30-Day Highest

Hi All!

I've been thinking about this for a while and I believe the 30-day high is a tough standard to work with when it comes to determining tournament eligibility.

There are a few players here who are very consistent but I think if you look at most ratings, they look like a profile of the Himalayas. How difficult is it for players who string together a few wins and peak just at the bottom of a tournament range, only to take on players who are hovering near the very TOP of that range?

I know there's no easy way to determine it but couldn't there be an AVERAGE rating to determine tournament access? That way the more games you play, the more accurate your average will be. It will help people gain some consistency in the competition they face.

As it stands now, players who get on a mild win streak are matched up against people who are dramatically better, effectively providing cannon fodder for more advanced players. Just a thought...

No rec.

The best a person plays is indicative of how well they can play. (after all, luck has no place in chess ... right? ....... right??).

I think 30-day high is fair. It's long enough to discourage people from dumping points to enter an easier tourney round (do people do that?), but short enough to follow the player's course.

After all, when a single game often lasts for a couple of months, a 1 month highpoint doesn't seem to be out of line.

Originally posted by dsb3
I think 30-day high is fair. It's long enough to discourage people from dumping points to enter an easier tourney round (do people do that?), but short enough to follow the player's course.