SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups  ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Repentant cherry pickers, EXCEPT DOZER!
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Gravon - Das Spielerparadies Forum Index -> General
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
gentleben
Fortgeschrittener


Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 103

PostPosted: 04.03.2010 08:15    Post subject: Repentant cherry pickers, EXCEPT DOZER! Reply with quote

After my post of the top cherry pickers from last year it would appear that most of them have had a change of heart and started playing better players. Psychonaut has obvioously gotten the message and has currently played 43% of his games against 1495 and above. I applaud him for the change. Holunder is at 29%, an improvement but he has only played 7 games this year so far. Tomba is at 23% which is also an improvement but still shows a tendency to play lower ranked players. You can do better Tomba.

BUT DOZER! He has played an abysmal 0%, YES THAT IS ZERO%, against 1495 or above players this year! And he has only played 4 games against 1400 or above players! Such cowardly cherry picking does not deserve a number 1 rating. I suggest lower ranked players quit playing him. I would love to hear your comments.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gentleben
Fortgeschrittener


Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 103

PostPosted: 11.03.2010 09:33    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why has no one replied to this post?
Does no one care?
Does Dozer's rank seem fair?
Does anyone else give Dozer a hard time for his cowardly actions?
Would a system that removes a player from the ranking if they refuse to play the better players solve the problem?
Or would a cap on the rank be better (say 200 above the highest ranked player played)?
Somebody say something.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
acerimmer
Alter Hase


Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 724
Location: England

PostPosted: 11.03.2010 19:16    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Ben,

The reason I have not replied is that this topic really pisses me off and I do not particularly want to get banned for what I may say on here.

My feelings about the situation are that Dozer is operating within the CURRENT rules but he is being very calculating within his actions to MANIPULATE the rankings and thus devalue the rankings. The problem is that he is being allowed to do this.
He cannot get to #1 by any other means than to play 3 types of players.
1. Really low players
2. New players
3. Players who he knows he has the total measure of.

His choice of opponents only goes to show how scared of real competition he is.
To quote someone who is very respected in the Stratego World "Dozer's actions are very unsporting".

Rest assured the correct people have been informed about this problem and steps to stop this sort of thing happening again will be taken. (or so I am told)

With the rankings not actually showing the true strength of players due to this manipulation.......maybe some other form of ranking could be used until this is sorted out?

The results of games against players who are vastly below the level you are rated at.........tell less of a story of your true rating then games against opponents of a similar rating.
With this in mind......and also with the fact that in an ideal ranking situation every player would play each opponent an equal amount of time.........maybe a league system could be setup?
Split into different divisions/leagues to represent the different skills across the rankings.......maybe 2 divisions/leagues to start of with?
Maybe between 10 and 20 players per league?
Each player playing all opponents in their league an equal amount of times over the course of a year.......with the end result of a winner, 2nd, 3rd etc........then maybe promotion and relegation and the highest players in the lower division and the lowest in the highest division?

Obviously the top positions would go to the highest ranked players wishing to participate.........but if enough interest then maybe extra leagues could be added?
This way......players would then ranked according to how well they do against players of a similar ranking.......a total end of the bottom feeding activities that we see with Dozer.

What do you think?
_________________
INTERNATIONAL ULTIMATE LIGHTNING ASSOCIATION www.UltimateLightning.info
BRITISH STRATEGO ASSOCIATION www.Stratego.org.uk
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
fouche
User


Joined: 24 Nov 2004
Posts: 10

PostPosted: 14.03.2010 13:33    Post subject: Reply with quote

heyy men

enjoy your time on gravon maby more for a winning game then a lost or lotto-game

and you can smoke dozer in a pipe


fouche
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
count_floyd
Newbie


Joined: 22 Jun 2003
Posts: 9

PostPosted: 14.03.2010 17:39    Post subject: Reply with quote

Unforntunatley,there is nothing we can do about Dozer and his fraudulant scamful ranking,but the fact of the matter is that 99%of the community totally disrespects him as player and human for we all really reconnize the true peoples champion are players such as Ace,Ben,Andi,Noes etc...Lets not waste time and energy over this piece of crap.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nochance
Fortgeschrittener


Joined: 25 Sep 2006
Posts: 106
Location: Germany (Hessen)

PostPosted: 15.03.2010 16:01    Post subject: against a cap Reply with quote

Hi all,

@ cherrypicking/cap for ranking

I'm against a cap for the ranking.
- if somebody wants to play against low-ranked players, it's his choice

-"Although this is not relevant to real life games which are played with Swiss Perfect/AceRimmer"

I'm not sure about this. I know a lot of board tournaments, where only low ranked players participate (in the past at least).
So cherry-picking works also in real-life-tournaments.

- also it would be a problem, what a cap we should use
200, 300? 10 % of the games against high-ranked players? 20 % ? do we need also a cap, when the person played not only 20,30,50 games but rather 200 games or more?

