Have the site admins tackled banded tourn

Originally posted by tmetzler
What do you know?

I know the competition is putting this site to shame. Their responsiveness is much much faster. They do not keep their members waiting around for months for some simple change.

I'm a programmer myself, and I know that some of the changes are trivial to implement. I know that the programmers' priorities are screwed up, when they'd rather play around with the rec system than fix problems like 2000+ strength players winning U1400 banded tournaments.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
(BTW where are your brilliant insights?)?[/b]

My organizing and directing experience in chess is nearly 30 years. Resume available upon request.
When this problem was debated here in US, I was part of discussions with a number of International Arbiters, USCF officials and organizers. (Even George Koltanowski)
This is a little more complicated than you would think.
If anyone from admin would like any assistance from me in addressing this problem contact me.
BTW there are only imperfect solutions to this problem
Angela

Originally posted by caissad4
My organizing and directing experience in chess is nearly 30 years. Resume available upon request.
When this problem was debated here in US, I was part of discussions with a number of International Arbiters, USCF officials and organizers. (Even George Koltanowski)
This is a little more complicated than you would think.
If anyone from admin would like any ...[text shortened]... essing this problem contact me.
BTW there are only imperfect solutions to this problem
Angela

Actually that question was directed at irax but hey, whatever. If you can find it there have been a couple of threads in Site Ideas addressing banded tournaments and possible solutions. There are have been numerous good ideas (and some horrible ones) and basically it comes down to two seperate but related problems:

1) Players with artificially low ratings due to timeouts
2) New players without an established rating

Part 1 can be solved by some kind of qualification floor (your eligibility for tournaments has a floor say 200 points below your peak rating). Part 2 is tougher. The idea that someone (I wish I could remember who) put forward that sticks with me was combining a restriction on entering tournaments until you have a non-provisional rating (currently in place but there is a loophole*) and some kind of predictive model that attempts to predict the play level of someone based on the limited results. Seemed like a good balance between restricting players from entering tournaments they aren't suitable for and not restricting players from entering tournaments they are suitable for (which say a limit of 100 games played to enter banded tournaments would).

*Provisional players cannot enter banded tournaments but at times p1200 players can enter banded tournaments with 1200 in the band. So if you haven't played 5 games yet you could enter but not from then until 20 games.

i personally also favour a new all-time high figure (catching people who had been away for a while after timing out all their games).

a simpler solution to the second problem is simply to restrict entry to banded tournaments to those who have already completed, say, 50 games.

Xanthos,
Prov rated players only exist for a limited tine.
A player who just paid their sub fee could become rather perturbed to see that their play is restricted.
The procedure in OTB tourneys has always been that a prov rated player is eligible to play and receive prizes based upon their prov rating at the time of entering the tourney.
Perhaps creating prov only sections might help them establish a rating,

To establish an accurate rating floor would require statistics on average ratings, games completed, rating change over a given period of time.
A thorough explanation to the players is essential.

Angela

Originally posted by caissad4
Xanthos,
Prov rated players only exist for a limited tine.
A player who just paid their sub fee could become rather perturbed to see that their play is restricted.
The procedure in OTB tourneys has always been that a prov rated player is eligible to play and receive prizes based upon their prov rating at the time of entering the tourney.
Perhaps creatin ...[text shortened]... nge over a given period of time.
A thorough explanation to the players is essential.

Angela

caissad,

if you have time, read the following post, and the few posts which follow...
http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=46202&page=2#post_828738

D

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
I know the competition is putting this site to shame. Their responsiveness is much much faster. They do not keep their members waiting around for months for some simple change.

I'm a programmer myself, and I know that some of the changes are trivial to implement. I know that the programmers' priorities are screwed up, when they'd rather play around ...[text shortened]... he rec system than fix problems like 2000+ strength players winning U1400 banded tournaments.

http://www.angelfire.com/poetry/wulebgr/corr.htm

Hrm, seems to me that RHP is not exactly being put to shame. And one of the main complaints by this reviewer is a fairly significant new feature that is currently in beta-testing mode.

Some changes might be "trivial" to implement, but implementing them correctly might not. The rec changes were quick change that Russ it seems impulsively rolled out and look how many people have been upset about that.

There have been a number of good AND bad suggestions for this change, but no real concensus on which approach. I think changing something that limits the ability of paying customers to do what they actually payed for is something that requires a great deal of thought and consideration.

You say that "programmer's priorties are screwed up", how do you know this to be the case? Are YOU going to subscribe when the banded tournament changes are made? Is anybody new going to subscribe if so? Russ and Chris are programmers, but they are also the Managers/Owners, so I think they quite aware of what priorities are important to the site as a whole.

