Debates
19 Jun 04
20 Jun 04
chackout Game 194340
especially move 18 by our favourite SVW .... what a move .... i like it!
🙄
20 Jun 04
1 edit
Originally posted by flexmoreI only wish I knew why. Just another move. <edit> and people wonder why I don't play chess. I really have no clue.
chackout Game 194340
especially move 18 by our favourite SVW .... what a move .... i like it!
🙄
20 Jun 04
Originally posted by StarValleyWyIt's a pretty cunning move, but I wonder what you'd have done with your knight if Digitgus saw the threat to his rook and did something about it?
I only wish I knew why. Just another move. <edit> and people wonder why I don't play chess. I really have no clue.
20 Jun 04
Originally posted by scoffs2001Look deeper 😉
hi folks,
thought id run this by you to see what you think. i recently entered a tournament called 'battle of MIDWAY 5', its a tournament for players rated between 1200 and 1400. Anyway, one of my opponents was digitgus, whos rating dropped from 1900 for him to take part, and has subsequently risen again. is this cheating, as he obviously has no business entering the tournament to begin with.
thanks, your feedback would be appreciated
Every single game in that losing streak is a move timeout (if you view all his public games look at pages 6 thru to 8), the guy lost his connection or went on holiday for a longish time (few month by the look of it) and had so many games on he took a big kicking....
20 Jun 04
Originally posted by SimonmI believe that is exactly scoffs2001's point. It's quite obvious that Digitgus's ability is far beyond the limits of the 'Midway' series, and yet he entered the tournmanet just because his rating at the time permitted it. I know the U.S. Chess Federation has implemented rating 'floors' every 200 points, to keep players from intentionally deflating their rating so they can enter big-money class sections in tournments. Maybe the same could be done here to prevent players from entering tournaments that are clearly below their playing strength?
Look deeper 😉
Every single game in that losing streak is a move timeout (if you view all his public games look at pages 6 thru to 8), the guy lost his connection or went on holiday for a longish time (few month by the look of it) and had so many games on he took a big kicking....
Incidently, my first weekend as a member here, I entered the first tournament I saw, which was a 'Midway', and didn't see the rating limitation until after the damn thing had started. So now I'm looking at having a 'Midway' tournament victory on my profile page should I eventually win it. It is for this reason that I'm in favor of rating-specific tournaments not being open to provisional players.
20 Jun 04
A simple solution is this.
From what I understand in USCF, If you are rated about 1700 for more than a few months, or with a certain number of games... etc.
Your rating can never go under about 1550 or 1600. Kind of like a 'cap' for your lowest rank possible
I am rated at 1420 or so... I don't think my rating should ever fall below 1300 regardless if I play 200 games at once or something silly. It is not really fair at all for digi to join that tourney... but he also can't join the 1600+ tourneys either! So where should digi play!?
P-
.
20 Jun 04
Originally posted by PhlabibitWell, that is the problem with having a minimum rating requirement in tournaments. It puts people in Digitgus's situation at an ethical crossroad. Personally, I don't see the point in having a minimum limit. If a 1300 wants to join an 1800-2000 tournament and get trounced, I say let him. Some may make the argument that it encourages lower players to enter higher-rated tournaments and cheat. I don't buy that. If a certain person has never cheated at chess before, I highly doubt the though would enter his mind all of a sudden because he can now join a higher-rated tournament. In the USCF, class sections aren't labeled 1600-1800, 1800-2000, etc. They're labeled U2000 (under 2000) and so on.
It is not really fair at all for digi to join that tourney... but he also can't join the 1600+ tourneys either! So where should digi play!?
P-
.
24 Jun 04
Originally posted by Natural ScienceWell, the point of a 16-1800 tournament is to have people play challenging games against people of their own ability. If two or three 1300 players jump in they'll just get trounced and reduce the playing enjoyment for everyone else
Well, that is the problem with having a minimum rating requirement in tournaments. It puts people in Digitgus's situation at an ethical crossroad. Personally, I don't see the point in having a minimum limit. If a 1300 wants to join an 1800-2000 tournament and get trounced, I say let him. Some may make the argument that it encourages lower playe ...[text shortened]... tions aren't labeled 1600-1800, 1800-2000, etc. They're labeled U2000 (under 2000) and so on.