Have a look at the breakthrough games of the closing 19th championship 1.
All six of them are already decided.
Yet, they are advancing the slowest way possible (when they are advancing).
Lost games retention can be tolerated when you play against an underrated player (for instance, if a former good player creates a new account) and you are waiting his rating to increase to resign.
But, doing so in championship 1 against stabilized players, is offending.

This bad behavior combined with the inadequate championship AND rating systems, makes LG the only place on earth when you need at least one year to come to the top. Unfortunately, it is also the only place where you can play breakthrough.

edbonnet agree with…
LG rating at the wrong system.

…but the loss of a game does not make sense to wait.

I disagree with this statement: “Lost games retention can be tolerated when you play against an underrated player (for instance, if a former good player creates a new account) and you are waiting his rating to increase to resign”. That just means that OTHERS will be penalized more. Delaying a game for the sole purpose of waiting for the other players rating to increase, is in my opinion even WORSE than delaying the game in hope that your oponent will time out.

Maybe, after a game is finished, a new rating should be evaluated over values from the beginning of the game, not ending? This could solve the problem.

BTW, is delaying games counting for the opponent mistake OK?

a player of an opponent's rating by looking at their own game in the form of belirlememeli. the most weak players, even when playing, Ray Garrisonla should fight like playing. :)
and win the game is just about to complete the company, would lose the game should not be suspended.

The games in championship 1 do not delay the new championship since all the championships need to end to allow the new championship to start.

But I agree, some players take really too many times to play.
Sometimes a game is finished in 2-3 moves and it will take 1 month to play it.

+1 na_wspak. This is ridiculous.

Sometimes you have the opposite problem.
One time I played a Hex game with a strong opponent, the game was closed and interesting, he finally won but … just before the last moves he lost by time something like 30 games. Thus, I played a game against a 2100 elo and lost again a 1500 elo. :P

I think both using start-rating and end-rating has advantages and disadvantages, but using start-ratings is probably still better.

na_wspak: _I_ personally think that “delaying” a game and hoping for your opponent to make a mistake is OK. If the game is not OBVIOUSLY over (not only have you seen that you've lost, but you're certain that your opponent has too, and knows how to win), no need to resign. But in such a case you probably won't use all 36 hours pr move either, I guess, so the game might not take that much TIME to finish.

@Marius: Indeed. I mean delaying by making moves. Not - by not making moves.

“That just means that OTHERS will be penalized more.”
That's not true: when you have a higher rating you are penalized more than others.

“Delaying a game for the sole purpose of waiting for the other players rating to increase, is in my opinion even WORSE than delaying the game in hope that your opponent will time out.”
You really meant it?
In one case, you are being framed and you try to save what can be saved.
In the other, you are pettily playing against the game.

A 1500 player and a 1900 player both lose to someone rated 1500, but with a “true” rating of 1900. The 1500 player loses 16 points, but should have lost 3. The 1900 player loses 29 points, but should have lost 16. They both lose 13 points more than they should. So yes, my stament IS true.

And yeah, I really DO mean what I said about delaying games. In no way do I encourage playing in the hope that an opponent will time out. That's definitely bad behaviour too. Yet, time management is very important on a site like this, and the way I see it, the “waiting for my player to get a higher rating”-strategy is even more exploiting unintended side effects of the system than playing for him to time out. But like I said, I think both strategies are really bad behaviour and should be discouraged.

a player onLine game that your life time, a long-term should not be kept.
this LG is a shortcoming of the site.

Okay Marius but the 1900 player is penalized longer.

That is also wrong. Regaining 13 points takes on average the same number of games for the 1500 player as for the 1900 player. A trivial example is if they both play against only players with the same true rating as themselves.

Yes, but when the “climbing” player gets to 1700 the 1500 player is no longer affected by playing an underrated player but the 1900 player still is.

True. And the situation would be different for several different sets of “true” and “current” ratings. In some settings, the guy with the lower rating loses more, in other settings, the guy with the higher rating. But for one player to “save” a number of points, these points will be lost by others. If you are “saving” 4 rating points, they will be lost maybe as 4 points for one other player or 2 points for 2 other players.

Exactly how this plays out is not really important. The bottom line is that this “waiting for my opponents rating to increase” is really bad behaviour. I very strongly discourage this. Take a moment and consider what happens if everyone thinks like this.

Just play your games as you would against other opponents. In the long run, a newcomer with a great skill will end up eating a little bit of rating points from everyone on his way to his “true” rating, just as a newcomer with a terrible skill will end up giving rating points to everyone. The ratings reflect relative skills in the population playing here, so this is how it should be; when a great player enters the population, the average skill in the population increases, and thus everyones (disregarding the newcomer) skill relative to the population decreases.

I also find it very ironic that you can defend such horrible behaviour in a thread you have labeled “let's be civil”. This is as far from civil behaviour as one can get.

I do no say it is elegant but, compared to delaying the championship, it does not seem so bad.
In any case, if you put the same energy in our future game than in this conversation, I should really worry.

The energy needed to beat you in breakthrough would probably cost me either my job, my marriage, or both, so that's not gonna happen. The only way I could beat you is if you start playing Hex instead :-)

Yes, I am terrible in connection games.
I can achieve some local task like checkmating or queening a rook (?) but when it comes to global goal it is for me too much to ask.
Anyway, you have more than a chance in breakthrough. Recently, I am losing most of my games.

edbonnet said “Unfortunately, it is also the only place where you can play breakthrough.”
You can also play at brainking.com. I am usually able to have a couple of games going at a time there.

brainking.com… participate in games and tournaments are limited.
LittLegoLem… free games and tournaments;
LittLegoLem are good to have. :0)