[luke warm]

slothy, on Feb 8 2005, 07:48 AM, said:

[edited: uday]

hahahahah... probably some reference to a swan and leda and then helen and then, eventually, brad pitt and something obscene about him and angelina (with jennifer in there somewhere)

[hotShot]

Dear Alex!

I don't think what i said is asking BBO to invent and implement a rating system.

slothy said:

1) with no disrepect, hotshot, you havent been reading the forums it seems!! There is a groundswell of people on this forum at least who DONT want a rating system and they swamp those that do!

So I will help you to understand my posting a litte better.

hotShot, on Feb 7 2005, 03:20 PM, said:

I would be interested in seeing my own rating. A working rating system, that shows how you improve.

Unfortunatelly there is no such system.

This is a personal statement, saying that I am interested in a working rating system and why I think it is interesting. I further stated that a working system does not exist.

My interests are my own, and I state them any way I like.

hotShot, on Feb 7 2005, 03:20 PM, said:

Most people want a rating system, to select the best available player as partner or opponent. But don't we all know that a bunch of good players are not a good team? The fact that a player is very good, does not mean that he will form a very good pair with someone. There are so many little things where you can have different style or a different attitude.

Here I state that a rating system won't help much to form a good pair. Since this is the main reason people ask for one, stating that it will not work is directly related to rating systems.

hotShot, on Feb 7 2005, 03:20 PM, said:

I have seen true World Class players, performing poorly together because of incompatible styles.
This is why strong players don't change their partners to often.

Here I state that players stick to partners that have proved to be compatible.

In fact I read every post here, that is related to a rating system. And by doing so I discovered that most of the "social effects" are consequences of flawed rating systems.

A rating system that improves your rating if you win against weak players, is a flawed system.
A rating system that ruins you rating if you play with a novice, is a flawed system.

But the most importent thing I learned from reading those threads is that
people don't want a working rating system, they want a system that proves they are good players and that helps them to form a winning pair.
Both of this goals cannot be reached with a true rating system.

So I will keep my interest for a true rating system, and I have accepted that until there is an accepted working true rating system, it should not be intruduced to BBO.

Sadly your posting is not up to your usual forum rating

hotShot

[hrothgar]

hotShot, on Feb 8 2005, 07:57 PM, said:

In fact I read every post here, that is related to a rating system. And by doing so I discovered that most of the "social effects" are consequences of flawed rating systems.

A rating system that improves your rating if you win against weak players, is a flawed system.
A rating system that ruins you rating if you play with a novice, is a flawed system.

What is the nature of "reality"? In particular, is reality perceptive or objective?

Lets assume for the moment that it was possible to create a "perfect" rating system that conforms to your requirements? [For what its worth, I think that it is possible to do so]

Regardless of the technical characteristics of the rating algorithm, people's behaviour will be determined by their beliefs about how the ratings algorithm works.... In a perfect world, perception would match objective reality. However, the world is far from perfect.

Its for this reason that I argue that any ratings system needs to be both accurate and transparent. Unfortunately, I don't think that these two goals can be achieved simultaneously.

[hotShot]

hrothgar, on Feb 8 2005, 05:08 PM, said:

Its for this reason that I argue that any ratings system needs to be both accurate and transparent. Unfortunately, I don't think that these two goals can be achieved simultaneously.

Well i don't know if every chess player can tell you how his ELO number is calculated, but it is accepted, because it works. The player with the better number is more likely to win, the bigger the difference is.

I think the "real" question is, can those selfrated "Experts" deal with a rating system that rates them as "Non-Experts".

[vanilla]

why is every expert so wild about getting a rating system ? surely you should all be able to judge who you want to play with and who not
here we have a free bridge site where we can all go search for friends and partners, play and enjoy....and still so many choose to complain
if you want a rating system, why not go somewhere else...can only mention OK, e-bridge and swan....but guess better stay on the free site and wimper !!!!

think stars and true experts have an obligation to make this game of ours known to as many people as possible. think they should all be ambassadors of bridge, make their contribution to make this game of ours known to people who have not yet found out how fun it is.....after all - could we have all events where stars meet and compete if a large majority of ordinary players were not paying to their national bridge assosiations.....
stars and experts should inspire us ordinary players, represent their countries in big tournaments, inspire us and urge us to study the game and get better.
new approaches should be published and discussed and club members invited to test and try...be active and work against the ACBL approach that everything new is to be feared and forbidden....

so be happy that Fred and his friends made this site for us, go find friends who are out there waiting for you and work actively to make bridge a game for us all

[HeartA]

hotShot, on Feb 8 2005, 12:48 PM, said:

I think the "real" question is, can those selfrated "Experts" deal with a rating system that rates them as "Non-Experts".

