12 Jan 07
Originally posted by MarinkatombIt makes sense, but on solving one problem, another lesser one has been created.
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 f ...[text shortened]... e is more than 300 points lower than the band at the start of the tournie. Does that make sense?
You should take the advice of Bowmann to your opponents:
War is War, Losers.
12 Jan 07
Originally posted by MarinkatombFrankly, that doesn't concern me in the least. the fact that you still must enter those 1600-1800 tournaments is heartening. Personally, rather than not allowing you to enter, I think a better solution would be to instead have rating floors.
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 f ...[text shortened]... e is more than 300 points lower than the band at the start of the tournie. Does that make sense?
- Joined
- 07 Jun 05
- Moves
- 5301
13 Jan 07
Originally posted by zebanoI don't like rating floors - they are likely to lead to grade inflation. That is, if someone resigns a load of games, their opponents will all appear to have beaten someone rated at the floor. In one tournament I am playing, an opponent resigned all his games, but because his rating dropped, I only gained a few points from each game. With a floor, I would have gained 30 or so, without deserving them.
[...]
I think a better solution would be to instead have rating floors.
replying to Marinkatomb
It is tough for your opponents, but I don't see a fairer way to let you play in tournaments. Plus there is a chance that you will just drop out, giving them a better chance of progressing to the next round.
Plus, there must be some way to reduce grade inflation by taking back the points you gave away by resigning.
I guess that most people like to see their rating go up, as that tells them that they are improving. If that is to mean something, then the same rating should consistantly imply the same ability. This means that in one tournament you give away a bunch of points by resigning, but in the next your opponents face a low rated opponent of the same ability. Easy points one day, risk of losing them the next.
Not sure if the above is coherent or not. In any case, I think you should be able to enter, and your opponents should not have any reason to complain - your ability matches the tournament band.
Cheers,
Gezza
- Joined
- 21 Aug 03
- Moves
- 603250
20 Jan 07
Originally posted by buffalobillThis would work in some cases, however in a longer tournament, for example, Tournament 875 i'd feel pretty agrieved if my rating peaked at 1600, and I was booted - a gain of 200 points in 18 months doesn't sound wholly unreasonable to me.
I know some people think this would be unfair to the players who have already been eliminated but what if a player rated (say) 200 points above the banded tournament which he entered were to be excluded from going through to the next round?
eg [gid]tid=1194[/gid]
21 Jan 07
Originally posted by pineapple42Agreed.
This would work in some cases, however in a longer tournament, for example, Tournament 875 i'd feel pretty agrieved if my rating peaked at 1600, and I was booted - a gain of 200 points in 18 months doesn't sound wholly unreasonable to me.
I'm in a position to win a banded tournie - but my rating now far exceeds the band when I joined. My profile graph shows this is down to either 1) Steady improvement in play, or 2) rating inflation over time - it is not an example of sandbagging.
I don't actively study the game (and only recently began to use gamesexplorer to my openings), so can only really put it down to number 2.
- Joined
- 05 Aug 04
- Moves
- 220151
12 Feb 07
1 edit
Just a quick question for the admins.
Is the (highest - 100) tourni rating all time or just over the last 100 days?
Reason for the question is that i'm sure that some sados are actually trying to keep their rating low for 100 days. If it is just over the last 100 days then I suggest we change it.
12 Feb 07
Originally posted by Grandmaster baterIt is just the last 100 days. It was previously 365 days. The reason for the compromise between 30 dyas and 365 dyas was that some players would be unduly punished who achieved falsely high ratings.
Just a quick question for the admins.
Is the (highest - 100) tourni rating all time or just over the last 100 days?
Reason for the question is that i'm sure that some sados are actually trying to keep their rating low for 100 days. If it is just over the last 100 days then I suggest we change it.
If 2 2000+ players resign in your games your rating will rise by 128 points. If you are operating towards the top of your natural band at this juncture you will be unable to enter tournies competitively for 12 months.
- Joined
- 05 Aug 04
- Moves
- 220151
26 Feb 07
Originally posted by Grandmaster baterAlready found a player who has deliberately kept his rating low for 100 days. He was at 1700+ his tourni rating is now 1420 and heading lower each day.
Just a quick question for the admins.
Is the (highest - 100) tourni rating all time or just over the last 100 days?
Reason for the question is that i'm sure that some sados are actually trying to keep their rating low for 100 days. If it is just over the last 100 days then I suggest we change it.
That's why I asked the question.
We need a better method than 100 day min entry rating or the abuse will just continue in another form. Now that he is at the level he can stay there by playing loads of games and resigning about 50% of them.
It's sad to have to think like this but unfortunately for some beating the system is more important than beating the opponent or improving.
26 Feb 07
Originally posted by Grandmaster baterYou sure they're not just being timed out in lots of games?
Already found a player who has deliberately kept his rating low for 100 days. He was at 1700+ his tourni rating is now 1420 and heading lower each day.
That's why I asked the question.
We need a better method than 100 day min entry rating or the abuse will just continue in another form. Now that he is at the level he can stay there by p ...[text shortened]... tunately for some beating the system is more important than beating the opponent or improving.
- Joined
- 05 Aug 04
- Moves
- 220151
27 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by rhbIf they are being timed out it's deliberate. The player concerned has been on every day. He also dropped his rating immediatley after the new rating system was announced.
You sure they're not just being timed out in lots of games?
I thought the idea was to stop people gaining an unfair advantage in tourni's. If someone stops playing altogether for 3 months they could come back on a tourni rating of 1200 from 2000!!!!!
Unfortunately, if you leave a hole someone will fill it.
Why not have an alltime lower floor 10% points below your highest ever rating. It's not fair that a player rated 1650+ will soon be playing in 1200-1300 tourni's.
eg; 1300 = 1170. 1500 = 1350. 1700 = 1530. 2000 = 1800.
27 Feb 07
Originally posted by Grandmaster baterNo system is going to be totally foolproof. I think they'd have to be pretty patient to keep their rating low enough so that it matters for 100 days. Bear in mind that a consistent drop in rating may also be consistent with their boss getting sniffy about the ratio of amount of time applied to chess to the amount of time applied to work...
If they are being timed out it's deliberate. The player concerned has been on every day. He also dropped his rating immediatley after the new rating system was announced.
I thought the idea was to stop people gaining an unfair advantage in tourni's. If someone stops playing altogether for 3 months they could come back on a tourni rating of 120 ...[text shortened]... laying in 1200-1300 tourni's.
eg; 1300 = 1170. 1500 = 1350. 1700 = 1530. 2000 = 1800.