Chess Forum
[ mod this thread ] << - < - > - >>
| From | Message |
| alexamenos 3/02/2004 10:53:05 [ report this post ] |
 Subject: ethics question on "managing" one's ratingMessage: I have a little dilemma here. I�m currently rated 1666 and it seems that if I win out in the first round of the 17th GK tournament I�ll be very, very close to 1700 (I�m not taking the wins for granted, but this discussion would be pointless if we don�t allow for a possibility that this will happen). I would prefer a chance to play through latter rounds of the intermediate section and a rating of 1700+ would push me into the expert section of the tournament. Deliberately losing a game is obviously objectionable, but what about other measures to �manage� my rating and keep it below 1700 for the time being? My thought is to try to bring my GK tourney games to a finish before other games, thereby keeping my rating under 1700. For instance, I�ve got games with longer time control (5 days+) where I�ve got either an overwhelming advantage against a lower rated player or a good chance for a draw against much higher rated opponents. Is it unethical to delay making moves in these games for the sole purpose of delaying a bump in rating? I�ve also got a game against a much higher rated opponent that I may �win� due to a timeout by my opponent. Would an extended �vacation� on my part to keep my opponent from timing out be wrong? Where does one draw the line? Is there anything wrong with �managing� one�s rating so long as it doesn�t include deliberately losing games? Thanks, Stephen (incidentally, I�ll be traveling later this week for several days and will, for unrelated reasons, be required postpone some games) |
| caldazar 3/02/2004 11:27:02 [ report this post ] | Message: Sounds a bit fishy to me, but ethics is a personal thing, so if it sits alright with you and it doesn't violate established rules, go ahead. Honestly, my whole reaction to this is "Sheesh, why even bother?" There's no prize money at stake, just perhaps a few bragging rights and no one ever brags "I dominated my competition because they were significantly inferior." And anyway, what makes you think you'll score more or fewer points just because you're playing one bracket up or down? By way of example, in my OTB play, my rating has had me hovering right on the border between two classes for awhile and I've never noticed a significant difference in my scoring percentage whether I play in the higher bracket or lower one. I don't see a dilemma, just a math exercise to manipulate a rating number which only gives an extremely rough indication of playing strength to begin with. |
| alexamenos 3/02/2004 12:30:27 [ report this post ] | Message: Thanks for the response� In re: Honestly, my whole reaction to this is "Sheesh, why even bother?" I left out any discussion of the �why bother� question out of the first post for the sake of brevity. The reason I would bother is simply a matter of fun. I�ve only recently started trying to improve at chess and I�ve never participated in any form of a chess competition � before I joined Gameknot I had probably played fewer than 15 or 20 games against other humans in my entire life (I�ve played Chessmaster 8000 in quite a few games, however). I can play in expert sections and quite reasonably expect to get knocked out in early rounds by a with 20 years chess experience on me at some later point in my chess career. For now, the prospect of playing in a tournament with 1,000+ other players and possibly advancing to latter rounds where I might compete against players of very comparable skill levels (certainly not significantly inferior skill levels) is fun. In re: And anyway, what makes you think you'll score more or fewer points just because you're playing one bracket up or down? � I�m not sure I get your point � it seems self-evident that the any 1600-1700 rated player has a better chance of advancing out of a round against 3 other 1600�s than in a round against 2 1900�s and a 2000+. In re: if it sits alright with you and it doesn't violate established rules What are the established rules? |
| caldazar 3/02/2004 14:02:19 [ report this post ] | Message: "What are the established rules?" I have no idea what tournament rules are for GK as I've never played in one. "I can play in expert sections and quite reasonably expect to get knocked out in early rounds by a with 20 years chess experience on me at some later point in my chess career. For now, the prospect of playing in a tournament with 1,000+ other players and possibly advancing to latter rounds where I might compete against players of very comparable skill levels (certainly not significantly inferior skill levels) is fun." I guess that's just my mentality. GK doesn't cost you anything (or anything more). You can just start a new game anytime you want, so it doesn't matter if you get knocked out. Unless you feel that tournament