I’m sure everyone has a kind of niche “best fit” settings, maybe corr or live, 19x19 or 9x9, handicap etc. So “blitz” is one of many.
Some may seem “extreme”, but they are apparently not for those who prefer them.
2 Likes
Yes but one data point does not a rule make. I assume they’re not the only user playing 1s games. Or 2s, etc. Even if we assume 1s is wrong, it still doesn’t answer where to put the new line.
1 Like
if we will have proof that 1s is wrong, then we can just unrank 1s. Proofs about other time settings are not needed for this.
1s/move main time
3mn +1s/move goquest 9x9 is another story, it’s just about finishing the game if you didn’t and you had 3mns to think about it.
It’s still more time per move than berserked 15s ultrabullet on lichess (8s/game iirc), and that’s rated and players like penguingm play reasonable games with those settings. I wouldn’t object to splitting the OGS rankings by board size and time control and deprecating or eliminating the overall ranking, like lichess does, but I know this has been proposed before and rejected, so Gia-emoji.
5 Likes
My next post would be “how long until someone mentions chess settings” 
3 Likes
Curious on your opinion of
and why they might choose to rank 15s absolute games of chess?
I think on the one hand, just because I too would personally see such games as a clicking fest, it doesn’t mean that players (and GM’s) don’t have a strategy or aren’t thinking necessarily.
In theory you could probably plan ahead in 9x9 many moves and like you said probably even finish a game.
I’m not speaking on behalf of the moderators, and if someone was using as a way to manipulate rank I think it’s a different issue than if that’s just a setting they like to play and want their rank to reflect that similar to
I think we probably don’t need to be too attached to the idea that player X isn’t a real 1d because they only play such and such settings, rather just take into consideration what settings they play when considering their rank.
3 Likes
is this rank separate?
Yes @Samraku already mentioned it, I was only half paying attention.
Of the main issue I would say with separating the ratings is that people are already bewildered by the ratings table as is, at least 3 ratings per time setting for different board sizes. If one does indeed properly split the ratings is one going to have what lichess has except x3 for the three common board sizes?
Ultra bullet, bullet, blitz, rapid, classical
Except we’d also tack in a correspondence.
It’s more of a proof of concept that a tactical game can be played reasonably well at speed
4 Likes
What is the time setting exactly? I see that the clock sometimes (or at each move?) increases by 0.3 or 0.4 seconds.
1 Like
One icon is missing on your picture.
I say that because I only play correspondence on lichess and they do have a separate icon/rating for that.
2 Likes
OGS had separate ranks before and it worked bad, they were often outdated.
With most settings, 1 person has similar rank on any of these settings. Current system uses it.
But, on few settings rank will be very very different from rank on most settings.
So perfect solution would be partially separate rank.
main rank and “other” rank.
Do you guys know if this has an impact on the effectiveness of glicko in predicting game outcomes for other players ?
Because if this guy is 1d in 1s games… good to him. He’ll probably feel outranked when playing other time settings and this is not fun at all.
1 Like
As you can see, there is no consensus among the mods on this subject. The argument is that the impossibility of finding a perfect solution should stop us from having a good solution, because that would be arbitrary. This is an abdication of the use of judgment. The idea that such games should be counted in the overall rank makes a travesty of the ranking system.
An additional trick used by some blitz trolls is to restart a game that has gone to scoring. One would play 4 sec. per move and then reject the scoring and restart if he had lost. It was nearly impossible for his opponents to react fast enough to such an unexpected event, even at 4 seconds. Consequently, he won nearly all his games. I warned him and annulled his recent games that used this trick, and he promptly disappeared, probably starting a new account with a VPN. He’s probably still out there somewhere cheating people.
10 Likes
If more than 20% or 25% percent of the games are won or lost by time, then this is too fast.
5 Likes
IF there is something that easy to automatically detect and mods ban for that:
-ban always should be replaced with technical impossibility for player to do it.
I believe this is true for any PC/browser/… game
1 Like
Please forgive me if I am misunderstanding your point. I think you are saying that the restart should be technically prevented if it leads to bans in some cases of abuse. (I think a thread on that may already exist, but I can’t remember.) A case might be made for that, perhaps, in view of its wide abuse for stalling with repeated restarts as well as cases in which losers restart and win because of tesuji advice received from the new autoscore system. The restart still serves some purposes, however, in some situations: (1) when a beginner (or cheat) insists that his dead stones must be captured, so the winner restarts, captures them, and wins anyway because his lead was so large; or (2) when the autsoscore makes a mistake in scoring, and the opponent tries to leverage that.
Similarly, the most hilarious cheat I ever encountered argued that score cheating was legitimate because the system allowed him to do it. Of course, the stone removal phase (scoring) allows for honest correction of the score, and dishonest abusers of the system deserve to be banned for repeat offenses after a warning.
I tried 10 (unranked) games and I won all of them by timeout.
Apart from the last game, in none of them did I continued despite having lost a position.
I think this is a clear proof that some of the players who accept such fast games can’t really play at this speed.
4 Likes
I don’t talk about something specific. I talk about any situation that looks like this:
imagine other site where its be possible to place stone inside eye of group of opponent in Japanese rules, game not automatically ends, stone not automatically disappears. (in real world its possible)
And imagine that mods ban those who do it.
I wouldn’t call that other site evil only if developer just don’t have time to fix this bug.
I’m late to the party but is it possible to know connection lag averages and maybe set a minimum based on that. I.e. a minimum duration average per move that the typical connection can keep up with could be the ranked floor.
Edit: I suppose plus some “reaction time” period.
Thinking about it if we are limited to integer seconds then the answer is probably 2 anyway …
2 Likes