Chris,
Banded or class tourneys create incredible amounts of problems by just the fact that they encourage weaker players (below 1400) to remain weaker players in order to win tourneys. When a player improves to where their rating to just into the top rated band (say 1700) they will find that they will lose most of their games. While the player who strives to keep their rating at 1500 or below can keep winning tourney after tourney.
In this system the player whose true and actoal strength is 1750 will have little incentive to play at RHP,
If you think that a 1750 player has the same chance of beating a 2100 as a 1400 beating a 1750 you would be completely wrong
Proving sandbagging is extrenely dificult, if not impossible.
I have over 30 years of experience in all aspects of chess tournaments here in the US.
You and Russ are very capable IT people.
Angela
I think one thing that can be done is to keep track of a player's highest ever rating, not just the last 30 days, and use this rather than the 30 day figure to determine eligibility. this will at least solve the problem where a, say, 1600 rated player, drops right down because of inactivity and then enters low banded tournaments. of course, this isn't a complete solution, but i think it should be part of whatever solution is adopted...
Originally posted by caissad4A 1750 has exactly the same chance of beating a 2100 as a 1400 has of beating a 1750 as the rating is based on probability theory.
Chris,
Banded or class tourneys create incredible amounts of problems by just the fact that they encourage weaker players (below 1400) to remain weaker players in order to win tourneys. When a player improves to where their rating to just into the top rated band (say 1700) they will find that they will lose most of their games. While the player who strives ...[text shortened]... aspects of chess tournaments here in the US.
You and Russ are very capable IT people.
Angela
equally the 2100 has the same chance of beating a 2450 and a 1050 has the same chance of beating a 1400.
Originally posted by STRATOSPH3R3There are no restriction on provisionals entering any tournament, besides banded tournaments. Surely, that's a fair compromise, in order to keep banded tournaments meaningful.
One of the lures of subsribing to RHP is being able to enter tournaments, and many want to do this straight away. I see what may be a simple solution for one of the problems the RHP community faces, that is create small unbanded tournaments specifically for provisionals.
D
The highest ever rating appears to be the best way to my mind. Most of us, at the lower level at least, have streaks that give us an inflated rating for a short while so most players at around the 1300 level will have peaked somewhere around 1400 at some stage.
Its not a perfect solution but it would remove most of the huge discrepancies that seem to be appearing now (although provisionals would still be a problem).
Is this really such a problem. Players are in tournaments because that was their rating at the time of entry.
A few players whose rating has dropped significantly due to timeouts should perhaps not be permitted to enter lower banded tournaments (using the highest rating over 90 days should solve this) but otherwise why penalise people who are improving and on the up. After all this is normal.
I am in a number of banded tournaments that I entered as my rating was rising.
1450-1500 - through to next round;
1500-1600 - through to next round;
1600-1700 - knocked out (my 3 wins and 3 draws lost to 4 wins, 1 draw and 1 loss);
1700-1900 - 50/50 2 games to go against same opponent, 1 won 1 lost. If I win the 1 I am through as is my outstanding opponent if he wins the other 1);
1700-1800 - winning last game which will see me through but if I lose I am out.
Not all my own way by any means so what is the big deal?
I just think you need to incorporate highest ever rating into the current system,
So if your highest ever rating has been more than (X) points over the top band you cannot enter the tournament.(for the example 50 points)
Eg Banded tourney 1350-1400
Player A
Highest rating last 30 days - 1360
Higest ever rating - 1440
Eligible to enter
Player B
Highest rating last 30 days -1360
Higest ever rating - 1560
Not eligible to enter
You could increase or decrease the allowance depending on the width of the band.
How about this then...
Banded Tournament for (say) 1400-1600 players called Band A
64 entries, play round 1 as before
At start round 2, subdivide those players who have qualified into 2 groups, those still below the max (Band A) and those above (Band A maxed).
Have those still in band play each other and those above band play each other.
At start round 3, add any new players who have breached band to the second sub-tournament etc etc
That way, eventual winner of original tournament Band A will have rating within (or very near to) max of band.
Winner of Band A-maxed will probably have higher rating.
Each group will play players roughly of their strength and both winners can be rightly proud of winning a tournament...
Make sense?
Originally posted by ChrisHow about you just add the players highest ever rating into the average rating calculation.
Hi all,
We have had a lot of feedback regarding the problem of players entering banded tournaments which are unsuited to their chess ability.
For example, a very good player may, wittingly or unwittingly, enter a lower-rated tournament band after their rating has fallen after a period of inactivity.
We also have the problem that newcomers to the site ...[text shortened]... y, if there are a number of mutually-exclusive solutions, we will put it to the vote.
-Chris
Originally posted by Dragon Fireimprovement is not a problem, but if you take a look at some 1600-tournaments, you'll find that they've been almost always won by a 2000+ player. not exactly fair. and regardless of the length of the 'highest rating since x days' period, there will always be at least one strong player working his way up.
but otherwise why penalise people who are improving and on the up. After all this is normal.
one way to eliminate this, would be to let people set their initial probational rating themselves when they join. even if some set it wrong either deliberately or by accident, the current probational algorithm will set things straigth within a couple of games. it would also save the strong players from the frustration of working their way up from 1200p.
the downside would be the possibility to more easily fix your rating with multiple accounts, but as we've already seen that done to exceed 3000 with current system, I don't see how it would really change the situation.
Originally posted by wormwoodThats reasonable if people have an idea of their rating but judging by what I read here the only people who have any idea are the better players who have played competitively in the past.
improvement is not a problem, but if you take a look at some 1600-tournaments, you'll find that they've been almost always won by a 2000+ player. not exactly fair. and regardless of the length of the 'highest rating since x days' period, there will always be at least one strong player working his way up.
one way to eliminate this, would be to let people to exceed 3000 with current system, I don't see how it would really change the situation.
Many beginners would think they are great and set a rating at 1800+. Look what that would do to ratings of those better players (than them) graded 1400. Won't it cause chaos. Perhaps ask a few questions when players join that are designed to put them into different starting brackets depending on experience. Although I think on balance the current system does work (over time) with the possible exception of strong players who could prove their rating and go in at that level. This has the added benefit of helping with cheating allegations as if a player proves a FIDE rating here of 2300 and then plays at a 2350 level the mods won't need to investigate as they will already know that is a proven rating. A flag in the profile could show this.
Originally posted by Dragon Fireyep. but after their first game against a 1800 they're (1800+(1800-400))/2 = 1600, and after just a couple of lost games they'll be just about where they should. maybe a 100-200 points off, but that's still better than the current '1200-for-all' I think.
Many beginners would think they are great and set a rating at 1800+.
It seems to me that the problems occur due to the fact the rating used for entry is based on "whatever in last 30 DAYS".
The fact that it is based on time means that if someone takes a break for a year or so and returns their highest rating in last 30 days will be lower than it should be and they will be able to enter low tournaments. Taking averages won't help this as the average will be the same, as their rating won't have moved.
What i suggest is a system based on AVERAGE RATING BASED ON THE RATING AT WHICH YOU FINISHED THE LAST 100 GAMES (or however many). This would smooth out the peaks and troughs as well as removing the dependence on time. This data is recorded anyway on the rating graph(?).
I don't think kicking people out of tournaments is going to be a useful solution as it just going annoy people and create large amounts of faffing around.
As for naming and shaming. I certainly disagree with that. If the system is ineffective it should be modified, people using the system within its boundaries, which they are, aren't at fault.
Nick