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

Site Ideas Forum

  1. 14 Nov '10 12:37
    ladders with rating limits
  2. Subscriber coquette
    Already mated
    15 Nov '10 14:29
    Originally posted by moggybogg
    ladders with rating limits
    I think the problem with the ladder system will be how long it will take to climb the ladder for a new entry starting at the bottom. Would a 2100 player ever want to have to climb through years of sub 1400 games just to get to the level of competition that makes sense?

    So, a "step ladder" might just be the thing. Could there be some design that let's a player enter a "provisional ladder" to qualify for the "real ladder" at an appropriate level?

    How about just larger leaps possible for players with certain ratings? For instance, if a player is 1800 and enters the ladder, that player can challenge up to 20 higher and a 2000 player could challenge up to 40 higher? That's going to have its flaws, I suppose, too.
  3. 17 Nov '10 18:37
    Originally posted by coquette
    How about just larger leaps possible for players with certain ratings? .
    There has been a good suggestion elsewhere, allowing lager leaps.
    A 10 places range makes sense in the top 100. Below a 10% range can apply.

    Rated 200th, you could challenge up to number 181.
    Rated 500th, you could challenge up to numer 451.
  4. 18 Nov '10 00:19
    Originally posted by coquette
    I think the problem with the ladder system will be how long it will take to climb the ladder for a new entry starting at the bottom. Would a 2100 player ever want to have to climb through years of sub 1400 games just to get to the level of competition that makes sense?

    So, a "step ladder" might just be the thing. Could there be some design that let's a p ...[text shortened]... player could challenge up to 40 higher? That's going to have its flaws, I suppose, too.
    Let them work their way to the top like everyone else.

    Once they hit the top it means much fewer longer games, and they can get these just by issuing challenges to the top rated players anyhow.

    Why should a 1600 or 1800 rated players have to work their butt off to attain a top 50 place, but a 2000 rated player should be able to "jump the queue" at twice their speed?

    This was discussed in Thread 132016 where a 2300+ rated player took 5 months and 22 games to reach the top 10.

    After achieving 6th place, they played 1 game in 5 weeks !

    Less than 3 months later they quit the ladder, having failed to reach the number 1 spot.

    I see no reason to allow the better ranked players, many of who have been proven to be engine users and subsequently banned from the site, the ability to jump to the top of the ladders just because of their rating.
  5. 21 Nov '10 02:25
    Coquette is right. The rules as they stand now dooms the ladders to mediocrity. I withdrew from the 7 day ladder because I did not have the time to take on more obligatory games at this time. I would have been in the 30s after my last win on that ladder. I will not reenter at the bottom. My purpose in entering the ladder was not to get to the top, but to play opponents of similar ability. I have no interest in reentering at the bottom and spending several years beating up players rated much lower than myself.
  6. 22 Nov '10 05:57
    I agree that something should be done.
    I don't agree with having different rules for speed up the ladder as I think the 10 up, 10 down right the way through gives some integrity.

    At our squash club players joining the leagues are able to come in at the bottom of a relevant segment. Looking at the 1 day ladder - about 460 players.

    You could allow 2000+ players join at p100
    1600-2000 join at p200
    1200-1600 join at p300
    Then everyone 1199 and below start from the bottom.

    That way everyone can climb up or down at same speed, but it means the distribution is kept roughly appropriate to the skill levels.

    I have sympathy with Adramforall but if the ladder is to mean anything then it must have better ranked players at the top and lower ranked players at the bottom. Otherwise it is just freeforall.

    Most people should be seeking to people around their level and gradually improve. The ladders should facilitate that and not just be a measure of those with the most patience to hang in whilst playing lots of mediocre players as others drop out through boredom and irrelevance.
  7. 22 Nov '10 07:19
    I had further thoughts on my idea above: -

    Anyone coming at p100, p200, p300 etc would have a provisionally tag and have to be challenged at least once, maybe twice before they could challenge above - to estabilish themselves as it were.

    Whilst they were provisional they would not count as part of the 10 limit for people below. This would therefore stop anyone provisional slowing down the climb of people climbing the ladder from below.
  8. Standard member KellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    25 Nov '10 19:45
    Originally posted by coquette
    I think the problem with the ladder system will be how long it will take to climb the ladder for a new entry starting at the bottom. Would a 2100 player ever want to have to climb through years of sub 1400 games just to get to the level of competition that makes sense?

    So, a "step ladder" might just be the thing. Could there be some design that let's a p ...[text shortened]... player could challenge up to 40 higher? That's going to have its flaws, I suppose, too.
    I like the step ladder idea. Why not put a limit on ladder sizes and ratings?

    You join one of the ~100 player ladders between 1400-1699, you hit the top
    with a rating above 1600 you get moved to one of the 1600-1899 ratings.

    You get your butt kicked X times in a row on the bottom of the ladder where
    your 1400 rating is dropped below 1400 you get moved to the 1000-1399
    ladder.

    In the mean time everyone who is true to their ratings will be playing games
    that are against others with the same rating strength.

    With the largest blocks of players being at certain rating levels, there will be
    more ladders to join because of the size limits. I just picked ~100 players for
    ladder size for no good reason, we can see how many are now playing so we
    sould be able to tell what the ladder size limit should be to make getting to
    the top of any ladder something do able.

    How many ladders we need to make a static number of players work. The
    ladders would be closed to new players if it gets full till players are dropped to
    a lower rated latter or players are moved into higher level ladders.

    Heck for that matter when your rating goes over the latter limit if there is an
    opening in the next rating level, you should be able to opt out to the higher
    rating ladder too, as well as drop to the one below if your strenght isn't as
    good as your rating.
    Kelly