games are somehow more competitive that ordinary GK games. Since nothing's at stake, I don't see any real difference between a tournament game and an ordinary one myself. So I figure you should always try to play superior opposition if you have the opportunity because you stand to learn more from the experience (i.e., you opponent is more likely to punish more mistakes and less likely to give you serious mistakes on which you can easily capitalize). "I�m not sure I get your point � it seems self-evident that the any 1600-1700 rated player has a better chance of advancing out of a round against 3 other 1600�s than in a round against 2 1900�s and a 2000+." This isn't self-evident at all. In my experience, until we're talking about master ratings, rating values don't mean much of anything due to the inconsistent level at which most amateurs play. I've been horribly crushed by players rated hundreds of points lower than me and dominated others hundreds of points greater. Like I said, a couple of hundreds points difference in opponent playing strength usually doesn't have a significant impact on the expected outcome of a set of games. There are amazing 1400 players and awful 2000 players. |
| error 3/02/2004 14:32:45 [ report this post ] | Same situation Message: Just before round two of tournament 15 my rating was quickly reaching 1300, so I decided not to join anymore games, and not to rush my current games. Although the tourny round one was already almost finished by this point. |
| alexamenos 3/02/2004 15:55:14 [ report this post ] | Caldazar... Message: On the issue of taking steps regarding maintaining a rating below a certain level, I asked: "Where does one draw the line? Is there anything wrong with �managing� one�s rating so long as it doesn�t include deliberately losing games?" Do you have any further input on the question? Aside from the brilliantly original observation that "ethics is a personal thing" you haven't had much to say on this matter. |
| divine_sun_cat 3/02/2004 16:08:53 [ report this post ] | anyway it is moot Message: once a tournament has started you won't be kicked out. Your rating can change as much as possible. It is only prior to it starting that this is an issue. I see no problem in playing moves in your games as you see fit. |
| alexamenos 3/02/2004 17:12:05 [ report this post ] | Divine Sun Message: According to the tournament rules, if a person's rating exceeds the section limit after the first round that person gets bumped up to the next section. |
| anaxagoras 3/02/2004 18:18:28 [ report this post ] | Message: Don't fret, but pat yourself on the back if you move up into the expert section. I don't understand what could be negative about that. |
| mogath 3/02/2004 20:18:11 [ report this post ] | Online ratings Message: Mean nothing anyway. Don't even worry about it. Be a player and not a numbers watcher. Like caldazar said, there's no money at stake here and even if there was, so what. I play because I enjoy playing and I try to improve my game. As long as I get better, I couldn't care less what my rating is. It is only an estimate of how good you are. I once played in an otb tournament 3 sections higher than I should have. Nobody I played was rated under 1800. At the time I think I was around 1200. Sure, I lost every game, but EVERY ONE of those guys I lost to told me that I was "no 1200" and that I played MUCH better than my rating. That made my day. Worrying about stuff like that may make you play different than you normally do. Instead of trying, you slack so you can stay in a lower section. If thats the case, what does that rating REALLY mean and what is the point of even playing? Regards, Jeff |
| victord 3/02/2004 20:30:08 [ report this post ] | Message: I see it as a matter of personal ethics to try to win every game I play. I'm in a situation now, also in a GK Tournament, where there are only 2 players left in my group, myself and a player I've known for a while and like very much. If we split the games we both move on to the next round. Neither of us has ever made it out of the 2nd Round of a GK Tournament and would love to move on. Should we agree to split the games? I don't think so! In the situation mentioned above alexamenos has a decision to make ... it would not be a hard one for me. I'd be trying to move up and play with the 'big boys' myself ... just for the experence of having several games with top players. To me winning a GK Tournament would be great, but I personally would not feel right "managing" my rating ... but that's just me. I think as long as you can feel good about yourself, you're free to "manage" anything you want here at GK ... hell, use your Chessmaster to play your games if you want. You wouldn't be the only one! victord Just the fact that you feel the need to ask others what is "right" or "fair" shows that you haven't thought through the concept of personal ethics methinks. |
