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

Site Ideas Forum

  1. 06 Apr '09 11:34
    ...by restricting entry to banded tournaments.

    Entry requirements should be based on your highest ever rating less say 100/150 points.

    I am sure you would make a lot of people happy by doing so.
  2. Subscriber coquette
    Already mated
    06 Apr '09 13:53
    Originally posted by adramforall
    ...by restricting entry to banded tournaments.

    Entry requirements should be based on your [b]highest ever rating
    less say 100/150 points.

    I am sure you would make a lot of people happy by doing so.[/b]
    rec'd
  3. Standard member Phlabibit
    Mystic Meg
    06 Apr '09 14:18
    Originally posted by adramforall
    ...by restricting entry to banded tournaments.

    Entry requirements should be based on your [b]highest ever rating
    less say 100/150 points.

    I am sure you would make a lot of people happy by doing so.[/b]
    I have no idea why a 1700 or 2000+ player on this site would want to litter their profile with low-banded tourney wins. They should be too embarrassed to do it.

    Get the ratings floors figured out and put in play...

    PLX!~

    P-
  4. Standard member SwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    06 Apr '09 18:08
    Originally posted by Phlabibit
    Get the ratings floors figured out and put in play...
    Rec'd. This is the right solution.
  5. Standard member SwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    07 Apr '09 04:19
    Originally posted by adramforall
    ...by restricting entry to banded tournaments.

    Entry requirements should be based on your [b]highest ever rating
    less say 100/150 points.

    I am sure you would make a lot of people happy by doing so.[/b]
    The only reservation I have about this is that a player may have a 'hot' streak and temporarily rise to a rating they can't maintain.

    They'd be stuck forever playing in tournaments that are a bit too strong for them.
  6. Subscriber padger On Vacation
    07 Apr '09 04:58
    Why not have the highest rating over 365 days instead of the 100 as it is now
  7. Standard member Daemon Sin
    I'm A Mighty Pirateā„¢
    07 Apr '09 13:02
    Originally posted by padger
    Why not have the highest rating over 365 days instead of the 100 as it is now
    It used to be 365 days but a few people moaned about inflated ratings and it was changed to 100 days.

    I'm sure it used to be 30 days at one point as well.
  8. 07 Apr '09 14:32 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    The only reservation I have about this is that a player may have a 'hot' streak and temporarily rise to a rating they can't maintain.

    They'd be stuck forever playing in tournaments that are a bit too strong for them.
    This could be a slight problem, but how many players actually have this kind of a hot streak?

    Lets say a banded tournament is for 1600-1700's

    A genuine 1600 rated player would need a hot streak to boost them to in excess of 1800/1850 before they would be unable to enter the above tournament. I think this is unlikely to happen.

    From my own point of view I have reached a high of 1523 so would be unable to enter a tournament with an entry rating below 1373/1423.

    Current rating 1355
    Current Tournament Entry rating is 1383
    Highest rating in last 100 days is 1411

    so all fall quite closely in line with the limits proposed.

    Looking at the biggest rating fluctuation who has posted so far would be coquette, currently 259 below her best!!

    Highest every rating 1659 giving her an 1509/1559 tournament entry under the proposed.

    Current rating 1400
    Current Tournament Entry rating is 1483
    Highest rating in last 100 days is 1566

    Again the proposed system does not hit her too hard either.

    Daemon Sin

    Highest every rating 1592 giving him a 1442/1492 tournament entry under the proposed.

    Current rating 1429
    Current Tournament Entry rating is 1429
    Highest rating in last 100 days is 1429

    Again well within reach
  9. Standard member Phlabibit
    Mystic Meg
    07 Apr '09 15:56 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by adramforall
    This could be a slight problem, but how many players actually have this kind of a hot streak?

    Lets say a banded tournament is for 1600-1700's

    A genuine 1600 rated player would need a [b]hot streak
    to boost them to in excess of 1800/1850 before they would be unable to enter the above tournament. I think this is unlikely to happen.

    From my ...[text shortened]... ament Entry rating is 1429
    Highest rating in last 100 days is 1429

    Again well within reach[/b]
    The highest I saw in your profile graph (many pages!) was a big spike here or there at low 1500

    Rating floors wouldn't be based on a spike... they are based on an average over time.

    You've never averaged more than 1420 rating or so (just based on view)

    That would put your floor near 1270

    Could you live with a floor of 1270 to 1320 floor (at worst)?

