Amazing results of LeelaKnightOdds-Dev

[Uri Blass]

I can add that I have a theory that people who can play blindfold well can do better in very fast time control relative to players with similiar strength in longer time control who cannot do it.

The reason is that they remember where the pieces are and do not need to look at the board at fast time control except seeing the last move of the opponent and it help them to avoid blunders.

Personally I cannot play a single game blindfold and there are weaker players than me(OTB) who can do it.

[Father]

I can add that I have a theory that people who can play blindfold well can do better in very fast time control relative to players with similiar strength in longer time control who cannot do it.

The reason is that they remember where the pieces are and do not need to look at the board at fast time control except seeing the last move of the opponent and it help them to avoid blunders.

Personally I cannot play a single game blindfold and there are weaker players than me(OTB) who can do it.

What Uri perceives is that I am a hindrance. For me it is absolutely clear that only the one who obtains a better performance in 1'0 and 1+1 than the one obtained by me will surpass me. In this calculation a draw will add 0.5 and a victory will add 1, a loss will not add. Where there is no fair play I will not compete. Having dismantled the Deep Blue computer instead of creating a myth, what I sowed was a sea of ​​doubts. I would like them to rebuild Deep Blue, then I would be very happy to go after the entity. I thank Professor Larry Kaufman again. I want everyone to understand that the fight against the leaders is not a personal matter, the one who wins the World Cup final is the one who has scored a goal, not necessarily the one who makes the best dribble, free kick, overhead kick or Olympic goal.

[Father]

I can add that I have a theory that people who can play blindfold well can do better in very fast time control relative to players with similiar strength in longer time control who cannot do it.

The reason is that they remember where the pieces are and do not need to look at the board at fast time control except seeing the last move of the opponent and it help them to avoid blunders.

Personally I cannot play a single game blindfold and there are weaker players than me(OTB) who can do it.

Our mind is faster than our body... "Between the bridge of the Seine River and the Seine River is the mercy of our Programmer, this means that repentance is achieved in milliseconds even and despite having jumped into the Seine River."

[Marcus91]

maybe I should add an arbitrary rule, like halve 'K' for all draws?

Doing this is like saying that a win is worth 4 draws, which means you're changing the rules of chess and, consequently, the consistency of the Elo formula. I'm not saying this because I'm currently drawing games, but because that's just how it is

Alex

The Elo formula remains consistent if you consider draws as half the weight. Four draws are not equal to one win, but rather one win and one loss. I'm not making any difference between players. If you draw against a bot rated higher than you, you will continue to rise, just slowly. By giving half the weight to draws the model assumes a better fit, this means that those who drew a lot were overestimated and those who drew little were under estimated, given that lichess blitz rating is the reference here

Thank you Marcus91 for your time and your message. You know that I am not a mathematician, so I would like you to explain it well and clear up my doubts. Let's take an example context: I find myself in a man versus machine challenge in which myself and the hundred best ranked human and machine players in the world participate, all fighting against the machines in the Harvard Cup style, of a group of coffee and coffee players. not federated, some of us are self-taught and others with non-school education, obtained outside of schools, others excellent representatives of schools. We all know in the competition that it is a race for knowledge, to obtain the
higher score. If in such a hypothetical 20-game competition I obtain 20 draws and Carlsen obtains 9 victories and one draw, does it mean that I would be the champion of the hypothetical tournament and the one with the highest rating given my best performance? If your answer is yes, then my duty is to continue playing, otherwise I don't see any point in doing so. Thank you in advance Marcus91. I remind everyone: "Any protectorate that closes the path to runners for the sole reason of competing without shoes in the marathon is an absurdity."

I understand that basically 50% will give you equal rating to the machine if you play enough games.
20 games are not enough to get a stable rating but I think that 200 games are enough.

The main problem is when you get less than 50%
If you get a draw and a loss in every 2 games that is 25% your rating is going to be smaller than a player who get 20% by a win and 4 losses every 5 games assuming a lot of games by both sides.

I think that it is not fair even if I get a better place in the table relative to humans by the new rule.

It's an arbitrary rule, like in soccer where a win earns three points and a draw earns one. The rationale behind this system is as follows:

1. Discourages excessively drawish playstyles

2. Promotes balanced time controls – This system pushes players toward time controls where they perform closer to their true skill level, discouraging the trend of favoring ultra-fast formats simply because they make it easier to grind out draws and rating points.

