11 Oct 05
I've said it before, but I'll say it again. Once a player has exceeded the banding of a banded tournament by 250+ points, they should be removed!
EVERY SINGLE BANDED TOURNAMENT I HAVE ENTERED IS WON BY A PLAYER WHO EXCEEDS THE BANDING BY HUNDREDS OF POINTS!!
People know what their strength is when they enter. I could easily leave the site for a month and enter 5 or 6 1200-1250 tournaments and win them all!! What is the point in these tournaments if the rating limits are not enforced??!!
11 Oct 05
Originally posted by marinakatombRec-ed
I've said it before, but I'll say it again. Once a player has exceeded the banding of a banded tournament by 250+ points, they should be removed!
[b]EVERY SINGLE BANDED TOURNAMENT I HAVE ENTERED IS WON BY A PLAYER WHO EXCEEDS THE BANDING BY HUNDREDS OF POINTS!!
People know what their strength is when they enter. I could easily leave the si ...[text shortened]... win them all!! What is the point in these tournaments if the rating limits are not enforced??!![/b]
11 Oct 05
Tournament 472
Tournament 694
So those will both be won by players 'WHO EXCEEDS[sic] THE BANDING BY HUNDREDS OF POINTS'?
11 Oct 05
Originally posted by XanthosNZand notice ignazius was at one point rated 1840, so whats your point on that one?
Tournament 472
Tournament 694
So those will both be won by players 'WHO EXCEEDS[sic] THE BANDING BY HUNDREDS OF POINTS'?
11 Oct 05
Originally posted by marinakatombHow about restricting access to a tournament if you're rating was over a certain point for a given time. For example, If you pass the 1300 mark and are there for any period of time consistently, then access to the 1200's banded tourney's should be restricted. And so on and so forth with the other ratings in RHP. What do you think marinakatomb?
I've said it before, but I'll say it again. Once a player has exceeded the banding of a banded tournament by 250+ points, they should be removed!
[b]EVERY SINGLE BANDED TOURNAMENT I HAVE ENTERED IS WON BY A PLAYER WHO EXCEEDS THE BANDING BY HUNDREDS OF POINTS!!
People know what their strength is when they enter. I could easily leave the si ...[text shortened]... win them all!! What is the point in these tournaments if the rating limits are not enforced??!![/b]
12 Oct 05
Originally posted by marinakatomb1/ To win a tournament, you need to win most of your games. If you win more than 75% of your games against +- 1700 rated players, then your rating should be +-1900. A tournament winner's rating should be considerably higher at the end of the tournament.
[b]EVERY SINGLE BANDED TOURNAMENT I HAVE ENTERED IS WON BY A PLAYER WHO EXCEEDS THE BANDING BY HUNDREDS OF POINTS!!
People know what their strength is when they enter. I could easily leave the site for a month and enter 5 or 6 1200-1250 tournaments and win them all!! What is the point in these tournaments if the rating limits are not enforced??!![/b]
Part of the confusion may be that in most places where ratings are displayed on this site, the current rating is used instead of rating relevant to that point in time. E.g.
- Tournaments should perhaps display ratings as at the start of the tournament.
- Public games should display ratings as at the end of the game.
2/ Ratings are enforced when entering the tournament, and a control measure (highest rating in 30 days) is used to reduce the number of people who will try to cheat the system. However, as you point out: one could resign a bunch of games to bring your rating down, leave the site for a month, and return with the expectation of easily winning low-rating banded tournaments.
However, any strengthening of the control measure is more likely to just ruin the experience of people who have had rating spikes; who now have to wait longer to be eligible for tournaments matched to their actual strength.
12 Oct 05
So someone leading a tournament would have the choice of either being thrown out of that tournament or deliberately throwing games (in that tournament or elsewhere) in order to keep their rating within an arbitrary limit?
The drawbacks of your system would be greater than those of the existing system (i.e. it would be more unfair).
12 Oct 05
Originally posted by marinakatombi bet you would not win them all ... i bet some players stronger than you would pull the same trick in at least one of the tournaments.
[b]... I could easily leave the site for a month and enter 5 or 6 1200-1250 tournaments and win them all!! ...b]
but yes you are right ... except ithink the players should be kicked "upstairs' to the band above as soon as they exceed the limit ... i am sure russ would agree and will put it on his list of things to do.
12 Oct 05
Originally posted by flexmoreBut that wouldn't bloody work would it? Otherwise you'd never finish a friggin tournament because people would be jumping between bands all the time.
i bet you would not win them all ... i bet some players stronger than you would pull the same trick in at least one of the tournaments.
but yes you are right ... except ithink the players should be kicked "upstairs' to the band above as soon as they exceed the limit ... i am sure russ would agree and will put it on his list of things to do.
If someone wants to take a month off to enter a tournament below their natural rating, then f@ck 'em, they can have their small minded hollow victory.
If someone wins a tournament and in the mean time their rating goes up, then well played.
Jesus, it ain't broke, so stop trying to fix it!
ðŸ˜
12 Oct 05
Originally posted by marinakatombI can see both sides of this one: It annoys me when a high ranked player decides on a mass resignation session, pushing my rating to an unwarranted level and therefore pushing into a band i cannot compete in for the next month.
I've said it before, but I'll say it again. Once a player has exceeded the banding of a banded tournament by 250+ points, they should be removed!
[b]EVERY SINGLE BANDED TOURNAMENT I HAVE ENTERED IS WON BY A PLAYER WHO EXCEEDS THE BANDING BY HUNDREDS OF POINTS!!
People know what their strength is when they enter. I could easily leave the si ...[text shortened]... win them all!! What is the point in these tournaments if the rating limits are not enforced??!![/b]
There always seems to at least one player in my group who has hung around to enter a banded tournie, hovering in the band at point of entry before rising quickly soon after.
I feel that regular movers are punished by banded tournies as the rating is not an average rating of the last 30 days but a highest point in that period. I am normally at least 50 to 75 points off the top of the band at the start of the tournie. If I played less games the probability of big variations in rating is reduced.
12 Oct 05
1 edit
Maybe this has been said before, but it would solve most problems if only players could enter such tourneys who have been a RHP member for, let's say, a year. If players have played for a year then they usually do not have the habit of suddenly skyrocketing hundreds of points on the ratinglist.
How about this solution for the problems ?
12 Oct 05
Originally posted by XanthosNZGet a life Xanthos!! Your constant nit picking is really starting to piss me off...
Tournament 472
Tournament 694
So those will both be won by players 'WHO EXCEEDS[sic] THE BANDING BY HUNDREDS OF POINTS'?
12 Oct 05
Originally posted by XanthosNZBelieve me, you haven't upset me that much. I know the only reason you bothered to post at all was to piss me off so don't go taking any satisfaction out of the whole thing, i'm over it already.
Oh dear, I appear to have upset you in some manner. However shall I redeem myself?
12 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by marinakatombYour idea is one of those that appeals to people who don't think about it. If players will be removed from tournaments when they reach a certain rating above the limit it will be chaos.
Believe me, you haven't upset me that much. I know the only reason you bothered to post at all was to piss me off so don't go taking any satisfaction out of the whole thing, i'm over it already.
People who play very few games could find themselves in a position where they can't progress in banded tournaments because if they do well enough to do so they are removed for having too high a rating (a win against similar rated opponents are worth around 16 points each).
Say someone is coming in second in a group and can't catch the winner. It might turn out that he is best to resign his games against him so the winner is removed for having too high a rating and advancing that way.
Madness. Of course it's a popular idea but not a bright one. Shame on people for reccing without thinking.