Harmonization of room ratings and tournament ratings

That's the point. It's pretty easy to increase odds in the break room, but it's not so easy in a tournament.

I think the idea is good and definitely worth implementing. The fact that essentially different games have the same rating has been a problem for a long time. It would also be a great help if you could no longer invite an unwanted variation to play (for example, a situation would be solved where a player invites chess 5 times in a row and the sixth one puts pickle, but at that time the other player no longer looks at the game type). I don't really understand the synchronicity problem - what about a player playing two games with the same type of rating calculation at the same time? The rating may change a little faster, but in general the player is just doing himself a disservice, because he can't concentrate on either game and the quality of the game drops. There really is no point in making separate game rooms for all game variations. Playok used to have renju and pente rooms, which were constantly empty, even though there were hundreds of players in gomoku. These rooms have now been removed altogether. The use of tabs seems reasonable, although something could be done graphically in this case. Another problem arises with tabs. Namely, there would be even more buttons with which the user changes settings. Therefore, we could start thinking about an option where the user could also save their own settings (allowance of sounds; what are the standard settings for challenging an opponent (time control and Sudoku, also the difficulty level; related to the update: in which game types do they want challenges). There could then be either a "save these settings" button or simply the most recently used option would remain even if the user leaves the game room and returns later. There is probably no point in worrying about card aces, because it is also possible to set a minimum rating for tournaments, with which a participant can be registered for the tournament. The number of tournaments organized would increase, there would be fewer players in one tournament, the amount of time spent in tournaments would decrease, nothing catastrophic would happen. Tiit's question: "Can I play English checkers if I have an active Russian checkers chat room?" My understanding of this is that the game room chat room would still remain shared, i.e., there would be no such thing as a "Russian checkers chat room", but rather a "checkers chat room". In case If I understood correctly and it is really planned that way, we should also think about whether these chat rooms should be really common, i.e., does it make sense to show in the Russian checkers tab that someone started playing surrender? Text messages written by users could be common, because they rarely occur even without dividing the game types. Regarding solved games: A clear distinction should be made here, whether the game is a draw or a victory for one player (starter). If one player can definitely win with the right moves, then this game could really be considered bad and perhaps not even be included in the list of mind games. In my opinion, it is not reasonable to write off a drawn game just because it has been solved. They are still difficult for humans and it takes years (decades) to understand the nature of the game. Chess has not been solved, but a computer can already (almost?) play undefeated, so could this game be written off using the same logic? The solvability of the game rather shows that it is a mind game, because it shows that the game is algorithmic and subject to logic. Regarding the rating: I would like the option where all ratings would be set back to 1400 the most. It would be nice to start "tearing" again. The Sudoku rating has become a boring phenomenon in general, I will wait for the previously discussed leaderboard of the day. I would also be interested in such additions: *Time spent playing all games separately. In Sudoku, the time it took the opponent could be taken into account for lost duels. *Average time of the last 100 games in Sudoku for each difficulty level separately. *In Sudoku, the ability to solve Sudokus appearing in a tournament in a row within the regular game space. It could be selected just like any difficulty level, for example, it could be called "marathon". The best "marathon" times could also be saved similarly to other difficulty levels, and participating in a tournament could also be counted as playing a "marathon". There would be no need for a "marathon" as a daily sudoku.

In a five-row game space, it is of course reasonable to have 3 different ratings, as Ants already said. In this regard, one long-standing problem could also be solved. Namely, what should be done with those who constantly invite standard gomoku to play while choosing black ones? Removing standard gomoku would not be suitable, because there are many smaller players who find the color change rules incomprehensible and cause more confusion. The option of making standard gomoku rating-free would also not be suitable, because beginners also want to play by rating. A solution would be that a player with a rating higher than 1799 can invite standard gomoku against anyone with only such settings that he has white pieces. With such a rating, the player is already skilled enough to understand the rules and necessity of color change. Therefore, there is also a default assumption that players with ratings of 1800 play color change gomoku with each other. Players with a rating lower than 1800 would still play standard gomoku with each other in the same way. The only question that remains is - what happens if 1799- invites an opponent with a rating of 1800 to play? One option is to automatically assign colors based on strength, but it would be slightly better to let the 1799- player assign the color of his choice and the 1800 player have the option to refuse if he considers it unfair to constantly play with white. The second option is better precisely because it would reduce the distinction between stronger and weaker players and the transition would be smooth in reality. In standard gomoku tournaments, the colors should still be assigned in the same way.