3. Improves rating accuracy – By adjusting the rating system to reflect more dynamic play, it aligns better with the Lichess blitz rating, ensuring a more accurate representation of a player's actual strength.

It's a thoughtful adjustment designed to balance the competitive landscape and encourage more engaging play, even if it might feel arbitrary

[Father]

maybe I should add an arbitrary rule, like halve 'K' for all draws?

Doing this is like saying that a win is worth 4 draws, which means you're changing the rules of chess and, consequently, the consistency of the Elo formula. I'm not saying this because I'm currently drawing games, but because that's just how it is

Alex

The Elo formula remains consistent if you consider draws as half the weight. Four draws are not equal to one win, but rather one win and one loss. I'm not making any difference between players. If you draw against a bot rated higher than you, you will continue to rise, just slowly. By giving half the weight to draws the model assumes a better fit, this means that those who drew a lot were overestimated and those who drew little were under estimated, given that lichess blitz rating is the reference here

Thank you Marcus91 for your time and your message. You know that I am not a mathematician, so I would like you to explain it well and clear up my doubts. Let's take an example context: I find myself in a man versus machine challenge in which myself and the hundred best ranked human and machine players in the world participate, all fighting against the machines in the Harvard Cup style, of a group of coffee and coffee players. not federated, some of us are self-taught and others with non-school education, obtained outside of schools, others excellent representatives of schools. We all know in the competition that it is a race for knowledge, to obtain the
higher score. If in such a hypothetical 20-game competition I obtain 20 draws and Carlsen obtains 9 victories and one draw, does it mean that I would be the champion of the hypothetical tournament and the one with the highest rating given my best performance? If your answer is yes, then my duty is to continue playing, otherwise I don't see any point in doing so. Thank you in advance Marcus91. I remind everyone: "Any protectorate that closes the path to runners for the sole reason of competing without shoes in the marathon is an absurdity."

I understand that basically 50% will give you equal rating to the machine if you play enough games.
20 games are not enough to get a stable rating but I think that 200 games are enough.

The main problem is when you get less than 50%
If you get a draw and a loss in every 2 games that is 25% your rating is going to be smaller than a player who get 20% by a win and 4 losses every 5 games assuming a lot of games by both sides.

I think that it is not fair even if I get a better place in the table relative to humans by the new rule.

It's an arbitrary rule, like in soccer where a win earns three points and a draw earns one. The rationale behind this system is as follows:

1. Discourages excessively drawish playstyles

2. Promotes balanced time controls – This system pushes players toward time controls where they perform closer to their true skill level, discouraging the trend of favoring ultra-fast formats simply because they make it easier to grind out draws and rating points.

3. Improves rating accuracy – By adjusting the rating system to reflect more dynamic play, it aligns better with the Lichess blitz rating, ensuring a more accurate representation of a player's actual strength.

It's a thoughtful adjustment designed to balance the competitive landscape and encourage more engaging play, even if it might feel arbitrary

Where there are "anti father" rules, father is not there. Obviously that will not represent problems for "the super champions": I choose to go play with my friend Giordano Bruno.

[Father]

maybe I should add an arbitrary rule, like halve 'K' for all draws?

Doing this is like saying that a win is worth 4 draws, which means you're changing the rules of chess and, consequently, the consistency of the Elo formula. I'm not saying this because I'm currently drawing games, but because that's just how it is

Alex

The Elo formula remains consistent if you consider draws as half the weight. Four draws are not equal to one win, but rather one win and one loss. I'm not making any difference between players. If you draw against a bot rated higher than you, you will continue to rise, just slowly. By giving half the weight to draws the model assumes a better fit, this means that those who drew a lot were overestimated and those who drew little were under estimated, given that lichess blitz rating is the reference here

Thank you Marcus91 for your time and your message. You know that I am not a mathematician, so I would like you to explain it well and clear up my doubts. Let's take an example context: I find myself in a man versus machine challenge in which myself and the hundred best ranked human and machine players in the world participate, all fighting against the machines in the Harvard Cup style, of a group of coffee and coffee players. not federated, some of us are self-taught and others with non-school education, obtained outside of schools, others excellent representatives of schools. We all know in the competition that it is a race for knowledge, to obtain the
higher score. If in such a hypothetical 20-game competition I obtain 20 draws and Carlsen obtains 9 victories and one draw, does it mean that I would be the champion of the hypothetical tournament and the one with the highest rating given my best performance? If your answer is yes, then my duty is to continue playing, otherwise I don't see any point in doing so. Thank you in advance Marcus91. I remind everyone: "Any protectorate that closes the path to runners for the sole reason of competing without shoes in the marathon is an absurdity."

