21 Dec 06
Originally posted by ElleEffSeeeYes, i agree!! 😏
Chris I hope this means that you will have more bands at higher levels in tournaments now. i know some people have complained about things like 1700+ tournaments when 1700 players are supposed to compete with 2300 players. Due to your revision more people will be in this band, even though they may genuinely not be 1700+, so it is massively unfair on them ...[text shortened]...
There should be a 1700-1900 band for this tournament, then possibly 1900-2000, then 2000+.
22 Dec 06
Originally posted by ElleEffSeeeI agree too, but I also think that the bands could be smaller...
Chris I hope this means that you will have more bands at higher levels in tournaments now. i know some people have complained about things like 1700+ tournaments when 1700 players are supposed to compete with 2300 players. Due to your revision more people will be in this band, even though they may genuinely not be 1700+, so it is massively unfair on them ...[text shortened]... ..
There should be a 1700-1900 band for this tournament, then possibly 1900-2000, then 2000+.
1700-1800, 1800-1900 etc. Or smaller again. There is always the arguement that the higher banded touneys don;t fill up so quickly, but then there is nothing wrong with small tournaments...
22 Dec 06
Originally posted by Grandmaster baterI see your point - so how about the same calc performed at the end of each day? Is anyone sad enough to wait 10 months to enter one tourney?
Sorry to disagree but that would not stop the sandbaggers. They would simply enter loads of tourni's resign all the games after a couple of moves and hey presto. Low rating after 300 games.
Seen it done.
- Joined
- 05 Aug 04
- Moves
- 220481
22 Dec 06
1 edit
Originally posted by CauselessOneMy point is that if a very good player chooses to stop playing for a while or cut down their games load by resigning loads of games. They then return or continue to play but at a slower rate than before then their rating may be for example 1300 after 100 days because they have stopped playing or slowed their play.
I see your point - so how about the same calc performed at the end of each day? Is anyone sad enough to wait 10 months to enter one tourney?
This anonmoly needs looking at as well. A highly rated player has done just this in the last week. In 100 days he could (and i'm not saying he would) enter 1300 banded tourni's.
I must admit I can't see where the 10 months comes from it's now 100 days?
22 Dec 06
Originally posted by Grandmaster baterIf the calc is based on 300 days, updated every night, that gives 10 months-ish. My point is that an average over a longer period, however calculated, removes the annoying peaks and makes it less attractive to generate an artifical dip. The current method of generating an average does not fully remove the peaks, and has to be limited (max-100) to prevent the troughs from having an undue influence.
My point is that if a very good player chooses to stop playing for a while or cut down their games load by resigning loads of games. They then return or continue to play but at a slower rate than before then their rating may be for example 1300 after 100 days because they have stopped playing or slowed their play.
This anonmoly needs looking at ...[text shortened]... ed tourni's.
I must admit I can't see where the 10 months comes from it's now 100 days?
Incidentally, the current situation is far better than the original, and as the rules apply to all I am quite happy with whatever solution is finally applied.
22 Dec 06
Originally posted by TDR1There have been multiple discussions about the issue. We went through these things.
but how can you deal with that? The only way that i can see is to not allow new memebers to enter touneys for a time (maybe 6 months). But this is unreasonable, because you subscribe to play in tourneys. Do you have a plausible solution to this problem?
Of course it seems Chris and Russ didn't actually read those threads (or at least didn't actually implement the ideas from).
I think the best solution was a method by which an attempt is made to estimate the rating a player will reach once their rating stabilizes.
- Joined
- 05 Aug 04
- Moves
- 220481
22 Dec 06
Originally posted by CauselessOneLast I heard it was based on 100 days.
If the calc is based on 300 days, updated every night, that gives 10 months-ish. My point is that an average over a longer period, however calculated, removes the annoying peaks and makes it less attractive to generate an artifical dip. The current method of generating an average does not fully remove the peaks, and has to be limited (max-100) to preven ...[text shortened]... ginal, and as the rules apply to all I am quite happy with whatever solution is finally applied.
31 Dec 06
Originally posted by ChrisThe new system makes it easier to enter lower graded tournaments. A recent poor run has seen my rating dip below 1500 and under the new system I can only enter tournaments up to 1500 max.
It looks like this may take a few more iterations before we get the best formula. I have reduced it from 365 days to 100 days after reviewing a number of cases where the Tournament Entry Rating was clearly unreasonable.
I realize that this makes it easier for someone determined to enter a tournament below their level to drop the points, but we may well fin ...[text shortened]... he moment and continue going through random profiles to see how fair the current system appears.
Under the old system I would not have been able to do so because of the 30 day rule. Whilst the KISS principle is sound, would it not be better to amend the rules so that a player has to play in whichever band is the higher of the new rules or the old 30 day rule?
31 Dec 06
Ok. before you write in, I know you do not play in 'bands'. The point I am making is that under the old 30 day rule I could have played in a 1501-1600 tourney but not one with a lower band.
Under the new rules I can play in a 1401-1500 tourney but not a 1501-1600 tourney.
- Joined
- 06 Aug 05
- Moves
- 42926
31 Dec 06
Originally posted by jayaitchI agree, if you drop 200 points in a day, then you can immediately start entering tournaments which are 100 points below your previous level.
The new system makes it easier to enter lower graded tournaments. A recent poor run has seen my rating dip below 1500 and under the new system I can only enter tournaments up to 1500 max.
Under the old system I would not have been able to do so because of the 30 day rule. Whilst the KISS principle is sound, would it not be better to amend the rules ...[text shortened]... at a player has to play in whichever band is the higher of the new rules or the old 30 day rule?
It makes a lot of sense to use the new rule in conjunction with the old 30 day rule.
31 Dec 06
Originally posted by IraxI suppose one way of handling this will be as Chris has suggested, namely to have tournaments with different bandings to the ones we are used to - 1325-1425, 1475-1675 etc.
I agree, if you drop 200 points in a day, then you can immediately start entering tournaments which are 100 points below your previous level.
It makes a lot of sense to use the new rule in conjunction with the old 30 day rule.
12 Jan 07
Umm, seeing as i have dropped in grade substancially recently, i thought i might point this out. I can enter an 1800+ tournament, but my opponents have to face me graded 1300 which is really unfair on them! I am in a 16-1800 final at the moment (started the other day) and one of my opponents pointed out (quite rightly) that it was unfair that he should face me while so low graded. I have agrred to play slowly with him so the game finishes when my grade is more respectable, but i feel there should be a limit on my tournament entry. My tournament entry grade is currently 1822, but i think i should be ineligible to enter a banded tournie if my grade is more than 300 points lower than the band at the start of the tournie. Does that make sense?