Ladders - the long climb

After 22 consecutives wins from position 280 in November, I have at last reached the top 6 on the 1-day Ladder. Only once on that 'climb' did I play anyone over 1500.

So I ask myself, without being disrespectful to my good-natured opponents, what has been the point? Because I joined the ladder after the initial start, I had to enter at the bottom. Had I joined from the start, I'd have been placed straight in position 1.

The difference has been 22 fairly one-sided games in which I've needed to challenge players rated 1000-1200 points below me. To be honest, I haven't felt comfortable doing that - it feels too much like bullying.

There has to be a better way, surely. Perhaps allowing new entrants to join a Ladder no more than, say, 40 places below their nominal position. As it is, thanks to my opponents playing quickly, it has taken me 8 months to reach the top. Had they used all their entitlement, it would have taken me over two years!

Originally posted by atticus2
After 22 consecutives wins from position 280 in November, I have at last reached the top 6 on the 1-day Ladder. Only once on that 'climb' did I play anyone over 1500.

So I ask myself, without being disrespectful to my good-natured opponents, what has been the point? Because I joined the ladder after the initial start, I had to enter at the bottom. Had I ...[text shortened]... reach the top. Had they used all their entitlement, it would have taken me over two years!

Several of the players were above 1500!

Man of War , AtillaTheHorn, dairymaid, Luck, afx, Barnacles.

Had you joined at the start you would have been number one and would have then needed to wait for someone in the top 10 to challenge you.

Unless you subsequently lost you would be hanging around waiting for someone to challenge you at all times.

You could then argue what is the point of joining the ladder just to sit at the top?

While I appreciate it is frustating to have to play lower rated players, with little concept of the game compared to yourself, I believe that starting people, regardless of their rating at the bottom of the pack, is the fairest way to do things.

The next argument could be why have an annual championship, just give it to the highest rated entrant.

Well done on top 6 - lets see if you can make it to number 1.

Well: "only those who do not dread the long and fatiguing climb..."
It could be a problem for higher rated players joining ladders, especially with slower time limits.
All you can really do is enjoy the journey by challenging players nearest to you in rating. It seems to me, based on a quick look at the ladder I am in, that there is a wide enough spread of playing strengths on the lower and middle rungs to keep it interesting, and that should continue to be the case as long as higher rated players players keep joining.

I made a difference in entering the ladders. I entered the 7 day ladder when it was founded, so I am in de top 10. I like to stay there, as I can challenge good players like David Tebb and can be challenge by other good players. That's fun.

I entered later the 3 day and 14 day ladders. It is also fun to see how fast you can climb to the top. I started on december the 3rd 2009 in de 3 day ladder on position 590. Now, 15 victories later, I am on spot 350. Way to go!

Originally posted by atticus2
After 22 consecutives wins from position 280 in November, I have at last reached the top 6 on the 1-day Ladder. Only once on that 'climb' did I play anyone over 1500.

So I ask myself, without being disrespectful to my good-natured opponents, what has been the point? Because I joined the ladder after the initial start, I had to enter at the bottom. Had I ...[text shortened]... reach the top. Had they used all their entitlement, it would have taken me over two years!

i'm sure a lot of your opponents aren't saying it was a waste of time.

Originally posted by atticus2
After 22 consecutives wins from position 280 in November, I have at last reached the top 6 on the 1-day Ladder. Only once on that 'climb' did I play anyone over 1500.

So I ask myself, without being disrespectful to my good-natured opponents, what has been the point? Because I joined the ladder after the initial start, I had to enter at the bottom. Had I ...[text shortened]... reach the top. Had they used all their entitlement, it would have taken me over two years!

It was great having a chance to getting trounced by you!

Originally posted by atticus2
After 22 consecutives wins from position 280 in November, I have at last reached the top 6 on the 1-day Ladder. Only once on that 'climb' did I play anyone over 1500.

So I ask myself, without being disrespectful to my good-natured opponents, what has been the point? Because I joined the ladder after the initial start, I had to enter at the bottom. Had I ...[text shortened]... reach the top. Had they used all their entitlement, it would have taken me over two years!

I think the real problem here is that you can only challenge a player ten spots above you. This makes for a very long climb to the top and probably discourages many players from participating in the ladders.

I've played on a different site where you're allowed to climb the ladder 10% at a time. So if there were 280 players in a particular ladder then you could challenge someone 28 spots above your current position. You could then reach the top in as little as 10 games no matter how big the ladder.

That 10% rule sounds quite sensible. It provides a realistic timeframe for progression.

As it is, if I were to enter the 3-day ladder at pos. 843, then by winning every 30-move game in which both players used their allotted time, I would reach the top ten after 40 years 😲

This presents a problem: I doubt I have 40 years left :'(

ps. Progress on the 7-day ladder would take 70 years; on the 21-day ladder, 132 years

Just to add a thought: If you challenge people who are in fact going up themselves your climb will be faster. In the 7 day TO andreagm got 68 spaces with one win last month.

Don't forget that a lot of people leave the Ladders - or do not renew their subscriptions. Some will also die, based on atticus2's argument, so that'll make the climb quicker?

Yes, Swiss Toni, it does indeed!

I reached Nr. 6 after my long climb. Then I challenged Nr. 3 and drew, so stayed at Nr. 6. Since then I haven't played a single game on the ladder. But now I'm Nr. 4 😲

Originally posted by atticus2
Yes, Swiss Toni, it does indeed!

I reached Nr. 6 after my long climb. Then I challenged Nr. 3 and drew, so stayed at Nr. 6. Since then I haven't played a single game on the ladder. But now I'm Nr. 4 😲

So after all is said and done you are now just sitting around in the top 10, having played just one Ladder game game since the 9th July, waiting patiently for a fellow top 10 player to become available to play.

It is also likely that at your skill levels the games when they do occur will take much longer.

For the top players the ladders are merely another table which they sit atop.

Maybe you should leave the ladder, rejoin and see if you can get to the top quicker next time 😛

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Why are you here then?

SPAM?

I was surprised when looking up the 1day ladder that tehre are still 1500's and 1600's in the first page.