I understand that basically 50% will give you equal rating to the machine if you play enough games.
20 games are not enough to get a stable rating but I think that 200 games are enough.

The main problem is when you get less than 50%
If you get a draw and a loss in every 2 games that is 25% your rating is going to be smaller than a player who get 20% by a win and 4 losses every 5 games assuming a lot of games by both sides.

I think that it is not fair even if I get a better place in the table relative to humans by the new rule.

It's an arbitrary rule, like in soccer where a win earns three points and a draw earns one. The rationale behind this system is as follows:

1. Discourages excessively drawish playstyles

2. Promotes balanced time controls – This system pushes players toward time controls where they perform closer to their true skill level, discouraging the trend of favoring ultra-fast formats simply because they make it easier to grind out draws and rating points.

3. Improves rating accuracy – By adjusting the rating system to reflect more dynamic play, it aligns better with the Lichess blitz rating, ensuring a more accurate representation of a player's actual strength.

It's a thoughtful adjustment designed to balance the competitive landscape and encourage more engaging play, even if it might feel arbitrary

...I would like to consult the results and performance of the best players against LeelaQueenOdds in bullet time control... see the performance rate in the last 60 bullet games without increase of the ten best players who have faced him since the last update... Thank you very much in advance. Where can I see it?

[Uri Blass]

maybe I should add an arbitrary rule, like halve 'K' for all draws?

Doing this is like saying that a win is worth 4 draws, which means you're changing the rules of chess and, consequently, the consistency of the Elo formula. I'm not saying this because I'm currently drawing games, but because that's just how it is

Alex

The Elo formula remains consistent if you consider draws as half the weight. Four draws are not equal to one win, but rather one win and one loss. I'm not making any difference between players. If you draw against a bot rated higher than you, you will continue to rise, just slowly. By giving half the weight to draws the model assumes a better fit, this means that those who drew a lot were overestimated and those who drew little were under estimated, given that lichess blitz rating is the reference here

Thank you Marcus91 for your time and your message. You know that I am not a mathematician, so I would like you to explain it well and clear up my doubts. Let's take an example context: I find myself in a man versus machine challenge in which myself and the hundred best ranked human and machine players in the world participate, all fighting against the machines in the Harvard Cup style, of a group of coffee and coffee players. not federated, some of us are self-taught and others with non-school education, obtained outside of schools, others excellent representatives of schools. We all know in the competition that it is a race for knowledge, to obtain the
higher score. If in such a hypothetical 20-game competition I obtain 20 draws and Carlsen obtains 9 victories and one draw, does it mean that I would be the champion of the hypothetical tournament and the one with the highest rating given my best performance? If your answer is yes, then my duty is to continue playing, otherwise I don't see any point in doing so. Thank you in advance Marcus91. I remind everyone: "Any protectorate that closes the path to runners for the sole reason of competing without shoes in the marathon is an absurdity."

I understand that basically 50% will give you equal rating to the machine if you play enough games.
20 games are not enough to get a stable rating but I think that 200 games are enough.

The main problem is when you get less than 50%
If you get a draw and a loss in every 2 games that is 25% your rating is going to be smaller than a player who get 20% by a win and 4 losses every 5 games assuming a lot of games by both sides.

I think that it is not fair even if I get a better place in the table relative to humans by the new rule.

It's an arbitrary rule, like in soccer where a win earns three points and a draw earns one. The rationale behind this system is as follows:

1. Discourages excessively drawish playstyles

2. Promotes balanced time controls – This system pushes players toward time controls where they perform closer to their true skill level, discouraging the trend of favoring ultra-fast formats simply because they make it easier to grind out draws and rating points.

3. Improves rating accuracy – By adjusting the rating system to reflect more dynamic play, it aligns better with the Lichess blitz rating, ensuring a more accurate representation of a player's actual strength.

It's a thoughtful adjustment designed to balance the competitive landscape and encourage more engaging play, even if it might feel arbitrary

Where there are "anti father" rules, father is not there. Obviously that will not represent problems for "the super champions": I choose to go play with my friend Giordano Bruno.

