Proposed solution to the escapers problem...

[oren]

But when I select the option to have a "rated game", it means that I care about playing a game that will affect my rank. I think that it's for this reason that I get frustrated when people don't take rated games seriously - the free game option is always available.

The problem is that I think rated games should be used just to help match people up with similar strengths. Free games don't help the system do that. I only use free games when playing people of vastly different ranks, and I wouldn't want that information in the rating pool.

[Li Kao]

...

I don't play rated games seriously online. If someone disappears, you go find another game. It won't change your rank, and you know whether or not you've won.

I have this attitude for free online games.

But when I select the option to have a "rated game", it means that I care about playing a game that will affect my rank. I think that it's for this reason that I get frustrated when people don't take rated games seriously - the free game option is always available.

I don't distinguish rated and unrated games in any way. The difference between winning and losing a single ranked game is probably 0.01 stones. 90% of the time I don't if know which it is. Automatch found me an opponent I play him. The opponents are about my strength, so rank accomplished its goal. Typically I take a free game against a friend more serious than any ranked game I play against a random opponent.

IMO rank accomplishes two things:
* Helps me find fair games
* Tracks my improvement progress over time

Neither of these is influenced by how seriously I approach a game. If I played free games I'd get neither benefit.

[hyperpape]

Why should a free game be any different than a ranked game?

A free game, by definition, means that the result does not matter. A ranked game is one where the result is valued and important.

Does not matter for the sake of rating, you mean. I'd say that as far as the obligation to finish the game goes and the commitment made, a free game is exactly the same as a rated game. One just has consequences for ratings that the other does not.

[Bantari]

I am surprised people do not take rated games seriously.

Well, when you think about this, you will understand that the ONLY difference between free and rated games is the rank.
So, you might have worded your question differently: I am surprised people do not take rank seriously.

...

Not exactly. I am OK if people do not take rank seriously. That's perfectly fine. And KGS has an option for people that want to play games like that: Free games.

What surprises me is when people use the option that's available on KGS, which specifies that "I want this game counted toward my rank", and then treat it lightly.

It could be argued that people want to affect their online rank in a non-serious way - but why not just play a free game in this case?

Well... what you say only surprises you because you assume people treat rank as seriously as you do.

Consider that:
I see an open game, I click on it, I play it. I don't care if it is rated or not, I did not even check. Even if I did, whatever, I don't care. I feel like playing a game, so i play a game. Same goes for setting up a game - I simply go with the default settings, and whetever the server does it is of little importance to me. if the time settings bothered me, i will change them next time, but I see no reason putting effort into changing the default setting for rated or unrated. It does not matter to me.

I see such approach as perfectly natural (and legal.)

As a matter of fact - it is those who go out of their way to set games rated or unrated are those who care about rating.
I don't care, so I don't bother.

As a result - I treat each game in its own way, regardless if its rated or not.
And I have absolutely no problem when people do the same. Although, of course, I understand that my approach is not the only one, so i try to accommodate others. But I also understand that it would be very hard for me to be accommodating and flexible if such matters as rank mattered to me, and if I expected, even demanded, that people treat games the same as i do in this regard. To be honest - I find THAT attitude surprising, that somebody would expect others to behave a certain way based on your personal assumptions and values.

Hope this helps you to understand what I mean.

[Kirby]

But when I select the option to have a "rated game", it means that I care about playing a game that will affect my rank. I think that it's for this reason that I get frustrated when people don't take rated games seriously - the free game option is always available.

The problem is that I think rated games should be used just to help match people up with similar strengths. Free games don't help the system do that. I only use free games when playing people of vastly different ranks, and I wouldn't want that information in the rating pool.

To match people up with similar strengths, both people playing the game should be playing seriously. When we allow escapers, as we do with the current system, people do not have to take results seriously - they can quit the game as they please.

Ideally, everybody should take rated games, the time settings, and game rules very seriously. This will lead to more accurate results, and we can better match people up with similar strengths.