- Anyway: I don't like the rule:
"You have to play against one of the following players:..."


- And if there would be a cap: what's about the following situation:
a top 20 player, who is very unpopular by all the other top 20 players and they decide: "if we dont play him, he will have a low ranking this year".

-> so: one problem is solved (really??) and many others are made

you can't eliminate cherrypicking 100%
(the cherrypickers have also another problem: they can not play against high-ranked players anymore, and they have to log-in with unregistered nicks, if they want to play- otherwise many high-ranked players will ask them for a game- and that s a stupid situation)
------

well, I'm not really a friend about, what I wrote.
Especially when I look at my ranking position.
But I can see no "better" way.
_________________
DontMissTheChance
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
samuel
Alter Hase


Joined: 09 Jan 2007
Posts: 344
Location: United Kingdom

PostPosted: 15.03.2010 21:06    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's risk and reward isn't it? Dozer has his strategy but the moment he loses one of these games (and he will) he'll drop several places and it will take him forever to move back to no.1 - in fact he might not be able to. It's only because so far this year he has lost just 1 game, but can he really keep this pace up for another 9 months? The system is designed so that you win or lose more points depending on the rating of your opponent, so either he needs to stop playing and just sit there and just have a game every few months, or he will lose the odd one eventually, and fall down the list a bit.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gentleben
Fortgeschrittener


Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 103

PostPosted: 16.03.2010 23:26    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hey guys it is good to see some others commenting.

Samuel, you are correct. Dozer will eventually lose and fall from his position but it still seems unfair the system allows him to be at number 1 with the games he has played. He could still potentially stay at number 1 by only playing 4-5 more games over the rest of the year! Though he would likely be bored with that.

NoChance, I agree that a cap could cause other problems like the scenario you mentioned, but I think it would be very rare that all top 20 players would avoid someone. However I do believe something can be done even if it is not a cap. The WSC rating for example has Dozer much lower because he hasn't played any top ranked players so something can be done with a rating system to account for cherry pickers. As for a rule that says a person has "to play against one of the following players", I see nothing wrong with saying that in order to have a number 1 rating a player must at least play a range of different ranked players from top to bottom.

Count_Floyd, I would like to think Dozer is not fooling anyone but himself and this is just a game, but I still see no reason to reward a player with a high rating when they do not deserve it.

Fouche, huh? I wish I knew what your point was. Part of enjoying Gravon, for me anyway, is the rankings so it makes it less enjoyable here to see Dozer ranked high even if I could smoke him in a game. Lost and lotto games make me try harder but there is nothing I can do about Dozer's ranking except this.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
acerimmer
Alter Hase


Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 724
Location: England

PostPosted: 17.03.2010 23:39    Post subject: Reply with quote

First let me say it is nice to see a few more opinions on here regarding this subject.

NoChance:
First of all let me ask you what is the point of rankings if they are not accurate and players are able to manipulate the rankings to give inaccurate readings?
The true test of accuracy of any ranking is the ability of the rankings to limit ranking manipulation to a very small percentage.

Quote:
- if somebody wants to play against low-ranked players, it's his choice

Sure, but when this provides inaccuracies like in Dozer's case then some action must be taken.
Why? This answer is very simple........Dozer has not played anyone within 400 points of his ranking and only maybe 4 games have been within 500 points of his ranking. Most of his opponents are AT LEAST 600 points lower than his ranking. Everyone........take YOUR ranking currently and be honest and say "how often do you guys lose to players 600 points below YOU"?
For most of you......the answer will be around 0%.
CountFloyd......that is like you playing most of your games against players with a 760 ranking.
Fouche........that is you playing players with a rating of 990.
The simple fact of the matter is that the ranking cannot judge accurately what is the true ranking of a player who ONLY plays players so very much lower than him.
It is like having incomplete information......the computer program will do it's best to make an accurate estimate, but it will always be waiting for the REAL information which WILL determine Dozer's ranking. This information is how well does he do against players of a similar strength?
In the case of Dozer it is clear that he is unwilling to provide this information and thus he tricks the program into believing he will win ALL games against players 1500 and above. YEAH RIGHT!!!!

Quote:
I'm not sure about this. I know a lot of board tournaments, where only low ranked players participate (in the past at least).
So cherry-picking works also in real-life-tournaments.


I strongly disagree!

Apart from Junior tournaments and a few tournaments that are specifically for new or lower players, then there is usually AT LEAST 1 high ranked player in EVERY tournament. (possible exception is tournaments in Ukraine........but thats a long long way to travel to get an easy game) Many tournaments usually have a minimum of 3 or 4 high ranking players attend.
In all tournaments Swiss perfect is played (or round robin) which means that NOONE can avoid competition. The only way to avoid competition would be to lose your games......which would kind of defeat the object and mean you are just not very good.