I like this question.

[Flame]

vanilla, on Feb 8 2005, 01:49 PM, said:

why is every expert so wild about getting a rating system ? surely you should all be able to judge who you want to play with and who not
here we have a free bridge site where we can all go search for friends and partners, play and enjoy....and still so many choose to complain
if you want a rating system, why not go somewhere else...can only mention OK, e-bridge and swan....but guess better stay on the free site and wimper !!!!

think stars and true experts have an obligation to make this game of ours known to as many people as possible. think they should all be ambassadors of bridge, make their contribution to make this game of ours known to people who have not yet found out how fun it is.....after all - could we have all events where stars meet and compete if a large majority of ordinary players were not paying to their national bridge assosiations.....
stars and experts should inspire us ordinary players, represent their countries in big tournaments, inspire us and urge us to study the game and get better.
new approaches should be published and discussed and club members invited to test and try...be active and work against the ACBL approach that everything new is to be feared and forbidden....

so be happy that Fred and his friends made this site for us, go find friends who are out there waiting for you and work actively to make bridge a game for us all

What are you talking about ?
Rating system is something that make sense which a logical birdge player might think is needed, thats why you have it at other online and offline bridge organizations.
There is nothing bad about wanting a rating system, BUT expirence taught that rating system leads to bad beheviours and other bad things that make it not worth it, I accept it and think its right not to implement a rating system, but i dont think ppl arent allowed to ask for it, its not complaining, it suggesting, and no need to send those "BAD" ppl away.

[TimG]

It has always struck me as odd that people who play a game don't want to be rated. Next thing you know there will be a push for not keeping score at all -- no need to have any winners and losers.

[Rebound]

Speaking only for myself, I'm happy with the current self-rating system; I just wish a whole bunch of the so-called experts would take a reality check and adjust their ratings downward. Being no where near an expert myself, I certainly don't mind an error on the part of my partner, (as someone has said here, we're both trying to win) but if one calls himself an expert, I expect him to play like one.

[TimG]

Rebound, on Feb 8 2005, 07:11 PM, said:

Speaking only for myself, I'm happy with the current self-rating system; I just wish a whole bunch of the so-called experts would take a reality check and adjust their ratings downward.

I'm curious: what about the misrepresentation of skill level is it that you don't like?

[Free]

TimG, on Feb 8 2005, 11:25 PM, said:

It has always struck me as odd that people who play a game don't want to be rated. Next thing you know there will be a push for not keeping score at all -- no need to have any winners and losers.

Ok, so you want to be nr 1373 out of 5000? Congratulations, you're with the better half! Actually, I don't know why some people want to be rated in a system where cheaters WILL BE rated highest... Perhaps some of you can just explain it to me, but the real top players will be pushed back by cheaters, the huge losers won't be encouraged to play, and everyone in the middle just already knows what he/she can do... I only have 1 simple question: WHY???

[the hog]

OK here is my unpopular opinion. I see nothing wrong with a rating system similar to that of OKB's Lehmans. So people cheat; if they are so pathetic, so what?

[helene_t]

There will be 0.0001% of players actually cheating. No problem
There will be 50% of players accusing some (partially overlapping) 50% of cheating. Reason enough not to implement it.
An even better reason not to implement it: see Richard's comment.

[slothy]

The_Hog, on Feb 9 2005, 02:35 AM, said:

OK here is my unpopular opinion. I see nothing wrong with a rating system similar to that of OKB's Lehmans. So people cheat; if they are so pathetic, so what?

Quite right Ron..why get out of the habit of being unpopular

Anonymous

[inquiry]

What a rating system will do is start "witch hunts" for cheaters. You sit down in tourney against a pair with a rating of 73 (with 75 max possible).. you are already wondering, are these cheaters. They drop doubleton queen off-side, now you are convinced... you write a letter to abuse.. .multiply that by a thousand. No thank you.

There is no doubt that EVEN without rating some people cheat.. who knows, with ratings, they might cheat less (because impossibly high rating is a sure tipoff). But the extra "incentive" to catch the cheaters (come on, how can "the hog' have a higher rating than "me' you might think...

You want to find out how good you are ? My opinion is to challenge a good pair, enter some tournments. Simple enough. however, I edited an earlier post in which RAIN told you how to see ratings based upon your your results as corrected for the skill of opponents you play. Since there is so much interest, I have changed my mind and will let you know that this option does exist. A commercial product for hands played on bbo and okbridge does this type of calculations. The product is named "bridgebrowser" from http://www.microtopia.net. It is not cheap and I don't htink paying for it to see ratings is a good idea at all... now if you are interested in the hands.. then ok..

[mila85]

I don't have problems with self-rating of other players.
-I make notes to each player. So I don't play twice with the same 'expert.'
-Player's info can tell you a lot. When someone's info is full of convections it's not an expert.
-It's not problem to say: "Thanks partner, I must go.. Bye"
-I can play with weak players but I can't play with rude people. New rating system doesn't solve this problem..

I have a problem with my self-rating. I think I'm something between intermidiate and advanced. But I play better than most of the experts:) If I wrote 'Intermidiate' to my info I would never play with good partner/opps (because it means begginer here). When I put 'Advanced' to the info I feel bad when I do novice mistakes...

[Rebound]

TimG, on Feb 8 2005, 08:47 PM, said:

Rebound, on Feb 8 2005, 07:11 PM, said:

Speaking only for myself, I'm happy with the current self-rating system; I just wish a whole bunch of the so-called experts would take a reality check and adjust their ratings downward.

I'm curious: what about the misrepresentation of skill level is it that you don't like?

I think it is self-evident. Perhaps not. It is a matter of expectations. I like to win as much as the next guy. If an expert agrees to play with me, I see it as an opportunity to do well. Speaking to the issue of a lesser player recognizing the difference between a perceived error and an advanced play that just happened to not work, I point to a slam in which the "expert" I played with fired off 2 unnecessary finesses right off the crack and down he went in a makeable contract.

It's just a shame when a person is unable to be honest with himself and others about his skill level. But it's better than the mayhem that would ensue if BBO instituted some sort of rating system. I'm with the others who said it was the ruination of OKBridge as far as having an enjoyable game there was concerned.

Incidentally, my sentiments agree almost completely with those in Mila85's post.

[TimG]

inquiry, on Feb 9 2005, 07:25 AM, said:

What a rating system will do is start "witch hunts" for cheaters. You sit down in tourney against a pair with a rating of 73 (with 75 max possible).. you are already wondering, are these cheaters. They drop doubleton queen off-side, now you are convinced... you write a letter to abuse.. .multiply that by a thousand. No thank you.

What is it about a rating system that will make you more suspicious of this sort of thing?

[inquiry]

TimG, on Feb 9 2005, 01:03 PM, said:

What is it about a rating system that will make you more suspicious of this sort of thing?

If players iwth a rating of, say 30 (with 25 lowest, 75 highest), drop the doubleton queen offside.. you say... "stupid novice, got lucky". If a player of 73 drops it, and you look and gold stars have ratings like 57 to 60, and you have never heard of the player with the 73 rating, you might think.. hmmmm... must be cheating.

As a bbo yellow, we don't want people accusing others of cheating lighlty, and even then only by turning evidence of their cheating over to abuse to investigate. I can tell you if you submit just one hand as evidence, odds are not good it will be investigated at all (oh the exeptional hand that is so blatant will get the person investigated, but it has to be a whopper).

Ratings lead to lots of such allegations of chearing. Every play at okbridge? I know this happens from experience. Other users look at rating, and assume that if when fred plays, he has a rating of 62 (made this number up for illustrative purposes), someone with a rating of 73 just has to be cheating... after all how can they be that much better than Fred? Truth is, many very good players have lower than expect ratings for a variety of reasons... maybe they play with beginners as a reward or encouragement... who knows. Also some good players have outstanding ratings, without cheating. Maybe they play in a practice partnership exclusively and always do well becasue of it. Ratings will not be coming here, and I am very glad of that.

Ben

[hotShot]

TimG, on Feb 9 2005, 05:03 PM, said:

What is it about a rating system that will make you more suspicious of this sort of thing?

Dear Tim!

If a player with a low rating :

• finds a killing lead
  
• plays a finess for a Jack, wenn all kings are offside
  
• makes any very good action

then he must be cheating.

If players that have a low rating

• bid a close game or slam that makes
  
• don't bid a game or slam with a strong hand, that cannot be made
  
• defend succesfully by "guessing" the right contract

then they must be cheating.

And since opps where cheating my own rating should not drop.

If some player has a better rating than I think he/she should have,
he/she could only have gotten it by cheating.

Because bad players have to play bad, every single board,
they may never improve at least not when they play against me.

Got the idea?

hotShot