| mate_you_in_fifty 3/02/2004 21:55:15 [ report this post ] | hehehe Message: You're the first player I've seen who WANTS to lose:) |
| thumper 3/02/2004 22:42:33 [ report this post ] | Alexamenos Message: A suggestion. If you want to manage your games so you can stay below a certain rating threshold, you can play the highest rated players you can get. Trust me, your win % and rating will drop but thats OK. This serves several functions; you won't feel the need to drag-out won games, or sandbag games to stay in a lower tournament rating class, your bio looks good when your avg opponent is higher than your avg rating, you get a lot stronger as a chess player so if you do jump up to the expert section you present yourself well. I don't see anything wrong with "managing" your rating as long as it's done honorably. We all manage our rating when we pick and choose which opponent we will play. Just pick tougher ones and your problems are solved!!!! |
| mate_you_in_fifty 3/02/2004 23:21:58 [ report this post ] | thumper Message: I think your idea is excellent:) |
| alexamenos 3/03/2004 07:03:59 [ report this post ] | Anyone: Here's a question... Message: ...that can be answered with a simple yes or no. Is there anything wrong with �managing� one�s rating so long as it doesn�t include deliberately losing games? Notice that this question can be answered without: a) stating that one's online rating is not an indication of one's intelligence, character, etc., etc...; b) proferring unsolicited advice on how to improve at chess; c) questioning a person's motivation for "managing" his or her rating; or d) questioning whether the person asking the question has given ample consideration to the issue of personal ethics in the first place. Thanks, Stephen |
| alexamenos 3/03/2004 07:14:58 [ report this post ] | Anaxagoras Message: No sweat -- I look forward to competing in the expert section of the 18th GK Tourney. But for now, let's just say I've got thing for March Madness, advancing along the brackets and all. That's not to say that I will advance very far, but the prospect brings out the competitor in me a little more than a lot of other games. |
| alexamenos 3/03/2004 07:29:20 [ report this post ] | Victord Message: In re your statement that: "Just the fact that you feel the need to ask others what is "right" or "fair" shows that you haven't thought through the concept of personal ethics methinks." You're wrong. I cited an example in my original post of a game against a much higher rated opponent that I may soon "win" because my opponent will likely lose to time control. In your opinion, is there anything wrong with extending the game to avoid the premature, and entirely unearned, win? |
| alexamenos 3/03/2004 07:42:13 [ report this post ] | Thumper Message: "I don't see anything wrong with "managing" your rating as long as it's done honorably." Where/how do you draw the line between honorably managing a rating and dishonorably managing a rating? We both certainly agree that playing tougher opponents is an honorable approach, it's just not a real practical solution for the present circumstance. What about the case cited above of a higher rated opponent that will likely lose soon by a timeout? There's certainly nothing honorable about winning a game because an opponent is traveling extensively....is there anything dishonorable about trying not to win the game before the first round of the 17th GK Tourney is completed? |
| anaxagoras 3/03/2004 08:19:20 [ report this post ] | Message: Victord, his need to ask reflects his understanding of our social-ethical chess-world. It's still a good a thing that you try to win every game, but ethics are about as personal as a rhino virus. |
| alexamenos 3/03/2004 08:27:21 [ report this post ] | Message: "his need to ask reflects his understanding of our social-ethical chess-world" Bingo. "ethics are about as personal as a rhino virus" Well said. |
| divine_sun_cat 3/03/2004 08:33:02 [ report this post ] | alexa Message: sorry about the duff info regarding tournaments. Well at least i answered your question without questioning your personal ethics, offering chess advice, calling you a moron or trying to sell you a used car :) (PS. actually if you do want the car, send me a PM - good runner.) |
| alexamenos 3/03/2004 08:33:42 [ report this post ] | Anaxagoras, Incidentally... Message: I've always qualified my questions with statements such as "so long as it doesn�t include deliberately losing games." Situation: I already know what move I will make and it's the best move I can find. Question: Is there anything wrong with waiting out my allotted time for sole purpose of delaying an adverse (from my perspective, at least) movement in my rating? |
| alexamenos 3/03/2004 08:37:51 [ report this post ] | Divine Feline Message: No sweat, and thanks, but I've already got a very used car. |