Quote:
- also it would be a problem, what a cap we should use
200, 300? 10 % of the games against high-ranked players? 20 % ? do we need also a cap, when the person played not only 20,30,50 games but rather 200 games or more?


Hermann Kleier has ruled out the cap system and suggested an alternative way to combat this problem.


Quote:
- Anyway: I don't like the rule:
"You have to play against one of the following players:..."


I would like to make 2 points/comments on your quote:

1: This would only really effect the players at the top of the rankings.....so for 90% of players there would be no limitations what so ever.

2: In all sports the top players are expected to play one another in competition. Whether you use Swiss perfect, a league system or a cup system.......... the top players WILL MEET and COMPETE against one another.

It does not matter how many times you beat your 7 year old sister........ the TRUE test is how you match up against players who are of similar strength to you.
If Manchester United played ALL there games against teams of 11 year old girls then I would fully expect them to win ALL their games........but does this 100% record mean they are the best team in Europe......I think not.......ONLY by beating other teams of similar strength can they become the best team in Europe. The same applies with Dozer.......his choice of opponents means that there just is NO RELEVANT DATA that can be used to give him an accurate rating. The only thing this proves is that he is better than your little 7 year old sister.
The real proof is in the pudding......his constant avoidance of players who would kick his butt.......just goes to prove that even HE KNOWS he does not deserve his rating and ranking at #1.

Whether you like the suggestion that you have to play at least some of your games against players of similar strength is kind of irrelevant really.........because any action must not be taken to please any one person. It must be taken for logical and good meaning purposes.
TO PROTECT THE GOOD STANDING OF THE RANKINGS!
If you allow ranking/rating manipulation then you demean the whole ranking system.

Personally I think Dozer's rating should be zeroed until he plays a certain amount of players who are of similar rating (or at least much higher than his normal opponent). The reason for this is that there is not enough information to provide an accurate ranking/rating. Like I said earlier, playing players this much lower than you really is not much of an indication of anything.
In Chess they have different categories for different levels of players. Each 200 points you go up a level......Master, GrandMaster etc.
In Chess you cannot play against players of other levels until you reach that level......which avoids the problems we see here.
Hermann talked to me about the levels in Stratego and he explained that the levels in Stratego are much closer together (every 100 points you go up another level)
With this in mind.........maybe you can see that what Dozer is doing is just plain wrong and is in effect doing harm to the reputation of the Kleier rankings?
What happens next year when (after seeing Dozer's choice of opponent for the year) 10 other players decide to do exactly the same trick and the rankings are full of players with 1800 ratings having only played 1000, 1100 and 1200 rated players?????????
The longer he stays there the more chance of copy cat activities happening next year.
Lets end this NOW...........Zero rate Dozer until he plays some higher opponents.
_________________
INTERNATIONAL ULTIMATE LIGHTNING ASSOCIATION www.UltimateLightning.info
BRITISH STRATEGO ASSOCIATION www.Stratego.org.uk
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
nochance
Fortgeschrittener


Joined: 25 Sep 2006
Posts: 106
Location: Germany (Hessen)

PostPosted: 18.03.2010 15:39    Post subject: hmm Reply with quote

- What is a ranking for?
to limit the manipulation: of course
(but more:) showing the playing strength

I totally agree, that this way of cherry-picking is ranking-bullshit, BUT:
The ranking shows only your (maybe?)power at the moment.
If anybody does'nt play enough games (or against high ranked players), the information (true ranking position or not?) is still missing.

So the only question is: should we do something against this (normally) short situation?

- board tournaments
GB Mastership 2009 (only one player highranked), ukraine tournaments: many without any player above 1400 points, Belgian Championship 2009 (only one player), tourneys in norway (sometimes)...

-
Quote:
In all sports the top players are expected to play one another in competition. Whether you use Swiss perfect, a league system or a cup system.......... the top players WILL MEET and COMPETE against one another.


true: but I'm not sure, if you need this for an online website.
This is not really a competition here. Somebodies do so, but others don't. They are only playing for fun or whatever (but also for ranking).

- 10 cherry pickers next year?
we will see. Would be a bad thing.

-
Quote:
a cap could cause other problems like the scenario you mentioned, but I think it would be very rare that all top 20 players would avoid someone

Maybe it will not happen, but i only wanted to show, that new problems will come (maybe)...
[See the malefiz-rule: If you give up in the first 10 moves, it will be a non-ranking-game. The rule is ok, but also cheaters found a way, to take an advantage of this rule...]

