1. Standard memberMarinkatomb
    wotagr8game
    tbc
    Joined
    18 Feb '04
    Moves
    61941
    21 Oct '05 15:041 edit
    Originally posted by Crowley
    That's the stupidest post I've seen on this subject thus far.


    Case in point:
    Someone like me, who is a decent 1300, maybe 1400 player, will be stuck playing in tournaments I can never win because a while ago I had a few good victories and some time-outs against higher rated players?

    Your proposal will stop some of the abuse, but will also penalise lower rated players who had rating spikes.


    Ludicrous.
    Nice of you to put it so politely, i thank you for that. What you are over looking is that EVERYONE will have this 'problem'. It will result in 'higher' bandings becoming weaker in strength as players can only enter based on their highest rating in 90 days. Does that make sense to you? Maybe you could do me the honour of thinking about it for more than half a second before replying. There is negligible difference in strength between a 1300 and a 1350 anyway so i don't really see why you're getting your knickers in a twist anyway....
  2. Standard memberCrowley
    Not Aleister
    Control room
    Joined
    17 Apr '02
    Moves
    91813
    21 Oct '05 15:362 edits
    Originally posted by marinakatomb
    Nice of you to put it so politely, i thank you for that. What you are over looking is that EVERYONE will have this 'problem'. It will result in 'higher' bandings becoming weaker in strength as players can only enter based on their highest rating in 90 days. Does that make sense to you? Maybe you could do me the honour of thinking about it for more t ...[text shortened]... and a 1350 anyway so i don't really see why you're getting your knickers in a twist anyway....
    You're the one who wants to strong arm people into playing tournaments above their ratings, that's why I'm 'twisting my knickers'.

    So, you want me to think before posting. You could do with a bit of that as well.

    Here's a scenario:
    A 1400-1450, 16 player banded tournament is started. Because of your 90 day value - this is the only tourney I can enter.
    15 newish members (who will all eventually go on to be solid 1500+ - 1600 players) join it.
    I join it as well. I can take on 1400s, but the 1500-1600 guys usually take me down (I think I've only beaten 1600 players three times - excluding T/Os).
    I get creamed.

    If we used the 30 day value, I would be able to (on my current performance) be allowed into the 1300-1350, two bands lower. Which would be close to my 'real' rating.

    This is probably an unlikely scenario, but still it is possible.


    I may have come across crass in my post, but like you, I'm frustrated because I'd like to at least have a chance in a tournament.

    Look at my weighted average suggestion on the previous page. I believe it has merit.
    I don't believe your suggestion has any merit. You say it will even out and have the same effect on all players, but I don't think so because it will affect the lower bands much more than the higher ones. It's very easy for a good / great player to fall down to sub 1200 and then they will kill me in tourneys of my rating range, whereas it's much more difficult to get back to your 3 month high...
  3. Standard memberMarinkatomb
    wotagr8game
    tbc
    Joined
    18 Feb '04
    Moves
    61941
    21 Oct '05 15:45
    Originally posted by Crowley
    You're the one who wants to strong arm people into playing tournaments above their ratings, that's why I'm 'twisting my knickers'.

    So, you want me to think before posting. You could do with a bit of that as well.

    Here's a scenario:
    A 1400-1450, 16 player banded tournament is started. Because of your 90 day value - this is the only tourney I can ...[text shortened]... urneys of my rating range, whereas it's much more difficult to get back to your 3 month high...
    I made my suggestion (which incidentally wasn't my idea 😉) to go hand in hand with a rule that states a player must have completed 50 games before they are allowed to enter. How many of your 1500-1600 players are going to be eligible for a 1400-1450 after 50 games? Maybe one in every blue moon (they'd have to be deliberately throwing games to achieve this...). Don't forget, the players who are just a little stronger than you, will have slightly higher spikes than you also. They'll have to be playing in even higher bands, what's the problem?
  4. Standard memberCrowley
    Not Aleister
    Control room
    Joined
    17 Apr '02
    Moves
    91813
    21 Oct '05 16:04
    Originally posted by marinakatomb
    I made my suggestion (which incidentally wasn't my idea 😉) to go hand in hand with a rule that states a player must have completed 50 games before they are allowed to enter. How many of your 1500-1600 players are going to be eligible for a 1400-1450 after 50 games? Maybe one in every blue moon (they'd have to be deliberately throwing games to achieve ...[text shortened]... her spikes than you also. They'll have to be playing in even higher bands, what's the problem?
    The bottom line is, there might still be people playing in completely the wrong banding using your system.

    I can't see Russ ever employing a 'X amount of games' rule before allowing tournament entry. He needs as much incentive as he can create for people to subscribe, so that will never happen. Even if he does this, it will not guarantee that people will be playing in the correct band.
    Newish member ratings might still be very variable.

    Your 90 day value does not take into account people that have been away from the site a long time.