| ccmcacollister 3/03/2004 09:01:45 [ report this post ] | alexamenos, In answer to your question: Message: yes or no |
| alexamenos 3/03/2004 09:11:12 [ report this post ] | Yes or No... Message: I suppose you're suggesting that in certain situations it is wrong, and in other situations it isn't wrong. Would you care to elaborate? Or perhaps you are a fan of 3 Stooges Type humor, in which case I can only respond.... Nyuck, nyuck, nyuck... |
| thumper 3/03/2004 09:53:52 [ report this post ] | Alexamenos Message: Your original post did ask for advise beyond a simple yes or no answer so that is what I gave you. The answer to your second query is, yes. To answer your direct question to me: I've been a situation where I was about to gain un-earned points when a high-level opponent was leaving this site and resigning all of his games. I happened to be online when he was doing this. To make a long story short, I resigned our remaining game because I didn't want to gain another 18 points that I didn't earn. I still ended up with 16 un-earned points. I would have prefered to draw both games because they would not be concluded, but that option was not available so I took what I thought was the best compromise. I try to conform to the written and un-written rules of chess and of Gameknot. I try to treat other people the way I would like to be treated. I also always try to be honest and 'transparent' in my actions. That is where I draw the line. If you are loosing the game with the higher level opponent you could honestly resign. If you are in a good battle with your opponent and want to play chess. then you can honestly postpone the game in hopes of completing it 'OTB'. This is internet chess you know. We do give each other some flexibility when 'life' happens. It comes down to this....Do you have to sandbag to stay in the lower division? If your answer is yes then you know what you should honorably do. |
| victord 3/03/2004 11:53:31 [ report this post ] | alexamenos Message: To answer your question: " In your opinion, is there anything wrong with extending the game to avoid the premature, and entirely unearned, win? " Well that would be the whole point of personal ethics ... My opinion only matters to me and for me! YOUR OPINION is all that should matter to you and for you. No one can answer this question for you. It comes down to what keeps you in a comfort zone with yourself ... for some, anything goes, Chessmaster, Fritz, multiple accounts (playing games against themselves to "gain" a higher rate), "managing" games, stalling for time ... whatever you are willing to justify in your mind ... It's the internet! Are you asking me what should be acceptable for you? Only you can answer that question IMO? And finally this from anaxagoras "Victord, his need to ask reflects his understanding of our social-ethical chess-world. It's still a good a thing that you try to win every game, but ethics are about as personal as a rhino virus" I'd say his need to ask reflects his NOT understanding his OWN social-ethical- chessworld ... otherwise, why would he ask us what is or is not acceptable. I have no idea what you meant by the remark that "ethics are about as personal as a rhino virus", but anaxagoras agreed so I guess the question has been answered for him/her Are you saying we have no choice when it comes to ethics ... do we not decide to be ethical or not? |
| alexamenos 3/03/2004 13:14:06 [ report this post ] | Victor.... Message: "Well that would be the whole point of personal ethics ... My opinion only matters to me and for me!" I understand your point, I just disagree (to some degree, anyway). How I behave naturally effects other people within my world, and to act as if my ethics, which ultimately guide my actions, only matter to me and for me seems unreasonably egocentric. "I have no idea what you meant by the remark that "ethics are about as personal as a rhino virus"" I think he means ethics, like a rhino virus (aka a common cold), effect lots of other people. You can argue that your rhino virus concerns you and you alone, but at the end of the day there's a good chance your rhino virus is going to effect somebody else. |
| alexamenos 3/03/2004 13:33:40 [ report this post ] | Does it really need to be said??? Message: "I'd say his need to ask reflects his NOT understanding his OWN social-ethical- chessworld..." I don't live in my OWN social-ethical chess world. Rather, I inhabit it without thousands of other people and the issue at hand involves a tournament with over 1,000 other people. It seems imminently reasonable to me to solicit the opinions of others where my actions may conceivably have some effect on them, however inconsequential that effect may be.... Regards, |
