Tournament Entry Rating

I'm a bottom-feeder, but there are lots of us, and I usually play in the 0-1150 range. Missed the last two offerings, now at last there's another - a 0-1250 but one of the players enrolled in it is a known sandbagger with a current TER in the 1200s, a past rating above 1500 and a decidedly contrived-looking profile graph. Since I have no desire to play multiple games in a tourney where the likely winner is so obvious, I won't be entering this one either.

Engine cheats don't worry bottom-feeders because we rarely encounter them, but sandbaggers ruin it for everyone.

I hope one day that the "last 365 days" is changed to "last 1000 days" because I think it would be fairer to all the honest players on the site.

Indeed I am still in favour for a fixed rating floor. This can be fixed at say 200 points below the absolute max. The TER should be defined to be higher than this or stop at this point.

Btw Kewpie I saw at least 4 players who don't belong there.

edit Tournament 21413

Originally posted by Ponderable
Indeed I am still in favour for a fixed rating floor. This can be fixed at say 200 points below the absolute max. The TER should be defined to be higher than this or stop at this point.

Btw Kewpie I saw at least 4 players who don't belong there.

edit Tournament 21413

This tourney, as it's come out, is nowhere near the worst I've seen on the site.

I've just made a list of entrants, sorted by highest-ever rating.
There is a range gap of 322 points between highest and lowest entrants.

If you allow a 200-point floor, three of the 24 would be excluded. If you remove those three, the range gap would be 231.
Allowing a 150-point floor would exclude another four, and make the range gap 185.

That range gap would really make it an interesting tourney, wouldn't it? but probably 200 points is the number we should aim for. That's 200 points below highest-EVER rating.

Let the TER be calculated exactly as it is, but use highest-ever rating rather than just 365 days. What do others think?

Originally posted by Kewpie
This tourney, as it's come out, is nowhere near the worst I've seen on the site.

I've just made a list of entrants, sorted by highest-ever rating.
There is a range gap of 322 points between highest and lowest entrants.

If you allow a 200-point floor, three of the 24 would be excluded. If you remove those three, the range gap would be 231.
Allowing a 1 ...[text shortened]... exactly as it is, but use highest-ever rating rather than just 365 days. What do others think?

I support this idea

Originally posted by Kewpie
This tourney, as it's come out, is nowhere near the worst I've seen on the site.

I've just made a list of entrants, sorted by highest-ever rating.
There is a range gap of 322 points between highest and lowest entrants.

If you allow a 200-point floor, three of the 24 would be excluded. If you remove those three, the range gap would be 231.
Allowing a 1 ...[text shortened]... exactly as it is, but use highest-ever rating rather than just 365 days. What do others think?

I assume by highest ever you mean the 5 year rating and I agree that this is probably the best indicator of a player's ability although it cannot be relied on 100%.What if someone has become disenchanted with the site and handed it over to their son or daughter example?
In principle I do support the ratings floor idea.

A secondary point: my rating wanders between 1000 and 1200, and sometimes I'd like to enter a particular 1150-1200 but my TER's currently 1149. It would be good if you could also be eligible to enter the band immediately ABOVE your present TER. Don't know how difficult that would be to implement, though.

Originally posted by Kewpie
A secondary point: my rating wanders between 1000 and 1200, and sometimes I'd like to enter a particular 1150-1200 but my TER's currently 1149. It would be good if you could also be eligible to enter the band immediately ABOVE your present TER. Don't know how difficult that would be to implement, though.

They'd just have to alter the t.e.r calculation I suppose, but I can't see it happening.
Not sure if club tournaments use the same rules, but I suspect they do.

Oh good, another Octet - 1150-1200 - but no, there's a 1400 in there already. Same old same old.

Hi Kewpie,

I, like many here have already said, am in favour of a rating floor of some kind.

Recently, I've been entering tournaments usually with bandings around 1700-1800, but quite often I see people with a TER below 1600 playing.
I wouldn't mind so much, except I've actually seen people resigning games from drawn positions, sometimes even from won positions, just because they've lost a game or two and can't win the group.

...and of course there's the fact that if you were to lose a game to them, your own rating is affected more than it should be!

Question is, how hard is it to change the TER system?
Should it be changed at all?

Originally posted by 64squaresofpain
Hi Kewpie,

I, like many here have already said, am in favour of a rating floor of some kind.

Recently, I've been entering tournaments usually with bandings around 1700-1800, but quite often I see people with a TER below 1600 playing.
I wouldn't mind so much, except I've actually seen people resigning games from drawn positions, sometimes even ...[text shortened]... hould be!

Question is, how hard is it to change the TER system?
Should it be changed at all?

As I've said many times before on a variety of subjects,wherever there's a system some people will find a way to manipulate it to their advantage so it's probably not worth the time and effort to alter it.
I'll try and send you more clan games Zak.MY system is not so easy to beat!!

Originally posted by 64squaresofpain

Recently, I've been entering tournaments usually with bandings around 1700-1800, but quite often I see people with a TER below 1600 playing.

Just wanna point out that I meant to say people with current ratings <1600, not TER.

A players' current rating for the most part does not match their playing strength, it can be misleading towards others,
and should they win, the ratings of others will be affected more adversely than what I'd argue it should be.

This is the only thing that really bothers me.
I understand and accept if nothing can be changed, this is a good site as it is.

Does it make any sense to float that thread?

If we don't keep asking, it will never happen.

Please Russ, give us a rating floor of 200 below our highest-ever rating, or change the 365 days to 2000 days in the TER calculation. Either would do.

Originally posted by Kewpie
If we don't keep asking, it will never happen.

Please Russ, give us a rating floor of 200 below our highest-ever rating, or change the 365 days to 2000 days in the TER calculation. Either would do.

Rec'd

It is not right that people are entering tournaments with a TER that is 400+ points higher than their current rating!

@veca

Player X, whose true rating is 1800, has been away from the site for two years (after resigning 50+ games when he left) and has just returned. He may or may not have been playing OTB during the gap, so his current true rating may be 1900 or 1600. He can enter open tournaments, but they are few, so he signs up for whatever his TER will allow, in this case the 0-1150 bottom group only. Of course it's a boring exercise for him, but it's plain miserable for the other players in that tourney. If a lifetime rating floor of 200 points had been in place, he'd be tackling the 1600 group, who at least would make reasonable opponents for him.

We need more open tourneys or wide-banded tourneys to accommodate these people.