It is when people do not take the games seriously, escape, etc. that this gets screwed up. If we eliminate escapers completely, then we do not have this problem.

People may have personal, "non-go" related issues (eg. have to leave for something, etc.), but this should be reflected in their rank, because that behavior is likely to show up again in the future. If I don't take a game that seriously, and have to leave after 5 minutes, it's likely that the same thing will happen in the future when I play a game. This should be included in someone's rank.

[Kirby]

...
IMO rank accomplishes two things:
* Helps me find fair games
* Tracks my improvement progress over time

Neither of these is influenced by how seriously I approach a game. If I played free games I'd get neither benefit.

When we allow escapers, it hinders your ability to find free games - escapers skew the rating system.

If someone often has to leave early before their time is up (they shouldn't play with those time settings to begin with), then there is a good chance that this will happen in the future. If you play against such a person, this information should be reflected in their rank (i.e. they may be better at go, but their abrupt leaving causes them to have poor results with Internet go).

[oren]

When we allow escapers, it hinders your ability to find free games - escapers skew the rating system.

If someone often has to leave early before their time is up (they shouldn't play with those time settings to begin with), then there is a good chance that this will happen in the future. If you play against such a person, this information should be reflected in their rank (i.e. they may be better at go, but their abrupt leaving causes them to have poor results with Internet go).

I would argue internet disconnections would be a greater skewing of a rating system than escapers. This only changes what you think the default behavior of the system should be. I want it to focus on being able to continue disrupted games and you want it to count as a loss for the person who has internet problems. Both solutions are viable, but I agree with the one wms took. Escapers eventually forfeit games and if you get disconnected for some reason, games can be continued.

[Kirby]

Why should a free game be any different than a ranked game?

A free game, by definition, means that the result does not matter. A ranked game is one where the result is valued and important.

Does not matter for the sake of rating, you mean. I'd say that as far as the obligation to finish the game goes and the commitment made, a free game is exactly the same as a rated game. One just has consequences for ratings that the other does not.

I agree that commitment is still present in a free game. However, people have mentioned earlier that an escape can be viewed as a resignation. Well, in the case of a free game, this has no consequence. You can view the escape as a resignation, and there is nothing else to do with the matter.

But in the case of a rated game, even if you view an escape as a resignation, it is not the same in terms of rating.

So yes, a rated game is different in the sense that it affects rating. If someone plays a rated game and doesn't follow through with their commitment, it has an effect on the rating, which is the very variable that is selected when playing a rated game.

In short, the consequences you reference above are avoided when escapers escape a rated game. They should not be avoided, since the players agreed to a game that should have consequences for a loss.

[Kirby]

...
Consider that:
I see an open game, I click on it, I play it. I don't care if it is rated or not, I did not even check. Even if I did, whatever, I don't care. I feel like playing a game, so i play a game. Same goes for setting up a game - I simply go with the default settings, and whetever the server does it is of little importance to me. if the time settings bothered me, i will change them next time, but I see no reason putting effort into changing the default setting for rated or unrated. It does not matter to me.

I see such approach as perfectly natural (and legal.)
...

The purpose of the "rated game" feature is to allow for games that will affect one's rating. If you do not care about the rating, you should not use the feature.

This is particularly true if you intend to skew the rating system by avoiding a loss that you should be getting.

[Kirby]

...

I would argue internet disconnections would be a greater skewing of a rating system than escapers. This only changes what you think the default behavior of the system should be. I want it to focus on being able to continue disrupted games and you want it to count as a loss for the person who has internet problems. Both solutions are viable, but I agree with the one wms took. Escapers eventually forfeit games and if you get disconnected for some reason, games can be continued.

Again, disconnections can be handled by providing a short time limit for users to return. This still eliminates escapers, and also aids people that are playing with poor connections (if such people still exist these days).

