Sandbaggers

Take a look at this rating graph:

http://www.littlegolem.net/jsp/info/player_chart.jsp?gtid=twixt&plid=15078

Shouldn't there be a "ratings floor"?

For example once your rating gets to 1900 it should never go below 1700.

Thanks

???

I have seen a few elite players who lose most all their games and then play others just to destroy their ratings.

Augustus Perplexus was just such an example.  If you win you gain nothing.  If you lose you lose well over 30 points.  I refuse to play him.

Hi Joe, I agree this graph is a bit strange (I've a game that just began against him...) but it seems difficult to me to introduce a rating floor. But maybe there should be a "correction" of the game rating system taking into account the best rating of a player in addition to his current rating.

for example the "virtual" rating of a player that would be considered for a game could be the average between his current rating and his highest rating ?

Mtb, it doesn't appear clearly to me, just by having a look to Augustus rating graph that he deliberately reduced his rating level (he just went down from about 1970 to around 1920, which is nothing compared to the example given by Joe). But you may be right...

In this case when a  player like Wojtek (who reached 2200 rating level) goes down to 1400 (as he did several times), he would play at level 1800 minimum.

What do you think ?

I think the ratings system is fine, as a ratings system. But as a game, the ratings system sucks. That is the problem.

The reason people care so much about ratings is that ratings are so prominently featured on almost every page on LG. Reduce that, and reduce the temptation for sandbaggers, and anyone else who gets wrapped up in the ratings. One can also diffuse the problem by creating other goals - trophies for winning tournaments, badges for various accomplishments (10 wins in a row, beat a top-10 player, etc).

But please don't mess with the ELO rating system. That would acknowledge it as a reward system, as the sandbagger is treating it, instead of the statistical estimation of skill level that it is meant to be.

Hi Alan,

You're probably right and anyway we're not in a position to change the rating system (and it's probably better like that! :-)

However, even considering the rating system as a statistical estimation of skill and not as a reward system I would personally find more accurate to consider the level of a player who is 1400 but had reached 2200 to be around 1800 than around 1400...

Twixt is as bicycle: you can't forget how to play in such a manner.

Anyway that wouln't prevent a  good player to create a new account and play with a "brand new" 1500 level...