Originally posted by XanthosNZ Your 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.
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 rem ...[text shortened]... course it's a popular idea but not a bright one. Shame on people for reccing without thinking.
Actually i wasn't suggesting that common sense should be thrown out of the window. I was talking about situations like this...
Checkmate187 has 1 loss and a 2200+ rating! This player should not be in this tournament, full stop!
I'm not suggesting that code should be written to automatically remove players from tournaments. I'm suggesting that when it's so bleedin obvious they shouldn't be there, they should be removed. Perhaps a couple of tournament moderators would do the trick (like the game moderators). If checkmate187 had just hit a spike due to the wins in his group and hit 1850 or something, i would not have that much of a problem. However, he is now 500 points over the band!! Defend that.
EDIT: You will note that i have in fact won all my games bar one so far in the first round of this tournament. I am still inside that banding. Even if i had been 1700 at the start, i would only be 20 or 30 point over the maximum with the wins acquired so far. I accept that people will go over the top marker from time to time, but cases like checkmate187 should be open and shut in my opinion.
Originally posted by zakkwylder How 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 think if a player exceeds 1300 and completes 30 games without dropping below that rating, they should not be eligible for 1000-1200 tournaments again.
Realistically, in the lower bands there is much greater fluctuation in grades. The higher you go the less common this is. It is rare for someone of 1900+ to drop to 1600 (though it does happen with fast movers like MrShogi and Dustinrogers). All i'm calling for is a little bit of common sense moderation of these tournaments. You can easily tell when someone has entered a tournament that they shouldn't have entered!
Originally posted by marinakatomb EDIT: You will note that i have in fact won all my games bar one so far in the first round of this tournament. I am still inside that banding. Even if i had been 1700 at the start, i would only be 20 or 30 point over the maximum with the wins acquired so far. I accept that people will go over the top marker from time to time, but cases like checkmate187 should be open and shut in my opinion.
You have 40+ games in progress and 6 of them are games from that tournament. They are not the greatest influence on your rating. However if someone has say 10 games and 6 are from a single tournament.
Also note that Checkmate187 joined that tournament before he knew what his rating would finish up as. fckallie, I believe, has a tournament win the same way.
Reread your first post and tell me again how you weren't suggesting automatic ejection for 250 points above the band.
Originally posted by XanthosNZ You have 40+ games in progress and 6 of them are games from that tournament. They are not the greatest influence on your rating. However if someone has say 10 games and 6 are from a single tournament.
Also note that Checkmate187 joined that tournament before he knew what his rating would finish up as. fckallie, I believe, has a tournament win the same w ...[text shortened]... and tell me again how you weren't suggesting automatic ejection for 250 points above the band.
Are you trying to tell me that checkmate187 started playing chess on this site? No, he OBVIOUSLY didn't. According to his profile he has been playing for 10 years and has no doubt acquired numerous ratings on numerous sites before where he was no doubt rated 2000+ at least. It is now perfectly obvious that he is WAY too strong to be in a 1600-1750 tournament, why is he being allowed to continue in this tournament?
As far as i can tell from his profile, fckallie hasn't won a banded tournament (they started long after he was in the top 20 i suspect).
You haven't addressed my suggestion. Do you object to Tournament moderators using common sense to eject players from banded tournaments once it is obvious they are too strong for the banding or not? I again accept that players ratings do fluctuate. If someone won a 1600-1750 tournament with a rating of 1900, that is not the end of the world, it is within reason that a player could improve over the 6-12 months the tournament takes to complete, but 2200 before the first round is even completed?? That's just taking the pi$$ is it not?
Originally posted by murrow i've suggested it before, and it's the only solution i see to this problem.
instead of using the 30-day highest rating, there should be a six-month highest-rating figure that is used for the tourny banding.
such a stat would be really useful to see next to the current rating of players when matching up a clan challenge, as well.
There are problems with this. Imagine you were playing a 2000 rated played in 4 games, they left the site and your rating shot up 100 points while it was already quite high. You'd be out of your banding for 6 months, which would suck! Obviously this is unlikely to happen, but it could. There are other reasons why it's not such a good idea. I think there need to be a few judges to evaluate if players are genuinly eligible for these tournaments or not. Generally speaking, as i have already stated, it is obvious if a player shouldn't be in a tournament. These competitions need moderators, there wouldn't be much work involved (maybe an hour a week, tops). I'd happily volunteer for this, as would others i'm sure. You don't need to be a Master chess player to use a bit of common sense...
Originally posted by marinakatomb There are problems with this. Imagine you were playing a 2000 rated played in 4 games, they left the site and your rating shot up 100 points while it was already quite high. You'd be out of your banding for 6 months, which would suck! Obviously this is unlikely to happen, but it could. There are other reasons why it's not such a good idea. I think the ...[text shortened]... ld others i'm sure. You don't need to be a Master chess player to use a bit of common sense...
And I'll throw my 2 cents in here (again).
We need a better rating system (at least something to replace the current 30 day value). I have no problem with the rating calculation, I just think the number is not really representative of player strength.
A system that uses averages and weighting based on the time spent in certain rating bands would be much better.
I don't know statistics well enough - I can only formulate an idea.
