This idea was presented in another thread..an overall average rating. The would be a person's average rating from the entire time they have been on the site. This could be used to enter banded tourneys.
Wouldn't work for new people, but would correct for people that go drastically up and down.
I also think the idea of kicking players before the touney starts is a good one. It currently screens players as they join, why not screen again when it starts.
These are the two best ideas I think I have seen.
It looks like quite a few poeple are hoping for "manual fixes". Honestly, I think Russ is too busy running the hardware and software aspects of the site to have to go through and "manually" look at players's rating graphs and figure out if they should be in a tourney or not. Creating a "Banded Tourney Police" would be taking it a little too far....
I think we should try to think of automated fixes that could be implemented relatively easily.
Originally posted by Saint NickI was actually trying to calculate my average rating yesterday. I think this would be a great way of sorting out this problem. Perhaps if rating banded tournies were restricted to players who have completed a certain amount of games. I recon 30 seems fair. I'd like to say 50 but that excludes new starters who generally subscribe to play tournaments in the first place. i think most players would consider 30 games to be fair if it resulted in fairer banded tournies. Thats only 10 more than the provisional 20. I'd also quite like to know what my average is, i gave up after 100 games. 🙂
This idea was presented in another thread..an overall average rating. The would be a person's average rating from the entire time they have been on the site. This could be used to enter banded tourneys.
Wouldn't work for new people, but would correct for people that go drastically up and down.
I also think the idea of kicking players before the toun ...[text shortened]... think we should try to think of automated fixes that could be implemented relatively easily.
Is Russ aware of this idea? There might be an issue of performance. If the servers have to calculate these averages every time someones profile is opened or whenever a tournament page is displayed it might affect the site performance.
Running a ratings check b4 the tournament starts is essential though!
Originally posted by marinakatombKeeping track of an average is not a big hit on the server. It only has to be recalculated once per rating change. There would be a pretty big hit in terms of code and database changes, however, and a one-time hit on populating the new data item.
Is Russ aware of this idea? There might be an issue of performance. If the servers have to calculate these averages every time someones profile is opened or whenever a tournament page is displayed it might affect the site performance.
Running a ratings check b4 the tournament starts is essential though!
I don't think career averages are the right answer here. I hope I'm slowly improving (my recent blunders cast doubt on this, however 😳 ), so my average wouldn't tell you much. nor would the average of a person with wild rating swings tell you much half way through his upswing.
I like the 30-game rule, also the second check (at tournament start). I think if these were implemented, the problem would be pretty nearly solved.
Another idea would be to petition Russ for a veterans' banded tournament or two. Of course people's definition of veteran would vary...
Originally posted by RolandYoungYes i think your right. My average is 1570, which is just about right in my oppinion. Dustinrogers could be anything though. He's easily an 1800 player but the amount of timeouts he gets are just ridiculous. He could come out with an average of 1200 and i wouldn't be surprised.
Keeping track of an average is not a big hit on the server. It only has to be recalculated once per rating change. There would be a pretty big hit in terms of code and database changes, however, and a one-time hit on populating the new data item.
I don't think career averages are the right answer here. I hope I'm slowly improving (my recent blunders ...[text shortened]... a veterans' banded tournament or two. Of course people's definition of veteran would vary...
Perhaps moves made could be the number we're looking for. Use the first star as a tournament provisional status, once 2000 moves have been made your eligible for banded tournaments. Still leaves people the option of resigning loads of games though.
Hmmm,
Yep, if we just made it the 'highest rating last 120 days' that would help alot.
and then have to have made 2000 moves before entering a tourney. I think that would help alot too. Keeps quitters out also.
Coupled with the check before the tourney starts..
I think we have three ideas that could greatly improve tourney and not cause Russ too much extra work.
Originally posted by Saint NickAgreed, highest in 120 days sounds good, but excludes new users for 4 months! Don't think Russ will go for that.
Hmmm,
Yep, if we just made it the 'highest rating last 120 days' that would help alot.
and then have to have made 2000 moves before entering a tourney. I think that would help alot too. Keeps quitters out also.
Coupled with the check before the tourney starts..
I think we have three ideas that could greatly improve tourney and not cause Russ too much extra work.
Just a straight average would also not do the trick accurately. Something that takes into account how 'long' you were in a certain rating bracket needs to be brougth into the equation. If the 'average/career' rating had a weighting for time spent in a constant rating bracket, it would be better.
The rating graphs for most people show a steady climb until they reach their average rating. If there are sudden spikes (down/up) because of timeouts or whatever, this would still show up in the average rating calculation.
If the rating could be weighted by time spent in a certain rating bracket, this would then show your 'accurate chess potential' which might not be reflected in your current (or 30/60/120 etc. day highest) rating.
I'm not statistician, but I think this could be a good solution.
Also, I think provisional rated people should be excluded. I don't know how it works at the moment?
Yeah I definately think this is a great idea. I got drawn up against someone whose rating had been 1900 in a 1200 tourney, obvioulsy I lost. He did say he felt guilty for about 5 minutes after entering and then it past. He said it was a great way to garuntee his rating shoots up again as he is playing far weaker players.
I also think the branded tourneys should stick to ranges of 100 not 200. If there is a 1200-1400 rated tournament the 1200 rated player is unlikely to win. Being a 1100-1200 player I can tell you there seems to be a big gap between us and the 1300 lot.
Alright, well, I like the idea of a longer distance for the highest rating. I also like the idea of the check at the start of the tourny. But the 2000 move rule doesn't exactly entice me to join. Now, as I am writing this, I am under the 2000 move mark. But I have achieved the 20 rated games that are required to enter a ratings limited tournament. Without these tournaments, I'd have trouble reaching the 2000 move mark. Also, something like that might just stop me from reaching into my wallet for that 20$. Knowing that I couldn't enter a tournament right away.
The first two ideas are good, but the idea of a move limit doesn't seem to strike me as a good way to do things.
-Fatty
Originally posted by Fat mans revengeI think you might have a point there, Fatty.
Alright, well, I like the idea of a longer distance for the highest rating. I also like the idea of the check at the start of the tourny. But the 2000 move rule doesn't exactly entice me to join. Now, as I am writing this, I am under the 2000 move mark. But I have achieved the 20 rated games that are required to enter a ratings limited tourname ...[text shortened]... d, but the idea of a move limit doesn't seem to strike me as a good way to do things.
-Fatty
Maybe the 20 games, as required now for a solid rating, is enough?
I like the 20 games way of doing things, by then your rating is pretty much right where it should be. It seems the biggest problem though, comes when people lose bunches of games, and their rating plummets. Then, on their way back up, this happens. As said before, I like the idea of the 120 day highest rating. That seems to keep the last 4 months in check, so anyone who takes a month off or so, won't be able to do this. Combine this with a check before the tourny starts, and we have ourselves a pretty fair tourny.
-Fatty
Seems like these ideas are acceptable by most and they seem fairly do-able.
I'll walk over and put a post-it note on Russ' desk..
I will caution you though, Russ has a huge to-do list (remember that this guy doesn't only take care of 'people' problems, but also maintains and manages the hardware, software, finances, and who knows what else for it)
If he thinks it is a good idea and decides to do it, it won't happen tomorrow. But I can assure you that he does care for his subscribers and does listen.