That's the difference between online and real board: at the real board you have to play against your tournament opponents (and the swiss system is working) but here you can pick your opponents (and that's ok).... and sometimes it's cherry-picking...
_________________
DontMissTheChance
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stratego
Chief-Admin


Joined: 20 May 2003
Posts: 1123
Location: Germany

PostPosted: 19.03.2010 19:07    Post subject: Reply with quote

hi,

dozer has played 7500 games and is 22 (at this moment) in the ranking list with 1564 rating points.

does anyone think he can beat the top 10 players in several games?
think not.

its not the yearly ranking position which gives a player a place in history.
for sure we remember a lot of players, maybe the did a lot for the game,
maybe they win a lot of tourneys, wc-champs etc etc.

what does dozer stand for? (or should i ask: who the f... is dozer?)

nothing more to say about yearly rankings.

and what about a gravon online tourney? its time to have some fun.

stratego
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
gentleben
Fortgeschrittener


Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 103

PostPosted: 19.03.2010 20:30    Post subject: Reply with quote

Brevity is obviously not in some people's vocabulary.

Let me try to make this as simple as possible. I think we all agree Dozer does not deserve his current rating.

NoChance asked the real question then: "should we do something against this (normally) short situation?" I think the answer is yes, regardless of how short the situation might be. I do not think the rankings should allow someone who cherry picks to get a number 1 rating. They should have to play at least a certain percentage of their games against comparable players. (One game against a high ranked player is not enough either. The answer must be in the percentages.) If, according to Mr Kleier, a cap is out then some other solution should be determined.

I agree with Ace: "Personally I think Dozer's rating should be zeroed until he plays a certain amount of players who are of similar rating (or at least much higher than his normal opponent)." And by the way Ace, I thought your illustration of beating someone's 7 year old sister was hillarious.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
acerimmer
Alter Hase


Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 724
Location: England

PostPosted: 20.03.2010 01:46    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Ben,
Quote:
If, according to Mr Kleier, a cap is out then some other solution should be determined.

I have had several conversations with Hermann about this subject over the last month or so and although he ruled out using a cap system, he certainly saw that there was a problem and suggested a simpler alternative.

Here below......... is the reason why there should not be a cap and I also quote Hermann's suggestion to how this may be solved.

Quote:
But because these unsportive players are keen on their rating, we have
the power to control them by excluding them from rating. I did NOT
SAY: “By manipulating the rating”. It’s like in most other sports:
You get booked for a foul, later you get a red card. There will be no
extra goal.

What you pointed out is a PAIRING issue demonstrating a
particular kind of unsportive behaviour that it specific
to on line gaming. On line games lack a nonpartisan
pairing. That’s the point!

So let me try to phrase a rule that should be met for a RANKABLE on
line gamer. A player violating the rule would still be in the rating
(calculation only!), but he would not be listed any longer.


Quote:
You might object that a rating system must not control the
pairing. But on line gamers would still be free to chose their
opponents deliberately. But they would not be ranked any longer.


After listening to his argument I did concur that he was correct regarding the cap and I thought the suggestion was quite logical and justifiable.

Other options are on the table and certainly I get the impression that although Hermann is a very busy man, he understands there is a problem and equally that we need to find a solution asap.
The solution might not be the simple answer he gave earlier........but certainly this is being considered amongst other options which I will refrain from speaking about at the moment.
At the end of the day........I know some people are not very happy about the situation Dozer has created (me included) ........but I respect the fact that the best person to find a solution to this problem is Hermann. I am sure he will come up with an appropriate solution in the not too distant future.
_________________
INTERNATIONAL ULTIMATE LIGHTNING ASSOCIATION www.UltimateLightning.info
BRITISH STRATEGO ASSOCIATION www.Stratego.org.uk
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
gentleben
Fortgeschrittener


Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 103

PostPosted: 21.03.2010 05:54    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Ace, I look forward to hearing or seeing the solution then. And I look forward to seeing what Dozer does about it.

As best I can tell, there are definitely players now refusing to play him. And every chance I get when I see him online, I send messages to any players he would likely target who may be tempted to play him. I tell them not to allow him to continue his charade. And I have no problem if anyone else does the same.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
acerimmer
Alter Hase


Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 724
Location: England

PostPosted: 21.03.2010 21:39    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nice approach Ben!

Maybe this has contributed to Dozer taking his highest ever opponent since 7th November 2009. (JVG on a 1475 rating)

Guess what happened when Dozer takes on a 1475 rated player?
He loses......LMAO

He obviously dropped a lot of points.....but still he is far, far, far above what he should be.
I too look forward to an answer for this problem. Hopefully it will come sooooon!
Let's not let this problem become an annual moan and groan time of year.
The last thing we want is for this behavior to become an annual occurrence which other players start to replicate.
_________________
INTERNATIONAL ULTIMATE LIGHTNING ASSOCIATION www.UltimateLightning.info
BRITISH STRATEGO ASSOCIATION www.Stratego.org.uk
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Gravon - Das Spielerparadies Forum Index -> General All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group