ChessConquest - official discussion thread

The problem with players exploiting the rating system has been pointed out numerous times, and a policy discussion would definitely be a great help.

I think Vaude also posted his "rating-experiment" results in this forum, illustrating how easy it is to exploit the system.

This type of "behaviour" is definitely one of the more challenging aspects of creating an enjoyable and "fair" chess community website.

We were thinking of perhaps adding a limit to the number of games a player is allowed to play against a single player. For example, for each 3 games you complete against one player you need to complete at least one game against another player. Also perhaps a rule that a timeout can only be claimed after at least 2 moves (instead of just one move on either side).

In principle this idea might help. If you do implement it, please consider excluding tournament games from this rule as those games are beyond the player's control. I am currently playing 5 tournament games against Sloth, for example. In my current mindset where Real Life is interrupting more important issues such as chess, it is perfectly possible that I could blow all five games with spectacular blunders all at the same time, leaving Sloth with less credit than he would otherwise earn as only two games would be rated.

Have there been any requests for unrated games?
 
I don't think that the conditional moves feature is important enough for a vote. In this instance I will be happy if you apply your mind and do what is sensible from an objective view, regardles of whether I fully agree with the decision.
 
Thanks Yotta! Well trolled, although I suppose I originally meant to use the word "trawl" :)

Mmmm, now let's see: current stats: 2037 White wins, 1844 Black wins, 124 draws (Low number of draws is an amazing statistic by itself. We play to win on this site)

That gives White 52.4 points out of hundred or 9.2% advantage over Black. It is still significant, but not nearly as large as when the big boys play.

My point seems to be confirmed, although not quite to the extent I expected.
 
What if maybe you implement a rule that you can only challenge players with a higher rating than yourself? I suppose there will still be room for the obvious exploitation (like the sample shown above), but it should go a long way to prevent some of these Romanian guys picking on the lower players just for the purpose of a high rating (as in Vuade's experiment).

There are sometimes players that only plays against selected players, not because they want to cheat the rankings, but because they find it convenient to use the website to play with against their friends. They might not always be interested in rakings as much as just enjoying a casual game...

Limiting challenges only to stronger players, might cause such casual players to loose interest.

...and top-dog win4433 won't be able to challenge anyone ;)

PS. I see he is the first player rated 2000+.
 
There are sometimes players that only plays against selected players, not because they want to cheat the rankings, but because they find it convenient to use the website to play with against their friends. They might not always be interested in rakings as much as just enjoying a casual game...

Limiting challenges only to stronger players, might cause such casual players to loose interest.
I think this has been suggested before, but casual games might solve that issue (that don't affect the ratings). Casual games that can occur at anytime between anyone.

...and top-dog win4433 won't be able to challenge anyone ;)

PS. I see he is the first player rated 2000+.
Wow... I didn't even see this guy coming. He hasn't completed a lot of games but by simply taking out the top players he has managed first place.
I'm not exactly sure how much of an issue this would be though. There are always players somewhere who wants to take a swing at the big guy. Since he is already at the top, casual games might also be an option for him.
That's just my opinion though.
 
Wasn't Willie higher than 2000 before I accidentally beat him? His rating dropped a lot when that happened.
 
I have to share something with everyone participating in this forum... because I found it to be completely mind blowing.

ChessConquest has now been operational for a good 10 months, when including the beta testing period prior to the launch at rAge.

Recently one of the Romanian players, quicklyKNIGHT, sent in a support email, in that there is a bug in the system. In one of his games the server kept on replying invalid move, even though it was a valid move.

I've learned to never ignore any support query, but must admit, with this issue I was a bit skeptical. How is it at all possible that after 10 months, and more than 11000 games, and with thorough testing, that there could be such a bug. Surely it is impossible that he is the first player to ever play the move Qa1 to h1 on ChessConquest.

And what a shocker when I found it to be an actual bug. (Not to worry, we've already fixed the problem), the point is that with more than 11000 games and 322280 moves in the database, the move Qa1 to h1 was made only once. (That makes the chance of a person playing Qa1 to h1 in a game 1/322280 = 0.0003%).
 
Last edited:
I think this has been suggested before, but casual games might solve that issue (that don't affect the ratings). Casual games that can occur at anytime between anyone.

This seems to be one of the better solutions. This way rated games can employ stricter limits (such as only challenging higher rated players etc.) than casual games.

I just need to fix up a couple of other things urgently on the website, after which I'll come back to this whole rating-cheat issue and start implementing some solutions.
 
I have to share something with everyone participating in this forum... because I found it to be completely mind blowing.

ChessConquest has now been operational for a good 10 months, when including the beta testing period prior to the launch at rAge.

Recently one of the Romanian players, quicklyKNIGHT, sent in a support email, in that there is a bug in the system. In one of his games the server kept on replying invalid move, even though it was a valid move.

