Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Site Ideas Forum

Site Ideas Forum

  1. Subscriber Marinkatomb
    wotagr8game
    14 Oct '05 10:04
    Ok, this has been discussed in multiple threads now, but in the hope that these changes may at some point happen, i thought i'd outline them in a new thread. These are not my own idea's, but having discussed this with people i think these new rules for Banded tournaments are essential to stop the abuse of lower ranked players by stronger players who enter banded tournaments below their strength!

    1. There need to be a new condition added to the tournament details. Currently they read...

    '3 points for a win, 1 for a draw. Leading player or players progress. Winner of the final group wins the tournament.'

    This should have a condition added, something like... eg, in a 1300-1349 tournament...

    Please only enter this tournament if you genuinely are this strength. Players are requested to respect the banding of this tournament, and not enter lower bands than their true strength.

    Obvious you might think, but as things currently stand, players appear to feel it is acceptable to beat up on lower ranked players in these tournaments! It is not acceptable, and the rules should state this!!

    2. Any player entering a banded tournament should have completed a minimum of 50 games. It is far too easy for new players to enter banded tournaments before they have reached their true rating which means 2100 strength players can enter 1300-1350 tournaments which is just stupid in the extreme and happens FAR too often!

    3. Players are only eligible for a tournament by their highest rating in the last 90 days, not 30 days as is the current system. Murrow suggested this and i agree with him. Most people who either resign all their games, or leave the site for a while, generally come back and play within 3 months. There are a lot of cases of 1600-2100 strength players leaving the site for a while and dropping to silly ratings like 900. There should be more done to prevent them entering very low graded tournaments. A 'Highest rating the last 90 days would go some way to resolving this i feel.

    That's it. There's not a lot here, but there doesn't need to be! A few simple changes would make these competitions much fairer to the players entering. Anyone worried about going over their band by one point, eg, a person hits 1601 for the first time and then drops below that level agian but is stuck playing 1600+ tournaments for 90 days, sorry, that's just the way it's got to be! I will no doubt suffer from this myself but something MUST be done about this problem because the banded tournaments are not currently fulfilling their purpose.

    Thank you.
  2. Standard member zakkwylder
    Mouth for war
    14 Oct '05 10:14
    Originally posted by marinakatomb
    Please only enter this tournament if you genuinely are this strength. Players are requested to respect the banding of this tournament, and not enter lower bands than their true strength.
    If they do it now, I have no reason to believe they'll start respecting this request just because its asked of them. I like the other ideas though.
  3. 14 Oct '05 11:07
    2. I think this is going a little bit overboard.

    3. This starts to get a bit too restictive, rating spikes will always happen, and anyone who's had a spike within 90 days will be discriminated against.

    I have a better suggestion. Anyone who has ever won a rating banded tournament (hence proving superiority in that band) is no longer eligible other tournaments in that band - no matter what their current rating is.
  4. Donation murrow
    penguinpuffin
    14 Oct '05 11:31
    Originally posted by marinakatomb
    looks good.
    thanks for putting it all together.
  5. Donation murrow
    penguinpuffin
    14 Oct '05 11:34 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by craigy
    most people's rating bobs up and down - obviously a 90-day high will be on average higher than their 30-day high, but it all evens out. i think everyone's 90-day high will be a good 100 points above their average rating. so long as it affects everyone the same, it's fair

    your idea about letting people win one once won't work because there are too many thousands of players on this site for that to have any effect in our lifetimes.
  6. 14 Oct '05 12:05
    Originally posted by murrow
    [b]most people's rating bobs up and down - obviously a 90-day high will be on average higher than their 30-day high, but it all evens out. i think everyone's 90-day high will be a good 100 points above their average rating. so long as it affects everyone the same, it's fair
    [b]
    Unfortunately it doesn't affect everyone the same. For example, I have only completed 4 games in the last 90 days. Therefore my susceptability to rating spikes is much less than those who complete > 100 games during the same period. Fast players will hardly ever get to enter tournaments within their rating band.
  7. Subscriber Marinkatomb
    wotagr8game
    14 Oct '05 12:18
    Originally posted by craigy
    Unfortunately it doesn't affect everyone the same. For example, I have only completed 4 games in the last 90 days. Therefore my susceptability to rating spikes is much less than those who complete > 100 games during the same period. Fast players will hardly ever get to enter tournaments within their rating band.
    I hate to break it to you buddy but it doesn't effect you. You can't enter tournaments unless you subscribe
  8. 14 Oct '05 12:28
    Originally posted by marinakatomb
    I took a look at the tournament you referred to in the other thread, and I understand your frustration.

