Originally posted by murrowI still like rating floor, but I think the longer memory idea is simple and an improvement murrow.
another (even simpler) fix:
instead of rating floors, how about a longer 'highest rating' memory - say 90 days? or 6 months?
How about, in addition to that, if you enter a tournament, then your rating rises above the band while your waiting for it to start, you should be booted.
Here is an idea, Players that manipulate the system will do so through a large amount of time-outs. If we were to credit player who win their timed out games, but not penalize the player that was just timed out, It would make it very hard for him to lower his rating very quickly, and thus, show what should be a truer rating than the one he would be at.
Originally posted by AikoYes, those who want to keep their rating will let their games time out when they are in a losing position, and those who want to lower their rating will resign their games instead of letting them time out.
But then you'll see that any (to be) lost game will end in a timeout and not in a checkmate or resignation.
Originally posted by RookRAKIf the idea of banded tournaments is to present an opportunity for "everyone" to get a chance to win a tournament - then all these ideas make such common sense I don't see where the arguments against are.
I still like rating floor, but I think the longer memory idea is simple and an improvement murrow.
Please, a rating floor for banded tournaments and longer memory - make it two years.
If a player's abilities drop so drastically that their floor is too high for them to compete in their designated band, then they miss out on just one small part of the site. Play in clans, clan leagues, open invites, sieges or the many other tournaments - or perhaps take up Parcheesi.
Originally posted by KJCavalierTwo words - Rating Inflation.
Here is an idea, Players that manipulate the system will do so through a large amount of time-outs. If we were to credit player who win their timed out games, but not penalize the player that was just timed out, It would make it very hard for him to lower his rating very quickly, and thus, show what should be a truer rating than the one he would be at.
Banded tornaments will always be a tough one. In a large tornament you must win as many as 16 games to win the tornament. This alone could move you up a band or two!
When I started playing in tornaments I found myself in the 1450-1499 band which was a bit below my average performance till then since I had been on holiday for christmas and played less games and made rather a lot of mistakes during that period.
I subscribed to the site and started entering tornaments and decided to be a bit more carefull how I play and am now rated 1633 and would have to join the 1600-1699 band and posibly compete with some players rated as high as 1750 by the end of the tornament by which time I might be back down at 1550.
Peoples ratings however do seem to naturally fluctuate between one or two bands and there is nothing that can be done about that.
Cirtainly a ban on provisional players entering banded tornaments makes lots of sense.
Originally posted by CrowleyJust testing which page I land on when posting a message...
Thread 39434
This has been rehashed many times, but really Russ, something needs to be done. Do you have any plans to regulate tournaments in the near future, especially banded tournaments?
I have been a member here for a long time and tournaments was one of the reasons I subscribed.
The only way I will ever win one is if I can beat peo ...[text shortened]... ideas have been proposed by me and some other members.
Something needs to be done ASAP.