| fmgaijin 3/03/2004 15:03:31 [ report this post ] | Existential Dilemma? Message: While a solipsist may disagree, even a relativistic moral theory such as Jean-Paul Sartre's existentialist "ethics" (which I argue should more properly be termed an "ethos") suggests that even free-willed creatures who "can" make decisions and take actions reflecting only their REAL internal values are in "bad faith" (deceiving themselves) if they do not accept the responsibility for both the direct consequences of the action (what it does to others directly) and the indirect consequences (the "model" one offers to others, to which Sartre refers in saying, "In choosing I choose for all men [sic]"). In other words, I can do whatever I want, but then I've said that I'm willing to live in a world in which everyone acts exactly the same way as I just did. Hence, if you can live with YOURSELF in acting that way and would find it eminently acceptable for others to act in the same way, then you should do it; if either of these would trouble you, then don't. |
| victord 3/03/2004 15:20:14 [ report this post ] | DUH ?!?!!! Message: Those last 2 posts made it clear to me ... finally. Sorry for misunderstanding ... i'm a little thick. Still ... I think it's a decission you will have to make on your own, albeit, based on the advice you recieve here. I think where I missed the point was that it seemed to me you were asking for permission (is it acceptable behavior or not?) to (I assume) stall, delay, postpone or even resign games with a clear conscience. Well ... is it? Stall ... OK? Delay ... OK? Postpone .. OK? Resign from a winning position ... NO!! IMO 1st off you'll have to delay moving your rating up for quite some time. These Tournaments take forever to complete a round of play. And then there's this ... many others in this Tournament could care less how there decission will effect others ( your question will not even occur to many here) I now understand ... you do care. So, now I ask you ... how important is it TO YOU to remain in the intermediate section? Is it important enough to delay or stall results of a few games? Is it important enough to resign games from a won possition (I doubt this as it wouldn't have even occured to you to ask about ethics .. you would not know or care for the concept) So now it's only a question of degree ... is there such a thing as a "little" unethical? Is it OK to cheat against a cheater? I still think it's a personal decission you'll have to make and if you're comfortable with yourself that's all that matters. Sorry for misunderstanding ... hope I was more clear this time and my words help you with your decission. victord |
| macheide 3/04/2004 00:01:21 [ report this post ] | From my standpoint... Message: The rules that I follow are: 1. Never cheat or offend your opponent. 2. Try to play the best game ever (I prefer to try to play a great game instead of think about my rating). 3. Never give excuses when losing a game (This is very pathetic and shows a lack of dignity and sportsmanship). 4. Congraulate your opponent when he/she outplays you. 1., 3. and 4. have an obvious ethical significance per se. But 2. also has an ethical basis, maybe a more subtle one, I think. Altought chess is a game, when you play it, it is supposed (at least by your opponent and the possible spectators) that you will try to win, because THAT is the primary goal of the game! Well, maybe I am very conservative, but that's the way I see this interesting question. Regards, P.S.: Excuse my horrible english. |
| baseline 3/04/2004 02:21:23 [ report this post ] | macheide Message: You are a true gentleman and set a good example for the rest of us. |
| victord 3/04/2004 10:41:04 [ report this post ] | One small thing ... Message: The 17th Tournament has only just begun. The intermediate section has 411 groups of which ZERO have been completed as of this time. In order for alexamenos to remain in this section he will have to "manage" his rate under 1700 for approx. SIX MONTHS! That's a lot of "managing" IMO and will require a lot of postponements, delays and stalling in order to accomplish. Now I think the question is ... Is it really worth it? You'll miss out on a lot of good chess during this period. The original question remains; it would be more meaningful if the end of round 1 were near. It's not. victord |
| skeeterss0 3/04/2004 23:37:51 [ report this post ] | Exactly Victor Message: I think the rating should be a reflection of your ability, not a tool to be manipulated so you can have easier games. |
| macheide 3/05/2004 01:21:46 [ report this post ] | baseline Message: Dear Terry, Thanks for your kind words. By the way, Terry (baseline) is my team captain (and a very ferocious chesplayer. I can testify that) and he had never asked me to try to draw a game. As Terry well says: "We play just for fun". Best regards, Andr�s macheide (Montecristo in www.instantchess.com) |
| baseline 3/05/2004 02:02:08 [ report this post ] | Once your in a tournament Message: you will stay in that tournament and continue to advance as long as you win! |
Post a reply to this message: |