    A few points to consider:
    1.
    Looking at checkmate187's rating graph, it seems he would still have qualified for your tournament even after 50 games, yet he is clearly too strong even for the highest rating band tournament (1750-200 if memory serves me).

    2.
    The reason his initial rating (1498) was so low is that he did not play against any high rated opponents.

    3.
    He won all except 1 of his first 20 games, so effectively his initial rating was the average rating of his first 20 opponents +400 (a bit less if you consider the provisionally rated opponents only grant +200).

    This would be as ridiculous as someone playing their first 20 games against the Top 10 players. They could lose all 20 games and get into the Top 100.

    4.
    While a 50 game limit might help a little, one could still win ALL of their first 50 games against low rated opponents and still have a low rating.

    5.
    Getting back to checkmate187; one of his first 50 games was against an opponent with a 945 rating. Effectively, this pulled his rating down - despite the fact that he won. As a result, perhaps this game should have been excluded from his provisional rating calculation.

    In other words, instead of a rating becoming confirmed after 20 games, it becomes confirmed after 20 games that do not abnormally distort the rating.

    The only problem with the provisional rating calculation system is that players must find opponents of approximately equivalent strength for it to be effective. Essentially this would encourage players to do so in order to make their rating non-provisional.
  9. Donation murrow
    penguinpuffin
    14 Oct '05 12:40
    i still think these simple proposals would get rid of 95% of current abusers.
  10. Subscriber Marinkatomb
    wotagr8game
    14 Oct '05 12:47
    Originally posted by craigy
    I took a look at the tournament you referred to in the other thread, and I understand your frustration.

    A few points to consider:
    1.
    Looking at checkmate187's rating graph, it seems he would still have qualified for your tournament even after 50 games, yet he is clearly too strong even for the highest rating band tournament (1750-200 if memory serves me ...[text shortened]... Essentially this would encourage players to do so in order to make their rating non-provisional.
    Wow, well done Craigy, Rec for u! Having said this though, i do feel that generally players reach a reasonable level by the time 50 games are completed. It would technically be possible for someone to deliberately keep their rating low but to be honest i don't think many will bother. Even a fast mover would take 2 or 3 months to complete 50 games, people only enter lower bands because they can, not because they are trying to get a cheap tournament win at any cost. Good players don't get good by throwing games.
  11. Standard member GalaxyShield
    Mr. Shield
    14 Oct '05 17:59
    Why not just have tournament mods to check banded tourneys for players who are known to be much higher than their current rating. Rating in the last 90 days is a bit harsh. Like my highest rating is 1700, I'd only be able to play in bands with people rated loads higher than me, cause I'm only about a 1650 player. With the occasional better game.
  12. 15 Oct '05 06:03
    Originally posted by marinakatomb
    I hate to break it to you buddy but it doesn't effect you. You can't enter tournaments unless you subscribe
    Really, I hadn't realised
    When I get off my lazy butt and subscribe, I won't play much faster - but I will enter tournaments.

    The point is that fast players will be disadvantaged by an extension in the highest rating in xx days.
  13. Donation murrow
    penguinpuffin
    15 Oct '05 12:19
    Originally posted by GalaxyShield
    Why not just have tournament mods to check banded tourneys for players who are known to be much higher than their current rating. Rating in the last 90 days is a bit harsh. Like my highest rating is 1700, I'd only be able to play in bands with people rated loads higher than me, cause I'm only about a 1650 player. With the occasional better game.
    wouldn't most people whose 'true' rating was 1650 have a 90-day high of at least 1700?
  14. Subscriber Suzianne
    Misfit Queen
    15 Oct '05 15:54
    Correcting the sandbagging is a noble idea and I concur.

    It will never happen though, at least through making a new rule about it.

    From what I have gathered, since there has never been any rule here against sandbagging, many players and clans act as though it is an accepted and expected behavior.

    As witness in proof of this, simply see how many people are protesting and defending this behavior here in this thread.

    However, we can always police this ourselves and make players who sandbag known, and shine a light on what they're doing and watch them scurry away like... well you get the idea...

    After all, any society can correct almost any bad behavior; it just has to make it unacceptable enough to get those who do it to stop. Look how smoking has been stigmatized over the last 10-30 years (at least in America).
  15. Standard member GalaxyShield
    Mr. Shield
    15 Oct '05 19:04
    Originally posted by murrow
    wouldn't most people whose 'true' rating was 1650 have a 90-day high of at least 1700?
    Possibly, but then we'd ALL have to probably play people who are rated at least 50 points above us but more likely 100-125 or so in the banded tournaments.