My issue was with you claiming that things take "forever" I simply find this untrue. The site has a whole lot of existing features and new features/changes are regularly rolled out, and there are new features currently in beta-testing/development that you most likely know nothing about.

If the history of RHP can be any guide, then it would be logical to ASSume that the banded tourney problem will be dealt with, but only after the mgmt. decides the appropriate course of action. I would suggest you add your two cents about the issue here: Thread 53165, the more input they have to work with, the quicker/better they can decide how to make those changes.

Originally posted by Ragnorak
caissad,

if you have time, read the following post, and the few posts which follow...
http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=46202&page=2#post_828738

D

Entering the address you gave brings me to the first page of the forum of time for chess.
It was easier finding a site which offers unlimited games to non-subs and even some tourneys and for subs: teams,tourneys and a feature where you can create your own tourneys. And to sub is only $24 US a year.
Sounds better than waiting forever for admin to address problems that admin created.
Angela

Originally posted by murrow
i personally also favour a new all-time high figure (catching people who had been away for a while after timing out all their games).

a simpler solution to the second problem is simply to restrict entry to banded tournaments to those who have already completed, say, 50 games.

The problem with "all time high" is that the rating you get after your first 5 games, doesn't always corelate to the rating you eventually level off at. If there was an "All time high" rating, then it should start after 20 games are complete.

Originally posted by huckleberryhound
The problem with "all time high" is that the rating you get after your first 5 games, doesn't always corelate to the rating you eventually level off at. If there was an "All time high" rating, then it should start after 20 games are complete.

fine, good idea

Originally posted by tmetzler
http://www.angelfire.com/poetry/wulebgr/corr.htm

Hrm, seems to me that RHP is not exactly being put to shame. And one of the main complaints by this reviewer is a fairly significant new feature that is currently in beta-testing mode.

Some changes might be "trivial" to implement, but implementing them correctly might not. The rec changes were quick c ...[text shortened]... put they have to work with, the quicker/better they can decide how to make those changes.

RHP is being put to shame in the area of responsiveness. At another site, I asked for the ability to edit forum posts. It was there within a few days. This site also gives users the ability to do things like create their own tournaments.

The banded tourney problem goes back months. People have been trying to suggest fixes for this for months. Forgive me for not being impressed with the recent thread you linked, since this type of thread has been repeated several times with no result.

The question you should ask is "How many 1200 players are going to stop subscribing if their tourneys keep getting won be experts?". Yes, sometimes changes are needed just to keep the members you have.

I have made suggestions in threads about this problem before. You can find them in 'Site Ideas'.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
Part 2 is tougher. The idea that someone (I wish I could remember who) put forward that sticks with me was combining a restriction on entering tournaments until you have a non-provisional rating (currently in place but there is a loophole*) and some kind of predictive model that attempts to predict the play level of someone based on the limited results.

Possibly me. I like maths, and tend to post on the subject given an excuse (a maths troll...)

The thread referred to earlier in this one had enough math (and a perl script) for one evening. There are alternatives, such as the system used on FICS, or the glicko2 system, both of which attempt to keep some account of the validity of a rating. The second of these also helps solve the issue of rating inflation when someone has lots of timeouts.

Just ban people from banded tournaments until their rating has a certain validity score. In one system the validity drops with time - so go away for a while and you have to play some to rebuild validity. The other is not time based, but rather based on results - as I understand it if your results cease to be consistant with your grade, the validity of your grade is reduced, and again you have to rebuild it.

Gezza

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
But I know Russ actually has a job outside of RHP. So he has to work normally, work on RHP and then spend time trawling through the rubbish that is the forums these days to read your brilliant insights (BTW where are your brilliant insights?)?

This thread was about the response that we get from the admins. The thread has gone off topic again (discussions about the actual banded tournaments problem)

I was stating that the admins don't communicate with their customers. Most of us pay 30 Dollars per year, so we're customers. There are two examples in the recent past that spring to mind.

1) Chris starts a thread to get ideas to solve the banded tournament problem. Discussions take place, then... nothing.... absolutely zero feedback to the customers.

2) We all voted about prefered length of tournaments, then..... nothing, again we're being kept in the dark.

So, my 'brilliant insight', is that the admins should become more customer focused, Ok, so Russ has another job, that makes it tough on his time for sure. BUT. We've all paid some money, if the admins want to keep their customers they have to constantly upgrade the sight and keep ahead of the competition. They are doing this.... BUT.... we don't know what they're doing!