    Your rating average has gone down also... so your floor would drop after a bit I imagine...

    P-
  10. Standard member SwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    07 Apr '09 17:00
    Originally posted by adramforall
    A genuine 1600 rated player would need a [b]hot streak to boost them to in excess of 1800/1850 before they would be unable to enter the above tournament. I think this is unlikely to happen.[/b]
    I'm not so sure it's unlikely.

    Perhaps a person with a large gameload gets [un]lucky and a big chunk of the games he is winning finish up all at once. This gives him a rating spike, and even though the games he's losing will also finish and bring the rating back down, he is stuck entering a higher band just due to the order his games finish.
  11. Standard member SwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    07 Apr '09 17:13
    Originally posted by Phlabibit
    The highest I saw in your profile graph (many pages!) was a big spike here or there at low 1500

    Rating floors wouldn't be based on a spike... they are based on an average over time.

    You've never averaged more than 1420 rating or so (just based on view)

    That would put your floor near 1270

    Could you live with a floor of 1270 to 1320 floor (at wo ...[text shortened]... r rating average has gone down also... so your floor would drop after a bit I imagine...

    P-
    Rating floors are not generally based on an average over time, but on an established level of performance for a certain amount of time.

    Let's use adramforall as an example. Say he has just started playing on the site, and has finished his provisionally rated games.

    At some point, he maintains a rating over 1400 for 30 rated games in a row. This sets a new floor. We round down to the nearest hundred [1400], then subtract 200. His new floor is 1200.

    This is locked in place and does not go down. Rating floors can only go up. Again, using adramforall as an example, say he later on maintains a rating over 1500 for 30 rated games in a row. This sets a new rating floor at 1300. As before, the new floor does not go down, regardless of future performance.
  12. Subscriber coquette
    Already mated
    07 Apr '09 17:49
    Okay, so rather than just a "peak" score, that sometimes isn't actually representative of the true playing strength, how about tournament rating that is determined by a minimum rating that was held for at least ten consecutive games?

    Someone could argue that ten is too few or too many, but that part can be figured out by studying the profiles of just a few players. The point is only to not penalize players that actually did have just a small meaningless spike.

    By the way, those spikes really are artificial. Some players just lag on losing games as long as possible so that their rating artificially does inflate. I think it's pretty silly and irritating, but it's all within the rules. The only point is to make banded tournaments make sense, right?
  13. Standard member Phlabibit
    Mystic Meg
    07 Apr '09 17:59
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    Rating floors are not generally based on an average over time, but on an established level of performance for a certain amount of time.

    Let's use adramforall as an example. Say he has just started playing on the site, and has finished his provisionally rated games.

    At some point, he maintains a rating over 1400 for 30 rated games in a row. This set ...[text shortened]... ing floor at 1300. As before, the new floor does not go down, regardless of future performance.
    By 'average over time' I meant performance in past month or so... not career.

    Once a player plays as a 1400 player for a month or 2 (30 games as you say) their history of having been a 1200 or 1300 player is forgotten, even if they played that way 5 years.

    P-
  14. Standard member SwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    07 Apr '09 18:49
    Originally posted by coquette
    Okay, so rather than just a "peak" score, that sometimes isn't actually representative of the true playing strength, how about tournament rating that is determined by a minimum rating that was held for at least ten consecutive games?

    Someone could argue that ten is too few or too many, but that part can be figured out by studying the profiles of just a f ...[text shortened]... it's all within the rules. The only point is to make banded tournaments make sense, right?
    That is an improvement, yes.

    The only remaining issue is that a guy like Korch, who used to be 2200+ and is now 1400, could come back and play in an 1800+ tournament [He'd have at least a 2050 tournament entry rating]. Who wants to play someone who is obviously 800 points underrated?
  15. Standard member mrmist
    Moo
    07 Apr '09 19:24
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    That is an improvement, yes.

    The only remaining issue is that a guy like Korch, who used to be 2200+ and is now 1400, could come back and play in an 1800+ tournament [He'd have at least a 2050 tournament entry rating]. Who wants to play someone who is obviously 800 points underrated?
    To stop that you'd have to stop that group of people from entering banded tounies at all, until their actual rating moved closer to their floor rating. That's hardly fair.

    Restricting entry paints everyone with a difference in rating as a deliberate sandbagger, when in fact there are a number of reasons why rating fluctuates. Such as upwards when people at 2200 level timeout, or downards after forgetting to visit the site for a few weeks. D'Oh.