Any statisticians out there think they can whip something up.
well I think I will start losing games so I get a rating of 1000 so i can
kick some ass.......though my current rating sugests this but hiding the fact that I have been playing c!@p of late.
but it is easy to enter a t'ment where you have a good chance of winning, but really what sado would want to have a t'ment win 1400-1499 against their c.v when they have a rating of 1700 or so.
DO THE DECENT THING! AND DON'T MOVE GET TIMED OUT AND YOUR RATING REMAINS THE SAME and let the other players fight it out in a relatively even t'ment.
Originally posted by marinakatomb Are you trying to tell me that checkmate187 started playing chess on this site? No, he OBVIOUSLY didn't. According to his profile he has been playing for 10 years and has no doubt acquired numerous ratings on numerous sites before where he was no doubt rated 2000+ at least. It is now perfectly obvious that he is WAY too strong to be in a 1600-1750 tour ...[text shortened]... ete, but 2200 before the first round is even completed?? That's just taking the pi$$ is it not?
I can defend Xanthos's argument that he didn't know what his rating would be by using myself as an example. Now I'm a 1500 OTB, and have played on another chess site where I was about 1500. I had no idea that I'd end up as high as I am when I started playing here. When I got over 1600, I entered a 1600-1649 banded tournament. So there's a good chance that Checkmate didn't know what his rating would be.
However, you still have a point that it's unfair. There's just not much that can be done about it. Since entering that banded tournament, I've climbed a lot of points, and made it to the final round. However, I'm not going to win it because the final round has people that went up even more than I did. That's how it always is. I don't deserve to win it, and nor does anyone else in the final round. But I'm not sure if kicking people out based on common sense is practical.
Originally posted by marinakatomb There are problems with this. Imagine you were playing a 2000 rated played in 4 games, they left the site and your rating shot up 100 points while it was already quite high. You'd be out of your banding for 6 months, which would suck! Obviously this is unlikely to happen, but it could. There are other reasons why it's not such a good idea. I think the ...[text shortened]... ld others i'm sure. You don't need to be a Master chess player to use a bit of common sense...
yeah i still think this would work much better than the present system, plus it would be really easy to implement.
i really don't think one freak win (or even two) against a 2000+ player is going to bump you through too many bands.
there's a maximum your rating can jump once you're non-provisional.
of course it's not perfect. maybe a three-month high would be better.
in any case it would be better than the current system and would i reckon catch 85% of current banded tourny abuse.
your idea of having banded-tournament mods is surely impractical.
Originally posted by ark13 I can defend Xanthos's argument that he didn't know what his rating would be by using myself as an example. Now I'm a 1500 OTB, and have played on another chess site where I was about 1500. I had no idea that I'd end up as high as I am when I started playing here. When I got over 1600, I entered a 1600-1649 banded tournament. So there's a good chance ...[text shortened]... in the final round. But I'm not sure if kicking people out based on common sense is practical.
This is why i'm suggesting that real people actually look into whether a player should be allowed to remain in a tournament or not. I'm in a 1600-1699 tournament, but on my day i can beat a 1800+ player (certainly not every time though). You are now well over the top band in this tournament you mentioned, which may give cause for complaint from your opponents. The fact that there are no rules regarding this kind of situation is the problem. You haven't technically done anything wrong, but i feel that, looking at your graph, you are an 1850+ rated player and shouldn't really be competing in a 1600-1650 tournie. A 200 point rating advantage is enough to technically end the competition, as the result is a for gone conclusion. There really needs to be some rules here, as banded tournaments are currently just an easy way for strong players (mostly new starters) to clock up easy tournament victories.
Originally posted by ark13 I can defend Xanthos's argument that he didn't know what his rating would be by using myself as an example. Now I'm a 1500 OTB, and have played on another chess site where I was about 1500. I had no idea that I'd end up as high as I am when I started playing here. When I got over 1600, I entered a 1600-1649 banded tournament. So there's a good chance ...[text shortened]... in the final round. But I'm not sure if kicking people out based on common sense is practical.
WOW, just found the tournament you were talking about.
This is exactly what i'm talking about! Not one, not two even, but three players who are hundreds of points out of the band!!
Sebek - 2014 - W94/L8/D16 There is absolutely nothing about these stats that suggests a 1600-1650 rating. No spike, no sudden improvement, nothing. He/she has simply entered a tournament before they've hit their correct grade (assuming 2014 is correct, it is perhaps even higher).
Yourself and Serefimvulture are slightly different. Serefim has obviously improved a little lately. You are simply consistenly in the high 1800's and i feel that's where you belong (at the moment at least anyway). I realize this tournament must have started a while ago, but out of the three of you serefimvulture is probably the only one who genuinly should be in that final.
Originally posted by ivanhoe 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 ?
While i'd happily see tournaments like this started, i don't know if it's really fair to players who have subscribed to play in tournaments. I'm not sure how many people there are who a) have been here a year, and b) play in banded tournaments. Looking at the player tables there are about 8500 active players on the site. The vast majority of those must be non-subscribers, an even smaller percentage of that would be year old subscribers. What are your thoughts on Tournament moderators?
I think if the responsibility of starting the new rounds in tournaments was handed over to some players who spend a couple of minutes checking the entrants to find out that they should be playing would solve most of the problems we currently have with our banded tournies. It doesn't take a genius to spot the odd Wolf in among the sheep.
Strong players removed from banded tournies
12 Oct '05 17:462 edits
Back to Top