Backgammon Online

06-Jul-2014
09:19 PDT

It is better to have a genuine rating than one you manipulate like that. What is the point of manipulating your rating so high then refusing to play with anybody except the top 15? It doesn't mean anything any more.

06-Jul-2014
12:43 PDT

reading your comment I have to assume that you have in your challenge configuration no limits to who can challenge you. If you do have you limit, you refuse also to play with some players and you do play only lets say the top 100, which is exactly the same based on your rating as the top rated players are doing. so when you do have a limitation as almost everyone does use, so do not write this kind of comment

06-Jul-2014
14:19 PDT

I'll ignore the fact you think I shouldn't post an opinion.

I have no challenge criteria. I sometimes choose not to accept challenges on the grounds I want to play people of a similar standard, I don't want too many simultaneous games and as a non subscriber I am limited to 25 games anyway. However on the ladder or in tournaments I will play anybody I am asked to, nor do I refuse to play rated games to preserve an artificially high rating. I'm more interested in seeing how high I can get through genuine play.

So you lose 9 points by playing these games. So what? Either don't play or take the hit and try harder to win next time.

06-Jul-2014
15:10 PDT

so, in the end you do the same as everyone else, you decline someone that has much less points, as will properly not have your playing skills or he does have not the same level. you do that manually and others do that automatically by setting challenge criterias. where is the difference. I can not see it. I do play also all games in the tournament rated, but I would see no problem when someone asks me to play an unrated game in case he does have much more points than me. everyone likes to have a high rating and so everyone does try to keep it. nothing wrong with it

06-Jul-2014
17:23 PDT

I don't decline anybody because they have a lower rating. The difference is that I allow anybody to challenge me regardless of ranking and then I decide whether I want to take the game. The reason for this is that I obviously want to play against players of a similar or higher standard if possible. I also never asked to play a 16 cube game or refused to play a rated game because I would lose too many points.

Please explain what is the point of artificially raising your rating and then not being able to play anybody because of the possible loss? Have a genuine rating, then you won't lose so many points.

06-Jul-2014
17:46 PDT

what is artificially rating? when you do play a lot, you can lose or win, so you go up or down with your points. when you play with players with the same rating you should win and lose more or less the same amount. when you speak about an artificially rating, so that would be a rating that does not show your real level, that would mean also that you would properly lose more games against players with the same amount of points than you would win. so you would go down and you would get again to the amount of points which shows your real level.
I would say for anyone that does play a lot, the ELO does show more or less the skill of the player. players that get to level and stop playing to keep their level are just stupid. playing mostly with players with players with the same amount of points is just ok and even done by you.

06-Jul-2014
18:34 PDT

I agree with all that. So why insist on playing any games without rating, or with a 16 cube?

06-Jul-2014
20:03 PDT

because backgammon depends also on luck and a not so skilled player can win out of pure luck against a very skilled player. so I do prefer to play against a player with the same rating, so when I do win I get 5 points and when I do lose I lose 5 points. fair enough. when the spread is not exactly the same, so one get 4 and the other 6. still ok. when the spread is really big, so you have to share points 1-9. you will almost for sure not win 9 out of 10 games, so it makes no sense to play with this player. so an unrated game there should be fine for both, as the good player does may help the not so good player to get better and no one does lose or win points. nothing lost on any side, just a win on the side of the not so good player, as he may learn something. when you play a tournament you play mostly for winning the tournament and may to play against players that you would otherwise may never play against.

06-Jul-2014
22:29 PDT

I settled the issue with AJ privately and decided at the moment as we don't hv any written rule on this thing so i will definitely mention it in the next tourney.
I was busy on the weekend and my intention was to take feedback from you also But I know what this mean, this will lead us to meaningless discussion.

Anyhow U guys are requested to share ur opinion on this BUT u are not allowed to criticize other's opinion..We will make some pool for voting or incase no interest from players I will make some rule which will be acceptable for maximum.
Thanks

07-Jul-2014
03:58 PDT

"a not so skilled player can win out of pure luck against a very skilled player. so it makes no sense to play with this player. "

Very unfair on the lower rated player who therefore has less chance to improve their rating, when they deserve it by beating you fairly and squarely.

None of us likes losing, but this is just pulling up the trapdoor unnecessarily.

Well I lost in the 4th KO. Having been bumped out of the main draw on the deadline for my match to end when the score was 3-3 due to opponent not playing fast enough, I lost in the conso bracket after waiting over a week after the deadline for my next opponent to start our match. That is hard to take. But these things happen.