I agree with you and I think the best solution is to have some leaderboards based on different time controls.
Note that the rules that we have now encourage people to play in time control that they can beat the bot because 2 win and 2 draw against the bot is not equivalent to 3/4 but to 2.5/3 that is better so I guess that I can win rating by beating the bot at 15+10 but I think it is not fair.

[lkaufman]

maybe I should add an arbitrary rule, like halve 'K' for all draws?

Doing this is like saying that a win is worth 4 draws, which means you're changing the rules of chess and, consequently, the consistency of the Elo formula. I'm not saying this because I'm currently drawing games, but because that's just how it is

Alex

The Elo formula remains consistent if you consider draws as half the weight. Four draws are not equal to one win, but rather one win and one loss. I'm not making any difference between players. If you draw against a bot rated higher than you, you will continue to rise, just slowly. By giving half the weight to draws the model assumes a better fit, this means that those who drew a lot were overestimated and those who drew little were under estimated, given that lichess blitz rating is the reference here

Thank you Marcus91 for your time and your message. You know that I am not a mathematician, so I would like you to explain it well and clear up my doubts. Let's take an example context: I find myself in a man versus machine challenge in which myself and the hundred best ranked human and machine players in the world participate, all fighting against the machines in the Harvard Cup style, of a group of coffee and coffee players. not federated, some of us are self-taught and others with non-school education, obtained outside of schools, others excellent representatives of schools. We all know in the competition that it is a race for knowledge, to obtain the
higher score. If in such a hypothetical 20-game competition I obtain 20 draws and Carlsen obtains 9 victories and one draw, does it mean that I would be the champion of the hypothetical tournament and the one with the highest rating given my best performance? If your answer is yes, then my duty is to continue playing, otherwise I don't see any point in doing so. Thank you in advance Marcus91. I remind everyone: "Any protectorate that closes the path to runners for the sole reason of competing without shoes in the marathon is an absurdity."

I understand that basically 50% will give you equal rating to the machine if you play enough games.
20 games are not enough to get a stable rating but I think that 200 games are enough.

The main problem is when you get less than 50%
If you get a draw and a loss in every 2 games that is 25% your rating is going to be smaller than a player who get 20% by a win and 4 losses every 5 games assuming a lot of games by both sides.

I think that it is not fair even if I get a better place in the table relative to humans by the new rule.

It's an arbitrary rule, like in soccer where a win earns three points and a draw earns one. The rationale behind this system is as follows:

1. Discourages excessively drawish playstyles

2. Promotes balanced time controls – This system pushes players toward time controls where they perform closer to their true skill level, discouraging the trend of favoring ultra-fast formats simply because they make it easier to grind out draws and rating points.

3. Improves rating accuracy – By adjusting the rating system to reflect more dynamic play, it aligns better with the Lichess blitz rating, ensuring a more accurate representation of a player's actual strength.

It's a thoughtful adjustment designed to balance the competitive landscape and encourage more engaging play, even if it might feel arbitrary

Although this is not a rule that I advocated, it does have a certain rationale as a sort of compromise between two extreme positions. The problem here is that the engine doesn't consider the human's rating, whereas the human knows the engine's rating at any given time control. You can say that the engine could use the opponent's LiChess rating, but that is problematic because many players are unrated (nominally "1500"), at least at a specific time control. Many strong players have no Rapid rating there. So the human can aim for a draw based on relative ratings, whereas the bot assumes that the ratings are equal, having no other information. The normal way of rating works fine if both players know the ratings of both players. But it is also possible to have a rating system that simply tosses out all draws, which is called WILO (for win/loss, a pun on ELO), which is especially appropriate when one player doesn't know the opponent's rating. This is consistent with running tournaments in which draws are simply replayed rather than scored as 1/2, as was common around the year 1900 and as is done today in Norway chess. Cutting the K factor in half is a compromise between ELO and WILO, so quite easy to justify for rating engine games, although difficult to "sell" to non-mathematicians. It doesn't punish players who score 50% with lots of draws vs few draws, but it does reward players who score say 10% by wins rather than draws. Perhaps it wouldn't be needed if in the future the bot is updated in a way that makes it less inclined to take draws when still down a queen.

[Father]

maybe I should add an arbitrary rule, like halve 'K' for all draws?