I've learned to never ignore any support query, but must admit, with this issue I was a bit skeptical. How is it at all possible that after 10 months, and more than 11000 games, and with thorough testing, that there could be such a bug. Surely it is impossible that he is the first player to ever play the move Qa1 to h1 on ChessConquest.

And what a shocker when I found it to be an actual bug. (Not to worry, we've already fixed the problem), the point is that with more than 11000 games and 322280 moves in the database, the move Qa1 to h1 was made only once. (That makes the chance of a person playing Qa1 to h1 in a game 1/322280 = 0.0003%).

And then again maybe not. Earlier tonight I just happened to look at a collection of about 60,000 games using ChessDB. I don't have the facility to count how often the Queen moves between a1 and h1 but I am able to see where pieces like to go. For example, the White Pawn on d2 goes to d4 at some point in close to 89% of games. You could call it a creature of habit. The White Knight on g1 goes to f3 with the same frequency. That is a creature of habit too.

The Queens, on the other hand, do not have squares that they frequent habitually. However, I noticed that the White Queen does not like some squares: in that collection it arrives on the h1 square in approximately 0.5% of games, making it the least likely place to find it on the board. It arrives on a1 in about 1.79% of games. Other rare squares are g1 (0.87%), g8 (1.05%), h2 (1.19%), h8 (1.62%), f8 (1.62%) and b8 (1.99%)

The Black Queen is a rare visitor to both squares as well: h1 at 1.26% and a1 at 2.24%

The bottom line is that a Queen move from a1 to h1 must be a unusual simply by virtue of the fact that both squares are out of the Queens' comfort zone.

I estimate the probability of the Queen move from a1 to h1 therefore to be somewhere around 0.04%

Empirically, the chance of Qa1 to h1 appearing in a ChessConquest game is actually 1/(total number of games played) which at this moment is is 1/4022 or 0.025%, which is not that far less than I would have predicted. Besides, it is seems possible that someone else encountered the bug and did not report it.

The reason for the Queens visiting these squares so rarely seems fairly obvious: these are the corner squares, and so players usually post the Queens to more active areas. Besides, the White King is often castled King side. In these cases, the White Queen has no business hiding behind the King, and the Black Queen would first have to drive out the White King before being able to set up her throne on h1.

By the way, well done for maintaining such a stable, bug-free platform. Keep it up!
 
Hey guys! I'm wondering what is your opinion of the ability to change your name in ChessConquest? Personally I find it very irritating (sorry Yotta ;-)to figure out who the person was etc. Sure change your picture, but not your name? As in real life it gets very confusing.
 
Hey guys! I'm wondering what is your opinion of the ability to change your name in ChessConquest? Personally I find it very irritating (sorry Yotta ;-)to figure out who the person was etc. Sure change your picture, but not your name? As in real life it gets very confusing.

Unfortunately you don't get a say because you don't post here enough. Two posts just don't cut it missy! :p

Eh just joking but yes it must get confusing if people change names. Here at MyGaming they put a stop to changing names after a while because it was difficult to keep track. So I agree with Muerte. Except if the person has a valid reason like having a spelling mistake in the name or something. :)
 
:cry: I can start spamming the forum if you want :p - hey see 3 posts! Yay!! Does it count now???:)

Haha yeah 3 posts should do it. :D

I was wondering how many of the people who post only ChessConquest related posts here do other kinds of gaming too. Do you and Vuade do any other kind of gaming Muerte?
 
Haha yeah 3 posts should do it. :D

I was wondering how many of the people who post only ChessConquest related posts here do other kinds of gaming too. Do you and Vuade do any other kind of gaming Muerte?

Well yotta has so far racked up a nice 114 posts in this thread alone. He can almost qualify for MyG competitions :)
Tallfred also on 74.
 
Hey guys! I'm wondering what is your opinion of the ability to change your name in ChessConquest? Personally I find it very irritating (sorry Yotta ;-)to figure out who the person was etc. Sure change your picture, but not your name? As in real life it gets very confusing.

I am with you on this one. Please Yotta, do not allow name changes.

Whilst on the subject of the user Profile. I wanted to change my password tonight for the first time, and can't find where I should do it. Am I missing something? If not, please provide us with a method of changing the password.
 
Hey guys! I'm wondering what is your opinion of the ability to change your name in ChessConquest? Personally I find it very irritating (sorry Yotta ;-)to figure out who the person was etc. Sure change your picture, but not your name? As in real life it gets very confusing.

Welcome to the forum Muerte... looks like you've rallied enough support for your no-name-changing request. Will change profile editing on ChessConquest accordingly.
 
Last edited:
Well yotta has so far racked up a nice 114 posts in this thread alone. He can almost qualify for MyG competitions :)
Tallfred also on 74.

I've never really took part in online forums before, but must admit that I find the MyGaming to be an awesome place to interact with other gaming enthusiasts. Will definitely have to check out some of the other forums on the site as well ;)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top