[Antrax]

 Bbradley62, on 2012-July-19, 14:14, said:

Also, the fact that maybe 1% of players might find a way to manipulate their ratings is irrelevant; if no money (or other prizes) are being awarded based on ratings, then the other 99% would have a useful tool.

What are you basing this estimate on? You do notice that cheating is an issue in current-day BBO, in the MBC, with absolutely nothing at stake for anyone, right?

[PetteriLem]

My view on this issue has always been the same. Looking from chess perspective, I would certainly not play chess in a site where there arent ratings. It is complete waste of time to play against random opponents. It is very important to play against opponents which are slightly better than you, then you can improve the most from the games. You have a chance to understand, what the opponent is doing better than you. When the difference in strengths become too wide, you wont know even hit you, when you lose. In other words you wont be able to execute your plans at all, you end up making weak attempts to avoid instantly lost positions. I would divide chess players in 5 strength categories. If you play against someone outside your category, it wont be pleasent for either of you. You can easily see that, if players have to play against a random opponent, u have only 1 in 5 chance to get an useful opponent. Even 1 in 2 chance is too little for me at least.

 TimG, on 2012-July-19, 14:35, said:

"Normally I'd play with you even though you are a weaker player, but I must consider my rating, so I can't play with you." That sort of thing.

It is possible to give ratings for tournaments only, then you cant choose your opponents so easily. If ratings are restricted to indys, then you cant even pick your partner.

[mgoetze]

 PetteriLem, on 2012-July-20, 03:17, said:

I would divide chess players in 5 strength categories. [...] You can easily see that, if players have to play against a random opponent, u have only 1 in 5 chance to get an useful opponent.

You mean there are equally many players in each category? LOL

[Bbradley62]

 Antrax, on 2012-July-19, 23:18, said:

 Bbradley62, on 2012-July-19, 14:14, said:

Also, the fact that maybe 1% of players might find a way to manipulate their ratings is irrelevant; if no money (or other prizes) are being awarded based on ratings, then the other 99% would have a useful tool.

What are you basing this estimate on? You do notice that cheating is an issue in current-day BBO, in the MBC, with absolutely nothing at stake for anyone, right?

BBO has "hundred of thousands" of members, according to the site. Yes, there will always be a few bad eggs, but I don't think there are "thousands" of cheaters (1% of "hundreds of thousands") and I see no reason to believe that implementing a rating system would increase the amount of cheating above that threshhold. I think the incidence of cheating is only a small fraction of that level.

[TimG]

 jamegumb, on 2012-July-19, 16:36, said:

I'd think most of this argument could be used against what rating system BBO does have - BBO masterpoints and player designations from 1-10/J/Q/K/A/etc.

BBO's "masterpoint system" differs from what most people propose for a rating system in a couple of big ways:

1) You can never lose BBO points, one can play with or against players of any rating and never have to be concerned that it will adversely affect one's rating; and

2) Only certain games are eligible for BBO points, so if one signs on and plays a few hands to unwind, they don't have to be concerned that they are not giving it their best effort.

[TimG]

 PetteriLem, on 2012-July-20, 03:17, said:

It is possible to give ratings for tournaments only, then you cant choose your opponents so easily. If ratings are restricted to indys, then you cant even pick your partner.

Great solution. Start a club that runs rated tournaments, keep ratings, and publish them. Then players who consider ratings important can enter your tournaments and get what they want. You can deal with the cheating issues (if there are issues). And, BBO doesn't have to be involved except in providing the mechanism for you to host tournaments.

[PetteriLem]

I have to confess that I find it absolutely shocking that we even have to talk about ratings in bridge. Ratings are absolutely standard in chess and for the reasons I told makes finding a suitable opponent simple. I did not consider what kind of distribution of different rated players there are in chess or in other sports. I find the exact distribution not too important as I dont have any means to get it. I was just trying to elaborate what probelems there are without ratings. Someone with better math skills can make the exact calculation how often one finds a wanted opponent randomly depending on the distribution. The thing I know is how smooth it is to find an opponent in chess due to a rating system and good seek options it allowes. I do not have any intention to start tournament series for pairs or indys which are rated. I do not understand why I should even think about it, but thanks for the concearn. I have seen evil chess players who seek only games with white pieces and thus inflate their true rating by 100 elos or what ever is the correct number. In case they actually play better with black pieces and on purpose deflate their ratings, I couldnt care less. I have heard of people who mess with time settings to their benefit to inflate their true ratings. They play with shorter time limits, if they cant beat you with longer ones. I despise them. I have met players who refuse to play more, if you beat them too often to protect their inflated ratings, how terrible. To avoid unncessary replies I intend to continue playing bridge in BBO with or without ratings and do not consider playing only chess due to my love of ratings in case someone suggests it.

[helene_t]

 mgoetze, on 2012-July-20, 04:09, said:

You mean there are equally many players in each category? LOL

Depends how the categories are definied. The breakpoints could be defined as the 20th, 40th, 60th and 80th percentile.

[jjbrr]

 PetteriLem, on 2012-July-20, 09:01, said:

I have to confess that I find it absolutely shocking that we even have to talk about ratings in bridge.

Really?

