Originally posted by ChessNutAny ideas out there yet about this? 😕
If the number of your current games is greater than your limit on accepting new challenges will you still be able to get into the tourney? I just thought of that as I have 30+ games and have my prefs set to not accept challenges until my games drop below 10. 😕
I'm signed up and excited to play! Good luck everyone!!!😀
- Joined
- 15 Aug 02
- Moves
- 34641
I'm not altogether happy with this! 😠 We all pay money to RHP and the majority of players in this tournament (who expressed a preferrence) wanted random pairings. Why on earth weren't we given what we asked for?? 🙁 I shall play this tourny out and any others that I'm involved in but after that I feel like not using the site anymore.
Why don't RHP listen to what the people who pay for the site to be maintained actually want?
Originally posted by jscarIn my opinion one of the best things about this site is the extent to which Chris and Russ listen to the users. I too expressed a preference for random pairings, and am a little disappointed it didn't happen.
I'm not altogether happy with this! 😠 We all pay money to RHP and the majority of players in this tournament (who expressed a preferrence) wanted random pairings. Why on earth weren't we given what we asked for?? 🙁 I shall play this tourny out and any others that I'm involved in but after that I feel like not using the site anymore.
Why don't RHP listen to what the people who pay for the site to be maintained actually want?
""Why on earth weren't we given what we asked for??"" No offence meant but bear in mind just how much we do get that we ask for. The tournaments were introduced because we asked for them, quick fire tourmanents with 1 day timeouts were introduced because we asked for them, other kinds of tournaments were introduced because we asked for them. And that is just for tournaments!! All over the site there are improvements and additions, better forums, pre-set boards, board co-ordinates, game names, the ability to change lots of things to do with receiving challenges in "your settings", the different site names and so on and on and on, almost all of which came about as a result of Chris and Russ LISTENING to what the people wanted. Running RHP isn't Chris and Russ's job, it's what they do when they get time. At the moment other things are being worked on like improving the top 10% of the page layout, RHP Live will resume development soon too, as well as things that we're not told about until they're introduced.
You paid how much, $20 or something like that, for a year's membership. If you feel that you're not getting good value for money then that's up to you, but what else gives this much enjoyment for a year for $20?
This isn't meaning to sound like a personal attack...it just irks me when someone writes "Why don't RHP listen to what the people who pay for the site to be maintained actually want?"...but hey, after all, you're more than entitled to think that. I just wanted to try and show how in my opinion that question/statement is wrong, ungrateful, and just simply not one that I agree with.
T1000
Originally posted by jscarThe money pays the costs of keeping this site on the internet and making it capable of supporting the bandwidth required to keep us all on-line and playing chess at almost any time of the day or night.
I'm not altogether happy with this! 😠 We all pay money to RHP and the majority of players in this tournament (who expressed a preferrence) wanted random pairings. Why on earth weren't we given what we asked for?? 🙁 I shall play this tourny out and any others that I'm involved in but after that I feel like not using the site anymore.
Why don't RHP listen to what the people who pay for the site to be maintained actually want?
The money does not pay the owners to work on all the wishes and requests of the members. They do that as a hobby because they like to do it. They have real jobs and real lives in addition to trying to keep this site alive and well.
Tournaments are a very recent addition here, and I'm sure that in time they will try and work on more of our requests. Try and be a little patient, and enjoy what we have here.
regards, Marc
I have to totally agree with Mark. When I first came on this site...which was quite awhile ago there was no talk of tournaments...hell there was only TWO different forums.
If people remember correctly it was I who asked for the Chess Theory forum...guess what...blammo they made it for us.
A brave and hard working group got together and made the ROW vs USA tournament...and the success of that led to the B.I.T. (named after me) which showed Chris and Russ exactly how much tournament play is integral to the chess world.
And they gave that to us.
More forums with a different look...lots of extra bells and whistles and options...I mean this place was awesome to begin with so long ago and look at it now.
They have done an amazing job on it...and they HAVR listened to what needed to be done from us and they have made all of these improvements from our suggestions and with us in mind.
I applaud them for it and thank them everyday.
I was gone for a few months and actually didn't have chess withdrawal so much as I did RHP withdrawal.
You can play chess on ALOT of places on the net..some for free..some that cost a little and some that cost alot.
But you won't find any better than this...simple as that.