Doing this is like saying that a win is worth 4 draws, which means you're changing the rules of chess and, consequently, the consistency of the Elo formula. I'm not saying this because I'm currently drawing games, but because that's just how it is

Alex

The Elo formula remains consistent if you consider draws as half the weight. Four draws are not equal to one win, but rather one win and one loss. I'm not making any difference between players. If you draw against a bot rated higher than you, you will continue to rise, just slowly. By giving half the weight to draws the model assumes a better fit, this means that those who drew a lot were overestimated and those who drew little were under estimated, given that lichess blitz rating is the reference here

Thank you Marcus91 for your time and your message. You know that I am not a mathematician, so I would like you to explain it well and clear up my doubts. Let's take an example context: I find myself in a man versus machine challenge in which myself and the hundred best ranked human and machine players in the world participate, all fighting against the machines in the Harvard Cup style, of a group of coffee and coffee players. not federated, some of us are self-taught and others with non-school education, obtained outside of schools, others excellent representatives of schools. We all know in the competition that it is a race for knowledge, to obtain the
higher score. If in such a hypothetical 20-game competition I obtain 20 draws and Carlsen obtains 9 victories and one draw, does it mean that I would be the champion of the hypothetical tournament and the one with the highest rating given my best performance? If your answer is yes, then my duty is to continue playing, otherwise I don't see any point in doing so. Thank you in advance Marcus91. I remind everyone: "Any protectorate that closes the path to runners for the sole reason of competing without shoes in the marathon is an absurdity."

I understand that basically 50% will give you equal rating to the machine if you play enough games.
20 games are not enough to get a stable rating but I think that 200 games are enough.

The main problem is when you get less than 50%
If you get a draw and a loss in every 2 games that is 25% your rating is going to be smaller than a player who get 20% by a win and 4 losses every 5 games assuming a lot of games by both sides.

I think that it is not fair even if I get a better place in the table relative to humans by the new rule.

It's an arbitrary rule, like in soccer where a win earns three points and a draw earns one. The rationale behind this system is as follows:

1. Discourages excessively drawish playstyles

2. Promotes balanced time controls – This system pushes players toward time controls where they perform closer to their true skill level, discouraging the trend of favoring ultra-fast formats simply because they make it easier to grind out draws and rating points.

3. Improves rating accuracy – By adjusting the rating system to reflect more dynamic play, it aligns better with the Lichess blitz rating, ensuring a more accurate representation of a player's actual strength.

It's a thoughtful adjustment designed to balance the competitive landscape and encourage more engaging play, even if it might feel arbitrary

Although this is not a rule that I advocated, it does have a certain rationale as a sort of compromise between two extreme positions. The problem here is that the engine doesn't consider the human's rating, whereas the human knows the engine's rating at any given time control. You can say that the engine could use the opponent's LiChess rating, but that is problematic because many players are unrated (nominally "1500"), at least at a specific time control. Many strong players have no Rapid rating there. So the human can aim for a draw based on relative ratings, whereas the bot assumes that the ratings are equal, having no other information. The normal way of rating works fine if both players know the ratings of both players. But it is also possible to have a rating system that simply tosses out all draws, which is called WILO (for win/loss, a pun on ELO), which is especially appropriate when one player doesn't know the opponent's rating. This is consistent with running tournaments in which draws are simply replayed rather than scored as 1/2, as was common around the year 1900 and as is done today in Norway chess. Cutting the K factor in half is a compromise between ELO and WILO, so quite easy to justify for rating engine games, although difficult to "sell" to non-mathematicians. It doesn't punish players who score 50% with lots of draws vs few draws, but it does reward players who score say 10% by wins rather than draws. Perhaps it wouldn't be needed if in the future the bot is updated in a way that makes it less inclined to take draws when still down a queen.

...with all due respect to the audience and the participants in the post, I consider that extraordinary steps have been taken and that we are faced with a golden opportunity that we should not waste. First of all, everything considered in the cybernetic development of the Odds is a matter of true and profound joy for lovers of the science game and the human teams behind the computers. I consider that this is not the time or the opportunity to all get into a fight here, like a fine cockfight. The important thing is to work together to implement the best products. The open tables of the 100 best, without distinction of the people who integrate them or become part of them, have been an immense step. For example, Uri has given some excellent ideas about the relevance and convenience of having lists of different time controls. The best classic, best fast, best blitz, best bullet, etc. That is an important ideal of justice to achieve. The greatest thing about all this is that under the same atmosphere, the entire chess community is being supported. Teachers, specialists, coffee players, self-taught experts, apprentice magicians and many more. Personally, I don't go after achieving sporadic draws, I go after winning against everyone, and regardless of the place I occupy, that is my goal. Categorically, any type of favoring or persecution should be avoided, here it is not about who plays beautifully and who plays ugly. It's about reaching the best positions in the street ring. If the greatest ranked human exponents do not come to the ring, it is their problem...