Quote

I despise them.

Let's start here I guess! I can understand why BBO wouldn't want its members "despising" other members.

[quiddity]

 the hog, on 2012-July-19, 20:22, said:

I cannot understand this thread. BBO belongs to Fred and others. The fact that we can play on it, particularly for free, is a privilege. No one has a right to tell Fred what to do on his site.

You don't have the right to make suggestions about Fred's website? Crikey that's rough! Maybe you can move to New Zealand or something.

[jjbrr]

And since you mention chess ratings, I had a chess teacher when I was quite young who was, at the time, quite highly regarded nationally. One year he was the reigning national amateur champion or something and he was telling us that he had to keep his rating down so that he could continue to compete in that category. I may be getting some of the terms wrong, but I guess there was a certain USCF rating above which one could no longer compete as an amateur.

Anyway, the point is this practice was apparently quite common. I assume there were monetary incentives for doing so, but I don't really know. Maybe the thrill of victory is his thing and he's content beating up on the minnows.

For those supporting a BBO rating system to improve the "Help me find a game" feature:
Were the system to be implemented, what would you do if, for whatever reason, you were consistently matched with players whom you deem well below your skill level?

[quiddity]

 jjbrr, on 2012-July-20, 10:39, said:

For those supporting a BBO rating system to improve the "Help me find a game" feature:
Were the system to be implemented, what would you do if, for whatever reason, you were consistently matched with players whom you deem well below your skill level?

If the system were made public then I guess I would beat up on the weaker tables for a while waiting for the rating to correct itself. If it doesn't improve I would send an email to the support team.

It might be better for BBO to roll the feature out silently. For all I know there is already a system in place, though I doubt it. The current matchups just seem too random.

[kuhchung]

 quiddity, on 2012-July-20, 12:13, said:

If the system were made public then I guess I would beat up on the weaker tables for a while waiting for the rating to correct itself. If it doesn't improve I would send an email to the support team.

Nooooo leave me alone!

[billw55]

 quiddity, on 2012-July-20, 12:13, said:

If the system were made public then I guess I would beat up on the weaker tables for a while waiting for the rating to correct itself. If it doesn't improve I would send an email to the support team.

Not so simple because of weak CHO. This is the big difference between rating chess and bridge. Bridge ratings are much tougher to self-correct.

[jjbrr]

 quiddity, on 2012-July-20, 12:13, said:

If the system were made public then I guess I would beat up on the weaker tables for a while waiting for the rating to correct itself. If it doesn't improve I would send an email to the support team.

It might be better for BBO to roll the feature out silently. For all I know there is already a system in place, though I doubt it. The current matchups just seem too random.

What if, in my hypothetical, the rating system is working exactly as it was intended and some other reason is why the opposition seems so bad?

Some examples of reasons why this might happen:
- People have inflated their ratings because they want to be "experts" and play against better competition
- People aren't as good as they think they are and the level of skill at the table is actually at equilibrium

Some examples of why the current self-rating system isn't effective:
- People have inflated their ratings because they think they're "experts" and want to play against better competition
- Many people aren't as good as they think they are

So unless it's very difficult to inflate your rating...

[quiddity]

 jjbrr, on 2012-July-20, 13:12, said:

So unless it's very difficult to inflate your rating...

This can be engineered. That's the good thing about an automated algorithm. Google would probably not be a good search engine if it allowed websites to self-rank their relevance.

Anyway, if the rating system were not public then people would be unlikely to try to game it.

[hrothgar]

 quiddity, on 2012-July-20, 13:54, said:

Anyway, if the rating system were not public then people would be unlikely to try to game it.

Based on my experience, end users will not accept any performance ranking algorithm that they don't understand.
The need to be able to read the algorithm and understand the underlying math.

Based on OKBridge's futile attempts to explain how the Lehman system worked I don't think its possible to derive a rating system that is both accurate and accessible. (The Lehman's failed on both accounts)

[phil_20686]

 jjbrr, on 2012-July-20, 10:39, said:

For those supporting a BBO rating system to improve the "Help me find a game" feature:
Were the system to be implemented, what would you do if, for whatever reason, you were consistently matched with players whom you deem well below your skill level?

I would probably only play with people I know. Much like now.

[mycroft]

Playing with people of my skill level (ish): 50%
Playing with non-rude people (CHO not least, but not only): 90%
So I don't play much, and when I do I play with people I know, and people they know.

Rating? What is rating?

[RunemPard]

Have played Spades for over 10 years...rated is a normal thing. What is it with Bridge players and not wanting to have an option to play for a rating? Honestly I do not care either way, but I will say that I would enjoy having a rated section on the site.

Even a simple handicap system would work for tournaments. After all, this is basically the same as a rating system.

But yes, I cannot understand why so many are against a rating system. If players do not wish to take part in rated play, they are welcome to play non-rated matches. For example, when I am playing spades...there is always one person a day making a comment about some taking the ratings so seriously. That they only play for fun and do not care about ratings. If this is true, why are they bothered to play rated?


I would also like to recommend that any form of scoring be removed as well. There is no need to count score. This only encourages cheating, rudeness, and extremely unsportsmanlike behavior towards ones partner or opponents.