I agree with Ain's ideas about gomoku.

The idea of uniform ratings sounds very good and correct, considering, for example, the specificities of checkers, chess and gomoku rooms. In these rooms, there are usually more players constantly, who would then have an easier time making choices about inviting them to a game, and tournament ratings also seem fairer, since tournament participants are forced to play with all opponents in succession according to the tournament rules. Looking at it from my personal, perhaps narrow perspective, I would ask the decision-makers to think about whether it would not be possible to come up with something else in the reverse room. A few dozen people with some skill and knowledge play reverse, plus a few random experimenters. This is hardly enough to keep the room alive; there is no or very weak and small so-called middle class from which new tops could emerge - it is usually difficult for those who already have a little idea of the game to find suitable opponents. I mainly sit in the reverse room in my free moments and pick up points from beginners, trying to explain the game to them; A few serious players come to me from time to time to offer me competition and excitement, the top players only drop by for a game or two if they want to see themselves in the rankings again. If the current rating that is visible in the rankings is so easy to achieve - just take part in a tournament once a month!, then there is a fear that the gap in level between the top players in reversi and beginners will not decrease, but will increase, beginners will not want to come to a tournament just to lose, where no one will give us a second chance or explain anything, and they will lose interest in trying at all, reversi will remain a private pastime for a very small group of people. Prove me wrong!

Another reason why tournament ratings cannot be preferred in reversi is the lack of tournaments. There are probably about ten nail tournaments every day, checkers, chess, gomoku in different forms every day, certainly several during the week, every month still proudly, or am I wrong? But has it been calculated how many reversi tournaments actually take place each month? There are simply few players, there are not enough participants for most tournaments. If there are only 1-2 tournaments actually taking place per month, and not all players manage to participate in them, then the rating of most players will go to 1400 monthly? Of course, you know, maybe that's not such a bad idea?

The rating would not start going up to 1400 every month. With the change in the rating system, the rating would only be changed once, and after that there would be a common rating in both the tournament and the reversi game room. Those users who have previously played in the regular room but not in tournaments would have their rating drop to 1400, but after a single drop, their rating could be restored in the regular room and without participating in tournaments. Therefore, the infrequent occurrence of reversi tournaments would not be an obstacle to changing the rating. Ranking procedure: It is unlikely that the new rating system will reduce the popularity of reversi. Organizational differences, such as the ranking procedure, may motivate players a little, but they are not significant factors. The amount of playing still depends on people's interests and desires. In my opinion, the new rating system motivates reversi to play more. Participating in a tournament once a month requires more action than playing one game in the regular room once every two weeks. The second argument seemed to be that, unlike when they meet during a tournament, the so-called "tops" would teach the beginners when they meet in a regular room, when the "tops" would come to try to stay in their rankings. In that case, wouldn't the most likely situation be where the "top" would leave after just one minute? In my opinion, the problem that Sorel has raised is not related to the change in the rating system, but to the general popularity of reverse, which could be discussed at length, but I'm not interested. Maybe something like this would help increase the popularity of reverse? http://www.vint.ee/mod/Forum/read-thread/?forum=43&thread=2777

ain, thanks for the explanations. I think that the change in the rating system could be explained a little more, so that everyone can understand how it will work. Somewhere, in any case, the idea slipped through that if you don't participate in a tournament for a certain period of time (once a month?), your rating will go back to 1400. Yes, the idea of a brainstorming room is very good.

There is also the possibility that a player with a rating of over 1799 can choose a color if the opponent has more than 1599 points. If the opponent has fewer points, the weaker player always plays with black (starts).

I think it is very right that each game, not the game room, has its own rating. It makes no difference whether everyone's previous ratings are reset or only the points collected in the tournament are counted. Strong players achieve a rating close to their level in a couple of dozen games. Of course, if we can separate, for example, gomoku games from renju games from history, then new ratings could also be calculated. Back then, more people played Reversi than there were few games. Nowadays, there are plenty of games, and unfortunately, there is not enough time for everyone anyway. For a simple, stress-free pastime, some card game is more suitable than Pente or Reversi.