Help
Wow! Reading all of the posts on the topic of ratings, etc. has really opened my eyes and even changed my mind about rating systems.
My only rule for bridge is the same as in life, do unto pard (or opps) as you would have them do unto you.
The site is fantastic, the service great, the company enjoyable and the level of play suitable.
Fred G. , respond to market (if you dont charge, is it a market?...lol) forces, if the time and resources allow of course.
Make rooms for individual players to join in progress (like now), rooms for established pairs (whether external or made on-site, at the moment) and teams. Make rated rooms and even money rooms. Factor in rudeness, table presence, anything else you like but what a lot of work! OR....
When a person leaves a table, the other three players give the person a rating of from 0-10 for how much they enjoyed playing with or against them and a value for that person's perceived skill level. One vote per person per table presence. Nothing like being judged by your peers and policing yourself. How about that?
Page 1 of 1
Foolproof Rating system There, but for the grace of God.......
#1
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,080
- Joined: 2005-May-16
- Gender:Male
Posted 2005-May-24, 10:16
The Grand Design, reflected in the face of Chaos...it's a fluke!
#2
- mmm Duvel
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 10,728
- Joined: 2003-July-30
- Gender:Male
- Location:Belgium
- Interests:Duvel, Whisky
Posted 2005-May-24, 10:30
With all due respect: awful! You play a poor board and your skill level goes down. Also, when a poor player has to rate you, you'll get a good rate, while if a good player has to rate you, it'll be less. So is it representative? I guess not.
Btw, you'll also have people who always rate you 0 or 10 because they know you...
No rating system is best, just use your own personal notes for each player. The only addition which I'd like is the 'rude'-factor when people leave a table for a tourney in the middle of the play.
Btw, you'll also have people who always rate you 0 or 10 because they know you...
No rating system is best, just use your own personal notes for each player. The only addition which I'd like is the 'rude'-factor when people leave a table for a tourney in the middle of the play.
"It may be rude to leave to go to the bathroom, but it's downright stupid to sit there and piss yourself" - blackshoe
#3 Guest_Jlall_*
Posted 2005-May-24, 10:59
sorry but any system where the masses rate you is not going to work. First of all most people don't know what a good bridge player is or how to look for one or how to know if someone is a good bridge player. Secondly, people are biased. Subjective is not the way to go in a rating system, especially if it is not a bridge authority that is doing it.
#4
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,080
- Joined: 2005-May-16
- Gender:Male
Posted 2005-May-24, 12:02
Well, if you only stay for one "bad" board, Jlall, then you might be rated on only that result. Most table "presences" are at least several boards (on average) to dozens and again, on average, the great expanse of bridge knowledge spread amongst the playing (if not paying) public will result in a fair (if only the statistical average) evaluation for that individual.
I imagine some would want to play with (or against) a pompous windbag ("0" rating) who plays well ("A" player), but for everyone he ever played against to rate thusly would lead to certainty that he is unfit for human company. I would rather trust someone's opinion of a player than some sterile and perhaps trafficked mechanical rating. Bridge and bridge players are worth more consideration and esteem (if only as people) than you seem to be willing to allow them.
btw Free, this is as close to using personal notes for people you have yet to play with, that I can imagine
I imagine some would want to play with (or against) a pompous windbag ("0" rating) who plays well ("A" player), but for everyone he ever played against to rate thusly would lead to certainty that he is unfit for human company. I would rather trust someone's opinion of a player than some sterile and perhaps trafficked mechanical rating. Bridge and bridge players are worth more consideration and esteem (if only as people) than you seem to be willing to allow them.
btw Free, this is as close to using personal notes for people you have yet to play with, that I can imagine
The Grand Design, reflected in the face of Chaos...it's a fluke!
