I Need Your Help.

hi, i'm setting up a little tournament here....Thread 105256 which you're all welcome to join btw.

but i need help sorting out the handicaps, the way the tournament works is that you have beat a lower rated player in a certain amount of moves or you lose the game and of course lower rated players just have to hold on for x amount of moves to secure the win.

i want it to be as fair as possible but i'm not sure what a fair target is for a 1800 player to beat a 1300 player, for example. i won't be giving anyone a target of under 15 moves, even a 2200 person playing a 900 rating but when the rating gap is a lot closer say 200-500 i really don't have a clue what is fair.

any ideas?

How about something like a base formula of 80 moves minus 1 for every twenty points difference in rating? For example, a 1500 would have 75 moves to defeat a 1400, while an 1800 would have 50 moves to defeat a 1200.

Originally posted by Fleabitten
How about something like a base formula of 80 moves minus 1 for every twenty points difference in rating? For example, a 1500 would have 75 moves to defeat a 1400, while an 1800 would have 50 moves to defeat a 1200.

Originally posted by trev33
50 moves for a 1800 to beat a 1200 seems like a lot of moves. i was thinking closer to 30-35 moves for a 1800 to beat a 1200. but i wasn't sure how to work it all out, if someone could come with a fair formula that would be perfect.

the person who i beat inside 20 moves was about a 1000-1100 player but i had to really work for it and got lucky in the end.

Originally posted by trev33
50 moves for a 1800 to beat a 1200 seems like a lot of moves. i was thinking closer to 30-35 moves for a 1800 to beat a 1200. but i wasn't sure how to work it all out, if someone could come with a fair formula that would be perfect.

the person who i beat inside 20 moves was about a 1000-1100 player but i had to really work for it and got lucky in the end.

Would be funny to see these games, I'm guessing the stronger players would go out of book very early, and gambiteering would be rife to aim for an open game as quickly as possible.
Fleabittens method sounds simple and straightforward, all the best things are simple.

Originally posted by zebano
The thing about 50 moves is all it really means is that the player survived to an endgame. If you want to force middlegame victories be sure to include a minimum number of moves per game (I suggest 20). Expecting even a 2000 to beat a 1200 in 15 moves is ridiculous since you should be able to get 20 moves out of a database (heck, just play the french and you'll make it).

Count me in.😵

(note I would probably count as a 1600 if I were to seriously enter, not 857.😉 )

Originally posted by Fleabitten
Okay, how about scaling it down to a base 50 - 1 move for every twenty points difference AND implement a minimum of 20 moves. Now the 1500 has 45 moves to beat the 1400 and the 1800 has 20 to beat the 1200. Any ratings difference between the two players greater than 600 points would default to the 20 move minimum.

Originally posted by Diet Coke
Count me in.😵

(note I would probably count as a 1600 if I were to seriously enter, not 857.😉 )

i've decided to use Fleabitten's 50 base formula with -1 for every 20 points rating gap. with the min possible 20 moves.

but i was think there's draws in normal chess should there be a a possible draw in this? the way i could see it working is that if you're set 35 moves to win and you win in exactly 35 moves it's a draw. below a win and above a lose...what do you think?

one problem is that a weaker player could be down in material and find all sorts of ways to delay things. You might end up with some absurd games where it is hopelessly lost, but the weaker player is able to hem his king in, make some crazy sacrifices, and hope to get to the magical move limit.

maybe you could give the weaker player an extra move that could be made at any time in the game - except that it couldn't be used after the previous move has put the opponent's king in check. That could create some fun situations.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
one problem is that a weaker player could be down in material and find all sorts of ways to delay things. You might end up with some absurd games where it is hopelessly lost, but the weaker player is able to hem his king in, make some crazy sacrifices, and hope to get to the magical move limit.

maybe you could give the weaker player an extra move that ...[text shortened]... the previous move has put the opponent's king in check. That could create some fun situations.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
maybe you could give the weaker player an extra move that could be made at any time in the game - except that it couldn't be used after the previous move has put the opponent's king in check. That could create some fun situations.[/b]