is needed as it is simply too easy to take advantage of the system. Too many points are gained for just a couple of wins for new players is one example.
Guilty conscience I perceive.
A lawyers favorite saying "The guilty are always the 1st at denial"
@NeverBeenTimid owch looks like the newbies hit you hard when they dont time out
NeverBeenTimid thinks this thread is about him.
It is a common problem. He is far from the only person to manipulate their rating, especially in the variants. There are several ways to take advantage of the system, because under existing policies, it is not possible to enforce any punishment for obvious gaming of the system.
I'm looking forward to the coming changes that Toadofsky spoke of. It's been recognized the existing system can be improved upon.
I think something along the lines of my suggestion, putting a lower limit on game seeks for rated games only is workable. I just do not see any reason for players to be playing rated games with players 500 lower. The one reason given so far "I took a vow to help out new players gain their full potential" doesn't fly in anybody's book, especially when only 1 or 2 games out of 100 have been played vs anyone within 500 points.
Glicko 2 rewards far too many points for 1500? after a win. 2000 players lose maybe 20 points while I've seen 200+ gains for a single game for the 1500? This is out of line imo.