    Hence, we need a weighted average rating system.
  5. Johannesburg
    Joined
    02 May '04
    Moves
    13066
    21 Oct '05 21:31
    Originally posted by marinakatomb
    Nice of you to put it so politely, i thank you for that. What you are over looking is that EVERYONE will have this 'problem'. It will result in 'higher' bandings becoming weaker in strength as players can only enter based on their highest rating in 90 days. [text shortened]...
    Correction, not everyone will have this problem.

    Fast players will get rating spikes more frequently, and hence their 90 days highest rating will almost always push them into a higher rating band. Slow players will have little trouble playing within their rating band.
  6. SubscriberPonderable
    chemist
    Linkenheim
    Joined
    22 Apr '05
    Moves
    653714
    04 Nov '05 15:50
    Since the discussion is reving in other parts and I really think this is the right place I add a suggestion.

    There would be (virtually) no problem in recording a all-tim-high rating for a player.

    Players should not be allowed in bands at a certain value under their all-time-high. Such as 150 points.

    * We can't rule for the newcomers. People subscribe for playing tournaments. If one has to finish 50 games it will take more than a year for slow players (think of woodworm or wilfried). But I have no grudge against the newcomers only against the 'returners.
  7. Standard memberGalaxyShield
    Mr. Shield
    Joined
    02 Sep '04
    Moves
    174290
    04 Nov '05 16:26
    Originally posted by Ponderable
    Since the discussion is reving in other parts and I really think this is the right place I add a suggestion.

    There would be (virtually) no problem in recording a all-tim-high rating for a player.

    Players should not be allowed in bands at a certain value under their all-time-high. Such as 150 points.

    * We can't rule for the newcomers. People su ...[text shortened]... woodworm or wilfried). But I have no grudge against the newcomers only against the 'returners.
    I don't think setting rating highs or lows for entering banded tournaments will work. Either what's happening currently with high players entering low bands or people not getting to play in their actually rating bands due to what all of you seem to be proposing.

    I think the easiest solution would be to keep things the way they are now, but add tournament mods to check banded and or kick people out of bands which they don't belong in. I'll volunteer to do the job, not much else to do these days anyway.
  8. Standard memberAiko
    Nearing 250000...!
    Joined
    23 Mar '04
    Moves
    249493
    04 Nov '05 18:35
    But to do so you need very hard criteria. We don't want this to be arbitrary.
  9. Standard membernonnymoose
    Average Guy
    Chicago, IL
    Joined
    29 Nov '04
    Moves
    80174
    05 Nov '05 01:21
    Originally posted by gezza
    [b]Your suggestion is flawed in a number of ways.

    1. If I cannot enter banded tournaments at my current rating, then I cannot enter at all. I have to wait until my rating stabilizes.
    So? There are non-banded tournaments for you to enter. What makes you think it's fair to enter a BANDED tournament of players much weaker than you?

    There are OPEN tournaments. Banded tournaments are to allow people to play with like skilled players. We shouldn't need extra controls or rules or moderation if people had any sense of pride an honor.

    But alas...that's lacking so we need rules and moderation etc. Something needs to be done.

    I'm all for simply a flag for anyone who's rating goes 200 or so pts above the band....that should trigger a moderator to _consider_ whether the player has improved -- or is sandbagging.

    Once the moderators start doing something about the sandbagging, it will stop.

    Nonny
  10. Standard memberCrowley
    Not Aleister
    Control room
    Joined
    17 Apr '02
    Moves
    91813
    05 Nov '05 08:18
    My suggestions on the previous pages rocks.

    You all should go and read them - you'll see why that's the only true solution to this problem.

    I rule.
  11. Standard memberRagnorak
    For RHP addons...
    tinyurl.com/yssp6g
    Joined
    16 Mar '04
    Moves
    15013
    05 Nov '05 10:181 edit
    Originally posted by marinakatomb
    [b]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![/b]
    I don't think this is as important as it might look at the moment. We're still seeing tournaments finish up with players waayyy above the bands, which is just a legacy from when provisional players could enter banded tournies.

    [EDIT] After reading this thread some more, it appears that people don't realise that provisionals can't enter banded tournaments.

    D
  12. Standard memberRagnorak
    For RHP addons...
    tinyurl.com/yssp6g
    Joined
    16 Mar '04
    Moves
    15013
    05 Nov '05 11:02
    Originally posted by Crowley
    My suggestions on the previous pages rocks.

    You all should go and read them - you'll see why that's the only true solution to this problem.

    I rule.
    I think you've got a nice idea, but the weighting you give doesn't work.

    For myself, it works quite well as I have steadily increased and hovered around my highest rating. (Roughly) Applying your formula...
    1200-1300 0 months
    1300-1400
    1400-1500
    1500-1600 4 months 413.33
    1600-1700 2 months 220
    1700-1800 4 month 466.66
    1800-1900 5 months 616.66
    Total: 15 months
    Banding: 1716
    Which would put me in the 1700-1799 band which would be right, IMO.