#5
- mmm Duvel
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 10,728
- Joined: 2003-July-30
- Gender:Male
- Location:Belgium
- Interests:Duvel, Whisky
Posted 2005-May-24, 12:29
Al_U_Card, on May 24 2005, 07:02 PM, said:
~snip~
btw Free, this is as close to using personal notes for people you have yet to play with, that I can imagine
btw Free, this is as close to using personal notes for people you have yet to play with, that I can imagine
Yes I know, but that's not the real problem. The problem is that MY personal notes don't affect the entire community, where as a rating system does... If everybody could read what I sometimes write in people's notes, omg I can't even describe what would happen
"It may be rude to leave to go to the bathroom, but it's downright stupid to sit there and piss yourself" - blackshoe
#6 Guest_Jlall_*
Posted 2005-May-24, 13:13
Al_U_Card, on May 24 2005, 01:02 PM, said:
Well, if you only stay for one "bad" board, Jlall, then you might be rated on only that result. Most table "presences" are at least several boards (on average) to dozens and again, on average, the great expanse of bridge knowledge spread amongst the playing (if not paying) public will result in a fair (if only the statistical average) evaluation for that individual.
I imagine some would want to play with (or against) a pompous windbag ("0" rating) who plays well ("A" player), but for everyone he ever played against to rate thusly would lead to certainty that he is unfit for human company. I would rather trust someone's opinion of a player than some sterile and perhaps trafficked mechanical rating. Bridge and bridge players are worth more consideration and esteem (if only as people) than you seem to be willing to allow them.
btw Free, this is as close to using personal notes for people you have yet to play with, that I can imagine
I imagine some would want to play with (or against) a pompous windbag ("0" rating) who plays well ("A" player), but for everyone he ever played against to rate thusly would lead to certainty that he is unfit for human company. I would rather trust someone's opinion of a player than some sterile and perhaps trafficked mechanical rating. Bridge and bridge players are worth more consideration and esteem (if only as people) than you seem to be willing to allow them.
btw Free, this is as close to using personal notes for people you have yet to play with, that I can imagine
Perhaps I am cynical and do not give people enough credit. Perhaps you give them too much. To my mind, the average player is an intermediate. How can an intermediate tell and advanced from an expert? An expert from a world class? To me if someone has Axx opp KQ987 and they need 5 tricks and start with the king (assuming no entry problems) they are already not a world class player. But if they only need 4 tricks, they are already not world class if they start with the ace. If they have 42 in hand opposite AK65 and the 3 is led and they do not play the 4 they have made an error. Will the average player notice this, and fail to give the player world class rating? Technique is the biggest indicator of skill in a short time period if you're trying to see how good someone is. Most people will look at results. Did the player do something crazy that worked? OK hes an expert!!! No, hes really not most likely. The other problem, for the cynics, is that some people may decide they don't like how their opponent Xed them. They will "get revenge" by giving them a low rating. Or someone may be very sweet, and the opps will feel bad giving a low rating, so give them a higher rating than they deserve. The list is endless.
#7
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,422
- Joined: 2003-February-13
Posted 2005-May-24, 14:27
Anybody leaving in the middle of a game will be dumped be me. Thats for sure!
I want them to be public labelled to avoid them just to enter some other tables or sucked into a tourney.
That is WORLD CLASS RUDENESS
People leaving in good order I would never dream of making any rating for. NON-partners skills are irrelevant to me.
I want them to be public labelled to avoid them just to enter some other tables or sucked into a tourney.
That is WORLD CLASS RUDENESS
People leaving in good order I would never dream of making any rating for. NON-partners skills are irrelevant to me.
#8
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 5,577
- Joined: 2005-March-01
- Gender:Male
- Location:Erlangen, Germany
-
Interests:Astronomy, Mathematics
Nuclear power
Posted 2005-May-25, 02:41
You can't make anything foolproof. Nature will evolve a better fool.
#9
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,908
- Joined: 2003-December-02
- Gender:Male
- Location:Rimini-Bologna (Italy)
- Interests:Chess, Bridge, Jazz, European Cinema, Motorbiking, Tango dancing
Posted 2005-May-25, 03:04
Does "Foolproof Rating system" mean that using such a rating we'll be able to get rid of fools ?
If so, I'd vote for it, but my suspect is that any rating system is bound to have the opposite effect :-)
Mauro
PS- Quote of the day: "The mother of the idiots is always pregnant" (Indro Montanelli, italian journalist)
If so, I'd vote for it, but my suspect is that any rating system is bound to have the opposite effect :-)
Mauro
PS- Quote of the day: "The mother of the idiots is always pregnant" (Indro Montanelli, italian journalist)
"Bridge is like dance: technique's important but what really matters is not to step on partner's feet !"
Page 1 of 1