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?
Care to provide some proof that he "no doubt acquired numerous ratings on numerous sites before where he was no doubt rated 2000+ at least" ?
Ofcourse he didn't know how high his rating would end up here. You can't compare this site to others. The strength of play might be alot higher or alot lower here. a 1300-rated person here might be a 1600-rated person on another site.
Tournament 163 You can't verify from the title that this is a banded tournament, but it says clearly in the description: "lower-rated players go head to head".
I can suggest that a player is only allowed to play in a banded tournament if he/she completed X games.
For people who have a high rating and get timed-out in alot of games, then join a low rating banded tournament, a rating-floor would do the trick.
Originally posted by schakuhr Care to provide some proof that he "no doubt acquired numerous ratings on numerous sites before where he was no doubt rated 2000+ at least" ?
Ofcourse he didn't know how high his rating would end up here. You can't compare this site to others. The strength of play might be alot higher or alot lower here. a 1300-rated person here might be a 1600-rated ...[text shortened]... t in alot of games, then join a low rating banded tournament, a rating-floor would do the trick.
Thanks Shak, i suspected i was probably wrong about fckalie, Xanthos rarely posts something like that without checking first!
As for your idea's, a minimum amount of completed games would definately help. 50 sounds about right to me. Rating floors have been discussed before and there are numerous reasons why it hasn't been implemented yet. Someone smarter than me will have to come up with an effective system that automatically resolves this issue. As far as i can see, real people need to moderate these tournaments, but that's just my opinion.
because it would have to be judged on a case-by-case basis.
it's so subjective people would have counter-arguments every time.
even without these problems you have to admit it's a lot more difficult to implement than simply changing the 30-day peak to a 90-day peak, for example.
do you not agree this would deal with most of the instances of abuse?
Originally posted by murrow because it would have to be judged on a case-by-case basis.
it's so subjective people would have counter-arguments every time.
even without these problems you have to admit it's a lot more difficult to implement than simply changing the 30-day peak to a 90-day peak, for example.
do you not agree this would deal with most of the instances of abuse?
Yes, your suggestion is good. It doesn't cover players who've just joined the site though. Checkmate187 was within the banding when he joined the tournament i posted earlier, had never been highewr rated before, but now he's 2200+. Ivanhoe suggested a minimum number of games played as a solution and i agree. 50 completed games should solve this problem (at least up until the 1800-1900 tournies anyway..)
Originally posted by marinakatomb Yes, your suggestion is good. It doesn't cover players who've just joined the site though. Checkmate187 was within the banding when he joined the tournament i posted earlier, had never been highewr rated before, but now he's 2200+. Ivanhoe suggested a minimum number of games played as a solution and i agree. 50 completed games should solve this problem (at least up until the 1800-1900 tournies anyway..)
yes i agree with that suggestion too.
i think my suggestion would catch about 90% of current 'abuse', and the 50-game minimum about another 5% ... there'd still be room for a few people to ruin the party, but ain't that always the way...
Originally posted by marinakatomb 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 m ...[text shortened]... t take a genius to spot the odd Wolf in among the sheep.
EDIT: Nice rec' count by the way 😉
Has Russ ever commented on your wishes/proposals and what did he say ?
Indeed, I don't agree with the original post, even if in agreement with the reasoning behind it. I do speak as someone about 150 points up in a final or two compared to the starting limit. A change to prevent vastly overqualified players entering is needed, these should be competitive, but you would expect many winners/finalists to actually be noticeably above the banding by the time it finishes.
A decent suggestion/implementation to do this would very much get my rec. Playing differing abilities is more than welcome (both above and below), but the groups I've most enjoyed are those where the winner is in doubt right until the final couple of games.
Serefim, personally i wouldn't feel you need to be ejected from this tournament. There was a time in the not so distant future where you were the correct grade for this tournament. I'm really talking about players who were obviously too strong for the banding before the tournament even started, but haven't hit their true grade on the site yet. You don't fall into this category i feel. The tournament has obviously been going for at least 6 months, players can't be penalised for improving. It is the strong player who enters a low band just because they can that i want to see removed. This abuse of the banded tournaments has to be addressed..
Originally posted by marinakatomb Serefim, personally i wouldn't feel you need to be ejected from this tournament. There was a time in the not so distant future where you were the correct grade for this tournament. I'm really talking about players who were obviously too strong for the banding [b]before the tournament even started, but haven't hit their true grade on the site yet. ...[text shortened]... y can[/b] that i want to see removed. This abuse of the banded tournaments has to be addressed..[/b]
You know I think he was talking about you mutilating his name.
Strong players removed from banded tournies
13 Oct '05 14:351 edit
Back to Top