    But look at Checkmate187...
    1200-1300 0 months
    1300-1400
    1400-1500
    1500-1600 10 days 139
    1600-1700 12 days 178
    1700-1800 3 days 47
    1800-1900 5 days 83
    1900-2000 4 days 70
    2000-2100 12 days 221
    2100-2200 30 days 567
    2200-2300 25 days 506
    Total: 111 days
    Band: 1811

    He's obviously not an 1800-1899 player.

    I'm not sure (yet) how to fix this, but I don't think time should be taken into account. Dustn's a 1900odd player. If he leaves for a few months, then these months shouldn't be used in the calculation due to his non-activity.

    I think Ponderable's suggestion is probably the best. But the spike shouldn't be just one game. If you calculate the spike as the highest 30 day (maybe 10/30 game average seeing as time should be omitted from the calculation) average, then people wouldn't get screwed if some higher rated players got auto T/O'd.

    Instead of banning players from banded tournies until 50 games have been played (even though I can see the merits of this), players who are obviously on the rise, for example User 170139 upto September, their bands should be determined by the highest rating of their beaten opponents. If they beat 2 1600+ players while rated at 1400 while being unbeaten against 1500+ players, then their band should be 1600-1700. As soon as the angle of ascent levels off (I'm sure there are ways to figure this out mathematically), then the normal method of banding is employed again.

    D
  13. London
    Joined
    05 Mar '03
    Moves
    6047
    06 Nov '05 23:42
    Originally posted by Pie1120
    You'll never fairly solve this problem. You can only limit it a bit.

    1) You must be non-provisionally rated. Not a big fix, but it helps the lower bands.

    2) If your rating exceeds the maximum rating by 100 + 100*Rnd# during the tournament, you will be removed from the tournament at the end of your current round and the second place person in your gr ...[text shortened]... urnaments are long. This allows for improvement of the player.

    Just something to bat around.
    This is by far the best suggestion in this thread, IMHO. Tinkering with entry criteria seems doomed to me, but having a fairly simple rule to cope with drastically improved players might just work.

    One further idea - why not give players excluded in this way some kind of compensatory kudos? Maybe enter them into an exclusive 'improvers' tournament?

    On the other hand, could the second-best player in a group exploit the system by resigning tactically?
  14. Standard memberCrowley
    Not Aleister
    Control room
    Joined
    17 Apr '02
    Moves
    91813
    07 Nov '05 07:02
    Originally posted by Ragnorak
    I think you've got a nice idea, but the weighting you give doesn't work.
    Yup, I know.

    Like I said - I'm no statistician, so my idea is not perfect. Someone who knows something of stats could refine a system like this.
    I believe that a weighted average system is the only way to go though.

    Using any 'static values' like highest ever rating is no good, because no matter how much you refine it, spikes in rating due to other factors not related to skill level will influence a system like that.
    A weighted average system will 'even out' any spikes and give a better representation of a person's true rating. Obviously periods of inactivity paired with high rating drops could be excluded to disregard big downward spikes...
    And steady climbers could get a double weighting for their last X games (or time spent in that band) to inflate their average rating and accurately represent their current rating.
  15. Standard memberRagnorak
    For RHP addons...
    tinyurl.com/yssp6g
    Joined
    16 Mar '04
    Moves
    15013
    07 Nov '05 11:22
    Originally posted by Crowley
    Yup, I know.

    Like I said - I'm no statistician, so my idea is not perfect. Someone who knows something of stats could refine a system like this.
    I believe that a weighted average system is the only way to go though.

    Using any 'static values' like highest ever rating is no good, because no matter how much you refine it, spikes in rating due to oth ...[text shortened]... ent in that band) to inflate their average rating and accurately represent their current rating.
    I've been thinking about it some more, and I don't think this is the way to go.

    It seems to me that there are 2 seperate, though similar, problems here.
    1) New players joining banded tournies before they rise to their true rating
    2) Old players who's ratings have dropped due to T/Os entering lower banded tournies.

    So, IMO, you need 2 seperate solutions.

    To solve number 2, I'm sure the best solution is to use a rating spike minus a certain number of rating points as their floor. Instead of taking a one game spike as their spike, this rating spike should be gotten by getting the highest average of 10 (maybe some other number: 20/30?? ) continuous games. This minus say 100 or 150 could be set as the rating floor, purely for banded tournaments. Their rating could still drop below this floor.

    When they come back, they can still enter banded tournies at their floor rating.

    For new players, who haven't reached their correct rating, then they should only be allowed in banded tournies above the rating of their highest opponent in a game in which they won. If they have beaten 1600s, then they are in the 1600+ band until they beat a 1700. If they then get beaten by a 1600 while still rated below 1600, their band could be reduced by 1 band.

    D
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree