"Andy Walker" <anw@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:fs4hl7$gat$1$8300dec7@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In article <xPGdnZIVa5nIEXnanZ2dnUVZ_uOmnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> David Kane <davidekane@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>Is there a *practical* "downside"?
>>> Well, it mucks up rating. Either ratings can't follow the
>>> points, or else you have built in inflation. That's a "practical"
>>> problem; whether it matters is something else.
>>The fix is trivial.
>
> Not really. You are going to get cases where player A
> scores more points than player B [who gets more draws] against
> the same standard of opposition, but B gets the higher rating
> as a consequence. Many players are somewhat precious about
> their ratings, so that *is* going to cause problems.
This is an interesting exchange of view relating scoring and rating.
Somewhat in sup****t of David Kane's exploratory propositions, I believe he
has said elsewhere in these threads that the current system is not
necessarily superior to any changed system - and which /also/ is a factor
in
players motivations.
Evidently, as Andy Walker points out, both scoring and ratings are factors
considered by the player in fighting the game out, and IMO, these might
not
be distinguishable.
eg; last round scenario where stronger player agrees a draw against a
weaker
player, both are motivated to accept the draw since the stronger player
clinches first place, and the weaker player gets a ratings boost.
If indeed "Many players are somewhat precious about their ratings, so that
*is* going to cause problems", then aren't those the sorts of problems we
need?
To wit; if you want to maintain your rating then don't give up the draw
and
fight it out - and this may motivate players on an individual basis.
In terms of scoring, organisers might like a differentiated black/white
score for draws, since more decisive games add drama to their events.
Phil Innes
> Andy Walker
> Nottingham
|