Dave
- Joined
- 15 Aug 02
- Moves
- 34641
Originally posted by Alley CrimeOK OK.. I was hasty, wrong and am a grotesque freak... happy now? No seriously I have read all of your critcisms and you're right. This site has changed beyond recognition in the short time I have been here, mostly in response to member's requests, and i apologise to both Chris and Russ unreservedly. Every time I have had a problem/suggestion/bug report/whatever they have responded quickly and in a most helpful fashion. Sorry both. Rant over and at least it stopped me having a smoke if that's any sort of excuse.
It looks to me as if only about 10 (out of 128) players expressed a preference for random. Stop moaning and play some (decent) chess if you can. I may even buy a pawnstar just to thrash you!
Tony
🙂
Now where was I? Oh yes..
Originally posted by Alley Crime
It looks to me as if only about 10 (out of 128) players expressed a preference for random. Stop moaning and play some (decent) chess if you can. I may even buy a pawnstar just to thrash you!
Tony
🙂
My point was that out of the people WHO HAD EXPRESSED A PREFERENCE the majority seemed to be in favour of randomised pairings. The fact that there was 10 is irrelevant to the point I was making. 118 didn't bother to express a prerence at all and so have no come-back in the result. And please don't have a pop at the standard of my chess playing. Not only is it rude and unecessary in the context of the post but at the moment it's just not what I need to hear. OK?
Once again apologies to RHP and end of subject as far as I'm concerned.
Julian😳
Thanks for the support there guys. I appreciate it. I don't expect everyone to be understanding and full of praise - but it sure it nice to hear it all the same. 😀
Right, here is the definitive(!) description of the way the tournament groups are allocated. I think I posted this to another forum, but here we go again:
The assignment of players to groups is dependant on the number of entrants and group size.
The best analogy for this is dealing a pack of cards.
Every player is a card – and the pack is ordered by rating (from higher to lower)
The number of players is divided by the preferred group size to get the number of groups. Then players are ‘dealt’ to each group until there are no more left.
The means that a higher rated player does tend to be in each group.
If people are upset about being knocked out by higher players all the time – the solution is to request a tournament for players of a lower rating only! This I can do with almost no effort, and would be happy to create one for anyone who requests it.
-Russ
Originally posted by RussRuss, I'm happy. You have given us so much for so little.
Thanks for the support there guys. I appreciate it. I don't expect everyone to be understanding and full of praise - but it sure it nice to hear it all the same. 😀
Right, here is the definitive(!) description of the way the tournament groups are allocated. I think I posted this to another forum, but here we go again:
The assignment of players to group ...[text shortened]... o with almost no effort, and would be happy to create one for anyone who requests it.
-Russ
John
Russ,
Many of us are extremely pleased with all you and Chris do for us! 😀 Just keep up the great work! Those of us 'old timers' who plan on paying up the money to get wings wouldn't have stayed here if it wasn't for your responsiveness to suggestions. As far as the cost... all I can say is WHAT A BARGAIN!!!!🙄
p.s. I believe I see a new tourney with random pairings. Hmmmm...I would have to say that was a quick response! 😉
- Joined
- 18 Dec 02
- Moves
- 48883
I know this may seem crazy, but I think a non-random approach would be better. Top half against bottom half. I know it means that somewhere in the middle someone would play the lowest ranked player and the player below that would play the highest ranked, but the difference in rankings will all be about the same.
D.E. (or direct elimination) theoretically only provides a winner. It doesn't guarantee that the winner will play the second best player in the finals, let alone that the top 4 will play in the semi-finals.
By organising the games according to a good system you increase the chances of having the person who loses the finals being the 2nd best player of the tournament, and even the top 4 players of the tournament playing in the semis.
With a random draw how far you get is largely chance, and getting to the finals doesn't necessarily mean your the second best player.
- Joined
- 15 Aug 02
- Moves
- 34641
Originally posted by ChessNut
p.s. I believe I see a new tourney with random pairings. Hmmmm...I would have to say that was a quick response! 😉
Indeed 🙂 Thanks RHP......and sorry again for any bad feeling that I may have caused others to have towards me. (At least two people who responded I have played and at least one I consider to be a very nice and considerate guy.) I'm not a bad 'un really, just a narky ol' tw*t with too much stress in his life, most of which gets relieved using this site. Most of the time when I write a post like that I have the good sense to delete it before it gets sent....occasionally a few get through and even more occasionally I actually give a toss what the people on the other end think of it and end up with a lot of regret inside. This was one of those occasions.