1. Standard memberRBHILL
    Acts 13:48
    California
    Joined
    21 May '03
    Moves
    223260
    19 Oct '05 02:551 edit
    How about ranking them in order of points instead of rating?
  2. London
    Joined
    28 Sep '04
    Moves
    110329
    19 Oct '05 09:43
    Originally posted by RBHILL
    How about ranking them in order of points instead of rating?
    Because we already have a system to see who is top; their points tally goes orange. It is just generally better to have them ranked in rating order. That way everyone look for a certain player in a tournament without having to sift through all of the players.
  3. Subscriberinvigorate
    Only 1 F in Uckfield
    Buxted UK
    Joined
    27 Feb '02
    Moves
    212013
    19 Oct '05 11:10
    Originally posted by RBHILL
    How about ranking them in order of points instead of rating?
    It is also then easier to see how you've performed against your rating.
  4. Standard memberAiko
    Nearing 200000...!
    Joined
    23 Mar '04
    Moves
    208392
    19 Oct '05 13:20
    Originally posted by RBHILL
    How about ranking them in order of points instead of rating?
    I like this idea a bit better than the order it is presented now. This gives a steady list, otherwise it would just be dynamic, with inflated ratings making things look a bit odd every now and then.
  5. Standard memberAiko
    Nearing 200000...!
    Joined
    23 Mar '04
    Moves
    208392
    25 Oct '05 18:44
    I was thinking: if (hopefully if) at a time an average rating is used for controlled entry to tournaments with rating limits, why don't we use that average rating to sort the list too. It will be dynamic still, but it would not change that much, I guess. In that way the order in the list represents somewhat the real differences among the players (best at the first position vertical top and horizontal left, the weakest at the bottom and right). That way it is nicer to view and compare the points scored by each player according to status.
  6. Johannesburg
    Joined
    02 May '04
    Moves
    13019
    25 Oct '05 20:19
    Originally posted by invigorate
    It is also then easier to see how you've performed against your rating.
    It isn't easier to see how you performed against your rating, because the current rating is used. So if your rating improves, suddenly your performance seems less impressive.

    I would prefer to see rating as at start of the tournament - this would give a better indication of performance.
  7. Standard memberAiko
    Nearing 200000...!
    Joined
    23 Mar '04
    Moves
    208392
    25 Oct '05 23:27
    But if one due to timeouts has a rating of 1000 but normally 1500, the listing will then always show that person as a 1000's player although a few weeks later he or she can have a rating of 1500 again.
Back to Top