The reason why I thought I should post this despite the fact the case has been already dealt in the other forum is that I feel a lot of attention has been made on just ‘quitting action’ and not the intention behind it which weights far more significances to the problem. Also there is extra information and fact I would like to share for discussion.
Any content in this post is accessible by all BGA users for fact checks.
Games in question
1) *
2) *
Event overview:
* and * are regular partners on tichu BGA who plays game together (67 games in total). * helped * on two of the games (#* & #*) which she deliberately abandoned the games at the cost of her ELO to protect loss of his ELO on behalf. On the very last game of * after * intervention on the previous one (#*) him and his partner won and his elo shifted from 499 to 502 and finally made to the first expert player on BGA website at 02:33 (GMT) on 17/04/2023.
ELO amendment to be made:
If it weren’t her intervention(s), what will be his actual ELO and how does this reflect on the state of leaderboard of BGA tichu?
1. Recent abandonment(#*)
* (K=26.67 between 12-21 games) 113 + 49.75 = 162.75 ELO
* (K=13.33 for over 21 games) 172 + 21.62 = 193.62 ELO
* (K=13.33 for over 21 games) 458 - 22.12 = 435.88 ELO
* (K=13.33 for over 21 games) 499 - 24.38 = 474.62 ELO
Let alone this game would deduct his ELO from 499 to 475. On average, he gains +3 ELO from each victory hence, he would need to win the next minimum 8 to 9 games consecutively without a single loss in between to reach where he is now, 502 ELO.
Furthermore, one also has to take the other intervention that happened prior this game as well.
2. Previous abandonment (#354196825)
*(K=26.67 between 12-21 games) 130 + 55.60 = 185.2
* (K=13.33 for over 21 games) 409 + 11.18 = 420.2
* (K=13.33 for over 21 games) 464 - 19.15 = 444.85
* (K=13.33 for over 21 games) 474 - 19.81 = 454.19
Discussion
Two losses (roughly adds up to -44 ELO) from where he stands now will not guarantee the expert level let alone the first place in BGA leaderboard (currently * 500 ELO checked on 18/05/23). Therefore, two interventions (WIN-WIN-WIN-LOSE not WIN-WIN-LOSE-LOSE) at very critical times made by her had so much drastic impact on distorting the truth of BGA leaderboard.
In the other forum where * initially flagged her action, her reason for quitting as she stated “…a coincidence that I experienced the mental stress that caused me to quit the game” is not so convincing since this player played over 1,200 games of Tichu in this account alone suggesting she is a very skilful player in BGA and has encountered many more challenging games so far than this particular one(s) she was at before deliberate quitting. Therefore, the explanation such as “I am imperfect” or “I felt it was too much stress and anxiety for me to handle” doesn’t seem to fully justify her critical intervention which helped her partner from reaching expert level on BGA.
Furthermore, she has admitted on the other table chat when using * (which now deleted) casually to her friends during the conversation that she quitted the game (referring to table=* at that time) to protect ELO of *. I think this comment I witnessed is the direct evidence not to mention all these circumstantial evidences (quitting when your partner was the highest in rank e.g. 474/499 ELO) point directly to king-making action. So my question of ‘does the end justify the means?”, No, I do not think so. However, I understand that her original intention of helping her friend was not spiteful or vindictive and she already said on the other forum that she wouldn’t repeat this again (with or without intentions of promoting one’s ELO)
Further action
I sent an email to BGA admin for back-up data on table conversation to find the part where she admitted deliberate action due to ELO protection of her partner as well as requesting them to look at this case objectively for their judgements with the analysis I made.
If there is any part that inaccurately written, please let me know. I can also share the process of how I calculated ELO upon request.
*Moderation Edit: please do not use the Forums to call players out by name, this is what the Moderation Reports are for. The Forums should remain a general discussion.
Any content in this post is accessible by all BGA users for fact checks.
Games in question
1) *
2) *
Event overview:
* and * are regular partners on tichu BGA who plays game together (67 games in total). * helped * on two of the games (#* & #*) which she deliberately abandoned the games at the cost of her ELO to protect loss of his ELO on behalf. On the very last game of * after * intervention on the previous one (#*) him and his partner won and his elo shifted from 499 to 502 and finally made to the first expert player on BGA website at 02:33 (GMT) on 17/04/2023.
ELO amendment to be made:
If it weren’t her intervention(s), what will be his actual ELO and how does this reflect on the state of leaderboard of BGA tichu?
1. Recent abandonment(#*)
* (K=26.67 between 12-21 games) 113 + 49.75 = 162.75 ELO
* (K=13.33 for over 21 games) 172 + 21.62 = 193.62 ELO
* (K=13.33 for over 21 games) 458 - 22.12 = 435.88 ELO
* (K=13.33 for over 21 games) 499 - 24.38 = 474.62 ELO
Let alone this game would deduct his ELO from 499 to 475. On average, he gains +3 ELO from each victory hence, he would need to win the next minimum 8 to 9 games consecutively without a single loss in between to reach where he is now, 502 ELO.
Furthermore, one also has to take the other intervention that happened prior this game as well.
2. Previous abandonment (#354196825)
*(K=26.67 between 12-21 games) 130 + 55.60 = 185.2
* (K=13.33 for over 21 games) 409 + 11.18 = 420.2
* (K=13.33 for over 21 games) 464 - 19.15 = 444.85
* (K=13.33 for over 21 games) 474 - 19.81 = 454.19
Discussion
Two losses (roughly adds up to -44 ELO) from where he stands now will not guarantee the expert level let alone the first place in BGA leaderboard (currently * 500 ELO checked on 18/05/23). Therefore, two interventions (WIN-WIN-WIN-LOSE not WIN-WIN-LOSE-LOSE) at very critical times made by her had so much drastic impact on distorting the truth of BGA leaderboard.
In the other forum where * initially flagged her action, her reason for quitting as she stated “…a coincidence that I experienced the mental stress that caused me to quit the game” is not so convincing since this player played over 1,200 games of Tichu in this account alone suggesting she is a very skilful player in BGA and has encountered many more challenging games so far than this particular one(s) she was at before deliberate quitting. Therefore, the explanation such as “I am imperfect” or “I felt it was too much stress and anxiety for me to handle” doesn’t seem to fully justify her critical intervention which helped her partner from reaching expert level on BGA.
Furthermore, she has admitted on the other table chat when using * (which now deleted) casually to her friends during the conversation that she quitted the game (referring to table=* at that time) to protect ELO of *. I think this comment I witnessed is the direct evidence not to mention all these circumstantial evidences (quitting when your partner was the highest in rank e.g. 474/499 ELO) point directly to king-making action. So my question of ‘does the end justify the means?”, No, I do not think so. However, I understand that her original intention of helping her friend was not spiteful or vindictive and she already said on the other forum that she wouldn’t repeat this again (with or without intentions of promoting one’s ELO)
Further action
I sent an email to BGA admin for back-up data on table conversation to find the part where she admitted deliberate action due to ELO protection of her partner as well as requesting them to look at this case objectively for their judgements with the analysis I made.
If there is any part that inaccurately written, please let me know. I can also share the process of how I calculated ELO upon request.
*Moderation Edit: please do not use the Forums to call players out by name, this is what the Moderation Reports are for. The Forums should remain a general discussion.