4 ms·

I hate ladder systems. Winning is fun and losing is not. Why would I purposely choose to play a game/system where your win rate does not meaningfully improve

I hate ladder systems. Winning is fun and losing is not. Why would I purposely choose to play a game/system where your win rate does not meaningfully improve as you skill up? That sounds frustrating and tedious. If I get better I want to win more often.

linguistbreaker 2y ago
But winning is only fun because you do not always win and almost proportionally so... If you get better you get to play better games against better opponents. The win or loss is ancillary to the experience for me.
- stackghost 2y ago
  >The win or loss is ancillary to the experience for me. Maybe because I primarily play sports and not chess but this attitude is completely foreign and mystifying to me. Don't you feel bad when you lose? Why would you purposely engage in an ELO system that results in you feeling bad after 50% of games, and never gives you a sense of progress? Isn't that profoundly discouraging? Do you think Tiger Woods or Leo Messi wish they won fewer matches? Like I just can't get myself into a headspace where you're out for competition but are satisfied with a 50% win rate.
  - lupire 2y ago
    The ELO system does give you a sense of process. Continuing to beat up weak players does not give you progress. It makes you the one eyed king of the blind. Do you think professional athletes like Woods and Messi are stupid because they could be playing in Farm League and winning every time against scrubs?
    - stackghost 2y ago
      >The ELO system does give you a sense of process. By definition it does not, unless your definition of progress is "number go up". >Do you think professional athletes are stupid because they could be playing in Little League and winning every time against kids? So let me get this straight: are you seriously suggesting that you don't understand the difference between e.g. the format of the NHL or the FIFA world cup, and playing against literal children to pad one's win rate? Because I think you're probably not arguing in good faith with that last comment. Time for me to duck out of this conversation.
      - Retric 2y ago
        Progress is in the quality of the games not just an irrelevant number. If you have a major skill gap, games become boring. Try playing Martin bot for 3 hours.
      - refulgentis 2y ago
        I honestly don't understand your point and do understand his, and definitely don't understand why you took it so aggressively. All he's saying is it's boring to win all the time.
  - hn3er1q 2y ago
    It feels bad to loose but you also need the wins to feel good. Beating a low ELO player is about as fun as beating small kids at basketball or something. For me it’s not the win/loss that drives me but making fewer mistakes. If I loose a game where my opponent punished a minor mistake, fair enough, that took skill and I’ll learn from it and I don’t feel bad. But if I loose because I made a blunder (obvious tactical error) that sucks and I hate that.
refulgentis 2y ago
Because that's not a Nash equilibrium: for every extra bit of fun you have, someone else has notfun, and thus has an incentive to switch their strategy (play on another site)
omegaham 2y ago
You can always play in tournaments to figure out where you rank compared to a larger population!
- stackghost 2y ago
  Indeed I much prefer a tournament format.
lupire 2y ago
You would probably prefer the game Shooting Fish in a Barrel over the game Chess. Winning half the time is better because each of those wins means far far more than winning against bad players. Playing down is only fun for insecure, unambitious people. If winning is the fun part, just cheat, don't seek out bad players to play against. Playing against bad players makes you bad at chess.
- stackghost 2y ago
  Edit: never mind you're the same guy constructing strawman arguments in the other thread
wslh 2y ago
I haven't read this thread in that way: if you want to improve your skills that is great, it is your choice but you should know, realistically speaking, that at certain level you cannot improve anymore in your lifetime, except if you are part of the elite.

linguistbreaker 2y ago

But winning is only fun because you do not always win and almost proportionally so... If you get better you get to play better games against better opponents. The win or loss is ancillary to the experience for me.

stackghost 2y ago
>The win or loss is ancillary to the experience for me. Maybe because I primarily play sports and not chess but this attitude is completely foreign and mystifying to me. Don't you feel bad when you lose? Why would you purposely engage in an ELO system that results in you feeling bad after 50% of games, and never gives you a sense of progress? Isn't that profoundly discouraging? Do you think Tiger Woods or Leo Messi wish they won fewer matches? Like I just can't get myself into a headspace where you're out for competition but are satisfied with a 50% win rate.
- lupire 2y ago
  The ELO system does give you a sense of process. Continuing to beat up weak players does not give you progress. It makes you the one eyed king of the blind. Do you think professional athletes like Woods and Messi are stupid because they could be playing in Farm League and winning every time against scrubs?
  - stackghost 2y ago
    >The ELO system does give you a sense of process. By definition it does not, unless your definition of progress is "number go up". >Do you think professional athletes are stupid because they could be playing in Little League and winning every time against kids? So let me get this straight: are you seriously suggesting that you don't understand the difference between e.g. the format of the NHL or the FIFA world cup, and playing against literal children to pad one's win rate? Because I think you're probably not arguing in good faith with that last comment. Time for me to duck out of this conversation.
    - Retric 2y ago
      Progress is in the quality of the games not just an irrelevant number. If you have a major skill gap, games become boring. Try playing Martin bot for 3 hours.
    - refulgentis 2y ago
      I honestly don't understand your point and do understand his, and definitely don't understand why you took it so aggressively. All he's saying is it's boring to win all the time.
- hn3er1q 2y ago
  It feels bad to loose but you also need the wins to feel good. Beating a low ELO player is about as fun as beating small kids at basketball or something. For me it’s not the win/loss that drives me but making fewer mistakes. If I loose a game where my opponent punished a minor mistake, fair enough, that took skill and I’ll learn from it and I don’t feel bad. But if I loose because I made a blunder (obvious tactical error) that sucks and I hate that.

refulgentis 2y ago

Because that's not a Nash equilibrium: for every extra bit of fun you have, someone else has notfun, and thus has an incentive to switch their strategy (play on another site)

omegaham 2y ago

You can always play in tournaments to figure out where you rank compared to a larger population!

stackghost 2y ago
Indeed I much prefer a tournament format.

lupire 2y ago

You would probably prefer the game Shooting Fish in a Barrel over the game Chess. Winning half the time is better because each of those wins means far far more than winning against bad players. Playing down is only fun for insecure, unambitious people. If winning is the fun part, just cheat, don't seek out bad players to play against. Playing against bad players makes you bad at chess.

stackghost 2y ago
Edit: never mind you're the same guy constructing strawman arguments in the other thread

wslh 2y ago

I haven't read this thread in that way: if you want to improve your skills that is great, it is your choice but you should know, realistically speaking, that at certain level you cannot improve anymore in your lifetime, except if you are part of the elite.