[Bantari]

...
Consider that:
I see an open game, I click on it, I play it. I don't care if it is rated or not, I did not even check. Even if I did, whatever, I don't care. I feel like playing a game, so i play a game. Same goes for setting up a game - I simply go with the default settings, and whetever the server does it is of little importance to me. if the time settings bothered me, i will change them next time, but I see no reason putting effort into changing the default setting for rated or unrated. It does not matter to me.

I see such approach as perfectly natural (and legal.)
...

The purpose of the "rated game" feature is to allow for games that will affect one's rating. If you do not care about the rating, you should not use the feature.

This is particularly true if you intend to skew the rating system by avoiding a loss that you should be getting.

Not really. It seems you did not understand a word I wrote.
I don't care - so why should I bother? I don't escape and I don't resign in the middle, I treat each game the way I want (seriously or not) - why would I go out of my way to only play rated/unrated games? It gives me exactly the same pleasure to play either one, so I am happy whatever. It is people who try to put restrictions on me which I find strange.

The bottom line is:
It bothers me to the same extend (or it does not bother me to the same extend) when a person resigns/escapes in rated game or unrated game.

I gave you my reasons:
1> I personally do not care, it does not affect me, I am confident enough not to be bothered by such silliness.
2> I do not believe it affects the rating system very much since such occurances are very seldom and the system is in large part self-correcting.

All you can say is that 'people should do this' and 'people should think like that' - and it seems that the main reasoning is that you do and feel like that. And I think the bottom of your attitudes is a rank obsession. i mean - rank is all good and stuff, it has its purpose... but your rank will not get affected very much by an occasional mouse problem by your opponent.

Figure out why it is so important to you, personally, and do not hide behind rating system integrity and all that.
With things as they are - the rating system seems to work pretty well, in spite of people like me and people like you.

So chill, dude, relax, start enjoying games rather than worrying so much about what fracion of your rating will you lose or gain because of this or that.

[oren]

Again, disconnections can be handled by providing a short time limit for users to return. This still eliminates escapers, and also aids people that are playing with poor connections (if such people still exist these days).

Again, escapers are basically handled by forfeiting games.

[Kirby]

Again, disconnections can be handled by providing a short time limit for users to return. This still eliminates escapers, and also aids people that are playing with poor connections (if such people still exist these days).

Again, escapers are basically handled by forfeiting games.

Again, only after they do it several times. There is no reason for this lenience when a system exists such that escapers could be handled immediately.

[Kirby]

...
Not really. It seems you did not understand a word I wrote.
I don't care - so why should I bother?
...

You should bother because other people on the server care. There is specific functionality designed for people that do not care about the result of the game. It's called the "Free Game" option. If you do not care about your rank, this is the option that is designed for you.

There are people that care about rank, whether it be for getting evenly matched games, because they want to measure their improvement, or for some other means. For these scenarios, there is a different option available. It's called the "Rated game" option.

The software is designed such that the user can select the option that is appropriate for them.

Some people do not care one way or the other. If they use the option that is not suited for them, they may not care. But the people that do care may be bothered by this, because they are using the incorrect option - they should be using a "free game", but are instead using a "rated game".

If you don't care about your rank, please do not use the "rated game" feature. Instead, please use the "free game" feature. It's designed for games that do not affect your rank.

[topazg]

I really disagree Kirby. I reserve the right to play ranked games for casual fun, and not particularly care about the result or the effect on my rank. In the game itself, I'm not going to start self atari-ing my groups or playing on 1-1 points, I'm still going to try to win. But, my rank helps me get games too, and I'm not going to deny myself that on a whim.

I have 5 kids running around half the time, and the ability to sit down for an hour to just play isn't that rare, but nor are interruptions that pull me away for what could be a long time. I leave my clock running when I go, and although I'll try to get back and carry on, if it times out, I lose. As a result, I lose rank if/when this happens, but the flipside of never playing a ranked game is a lot worse in the other direction from my perspective.