Use minimum bullet rating thresholds for longer time control tournament requirements

#18 That's the sort of thing which might be positive and non-controversial - thanks for your input :)

#19
"You haven't answered my question, and I don't understand "as I mentioned somewhere already in the thread" that you're referring to."

To answer your question about having private tournaments, I think my original suggestion was bad, and if I could edit my original posts in the thread I would with the alternate suggestion. I think even for private tournaments it would still be bad and restrictive.

But maybe the idea of greater credibility insight would be good in any sort of tournament - as #18 mentioned.

I think a bullet rating could be the result of a good vs bad browser also. I'm not the best bullet player by any means, but I do think your ping number plays a major role in bullet games. My point being I don't think you can judge a player abilities soley by his bullet rating.

Bullet is randomly moving pieces as fast as possible. There is no thinking, the moves do not have to make any sense at all. Most of them are done without even knowing what the last move has been. Is bullet rating actually an indicator of chess ability? It may be just how lucky the player is.

By the way, FIDE does not rate bullet games for a reason! It is not recognized as serious chess and should not be given any meaning except the bullet rating in online chess.

#23 My point really is about mismatched ratings - I would like a credibiklity indicator if someone has a bullet rating of 1750 and a virtual 2.5 minute rating of 2350 - for me this is strange.

My point wasn't really trying to discriminate against lower rated bullet players as such, but being equipped maybe with better decision making for someone with a vastly mismatched set of ratings. I think the site might have acess to the closer relatve "2.5 minute" ratings when people beserk on 5 minute chess. Or "1.5" minute ratings when beserks are made on 3 minute chess.

Watched that tournament you were in KC. It was clearly obvious the player was cheating. He gained 733 points in that tournament, won about fifteen games in a row, had multiple perfect games (0 0 0), and his only two losses were due to not moving.

Can't understand why even the most basic anti-cheat system could not flag a player like that and eject him before too much damage was done.

2.5 minute game is blitz, not bullet. Kingcrusher doesn't know the difference between blitz and bullet. Looks like his lessons do not worth $40 USD/hr. There are much better coaches who charge less.

KC I am glad that you acknowledged the issues and feedback associated with your original suggestion. Moving on to the idea of a personal *credibility* indicator; there are two problems, in my opinion.

Firstly, I have not heard of a convincing argument using data, statistics or real hard evidence to show a significant correspondence between a low bullet rating, a high blitz rating and a propensity to use computer assistance. Just as you have provided a few possible reasons to be suspicious of a *mismatch* others in this thread have provided many, more plausible (in theory) reasons for a *mismatch* in ratings. But analogies and contingency based arguments, while possibly logically consistent, are dependent on their assumptions validity. Thus we require inductive evidence to actually evaluate the value of such arguments. None of which has been provided by you. Similarly the notion that there are a large enough subset of active cheaters that necessitate looking into an alternative system than the current one also requires evidence that has not been provided. We should, I think therefore, place significant emphasis on the mods and developers who can and do track relevant statistics to monitor and propose solutions. If you could provide evidence and it better be good when you are drawing a relation between a large subset of users and engine abuse, then please do, but without these standards of evidence your arguments hold fairly small sway. I am not saying the system is perfect- but it is tolerable? is a very reasonable question I pose to you. We may occasionally play engine abusers, as you have and I too have done so, and no its not fun but ultimately its a few rating points very occasionally in my experience. If you have any data to show that the frequency is greater than that the I would genuinely want to see it.

Secondly, say one implements your solution of such an indicator. It's effects would only really be seen in tournaments as you can already adequately screen people in optional games. Tournament games are mandatory. It seems a) very poor sport to resign a game because of a *mismatch* and refuse to play players, most of which do not cheat (or at least there is no good evidence to prove that they do) without very good evidence. And b) as these games are mandatory your solution could potentially corrupt the standings even more than actual engine abusers!

Finally, I do agree with you on a point that you have raised before (in other threads iirc) about a minimum number of games being required to enter tournaments as it is a relatively non-restrictive and importantly versatile and tweak-able solution that I think would be effective.

Have a great day!