[Uri Blass]

maybe I should add an arbitrary rule, like halve 'K' for all draws?

Doing this is like saying that a win is worth 4 draws, which means you're changing the rules of chess and, consequently, the consistency of the Elo formula. I'm not saying this because I'm currently drawing games, but because that's just how it is

Alex

The Elo formula remains consistent if you consider draws as half the weight. Four draws are not equal to one win, but rather one win and one loss. I'm not making any difference between players. If you draw against a bot rated higher than you, you will continue to rise, just slowly. By giving half the weight to draws the model assumes a better fit, this means that those who drew a lot were overestimated and those who drew little were under estimated, given that lichess blitz rating is the reference here

Thank you Marcus91 for your time and your message. You know that I am not a mathematician, so I would like you to explain it well and clear up my doubts. Let's take an example context: I find myself in a man versus machine challenge in which myself and the hundred best ranked human and machine players in the world participate, all fighting against the machines in the Harvard Cup style, of a group of coffee and coffee players. not federated, some of us are self-taught and others with non-school education, obtained outside of schools, others excellent representatives of schools. We all know in the competition that it is a race for knowledge, to obtain the
higher score. If in such a hypothetical 20-game competition I obtain 20 draws and Carlsen obtains 9 victories and one draw, does it mean that I would be the champion of the hypothetical tournament and the one with the highest rating given my best performance? If your answer is yes, then my duty is to continue playing, otherwise I don't see any point in doing so. Thank you in advance Marcus91. I remind everyone: "Any protectorate that closes the path to runners for the sole reason of competing without shoes in the marathon is an absurdity."

I understand that basically 50% will give you equal rating to the machine if you play enough games.
20 games are not enough to get a stable rating but I think that 200 games are enough.

The main problem is when you get less than 50%
If you get a draw and a loss in every 2 games that is 25% your rating is going to be smaller than a player who get 20% by a win and 4 losses every 5 games assuming a lot of games by both sides.

I think that it is not fair even if I get a better place in the table relative to humans by the new rule.

It's an arbitrary rule, like in soccer where a win earns three points and a draw earns one. The rationale behind this system is as follows:

1. Discourages excessively drawish playstyles

2. Promotes balanced time controls – This system pushes players toward time controls where they perform closer to their true skill level, discouraging the trend of favoring ultra-fast formats simply because they make it easier to grind out draws and rating points.

3. Improves rating accuracy – By adjusting the rating system to reflect more dynamic play, it aligns better with the Lichess blitz rating, ensuring a more accurate representation of a player's actual strength.

It's a thoughtful adjustment designed to balance the competitive landscape and encourage more engaging play, even if it might feel arbitrary

Although this is not a rule that I advocated, it does have a certain rationale as a sort of compromise between two extreme positions. The problem here is that the engine doesn't consider the human's rating, whereas the human knows the engine's rating at any given time control. You can say that the engine could use the opponent's LiChess rating, but that is problematic because many players are unrated (nominally "1500"), at least at a specific time control. Many strong players have no Rapid rating there. So the human can aim for a draw based on relative ratings, whereas the bot assumes that the ratings are equal, having no other information. The normal way of rating works fine if both players know the ratings of both players. But it is also possible to have a rating system that simply tosses out all draws, which is called WILO (for win/loss, a pun on ELO), which is especially appropriate when one player doesn't know the opponent's rating. This is consistent with running tournaments in which draws are simply replayed rather than scored as 1/2, as was common around the year 1900 and as is done today in Norway chess. Cutting the K factor in half is a compromise between ELO and WILO, so quite easy to justify for rating engine games, although difficult to "sell" to non-mathematicians. It doesn't punish players who score 50% with lots of draws vs few draws, but it does reward players who score say 10% by wins rather than draws. Perhaps it wouldn't be needed if in the future the bot is updated in a way that makes it less inclined to take draws when still down a queen.

I understand the reason for cutting the K factor in half for draws but I think that it is unfair.
I think the new rule also reward players who score more than 50% without losing relative to players who lose with the same percentage.

I think that the engine can use the history against the specific player instead of the rating of the player to decide about contempt.