Sudden Ratings Drop

Originally posted by Simon McMahon
Tournament ratings should not be based on an all time high because a rating may spike high for reasons other than good play, like a lot of timed out games in the players favour, or stalling lost games while accumulating wins. This is the same as it can go down for reasons other than bad play.

What is the point of stalling a lost game while accumulating wins? All that will happen is that when the losses kick in you will lose points based on a much higher rating.

While many people will get a spike, a 150-200 tournamnt entry level should ensure you are playing within your true playing area.

It would stop those at 1600+ dropping to 1100 and then slaughtering 1100/1200's in tournaments.

It would have stopped the likes of User 30994 from entering, and spoiling Tournament 3258.

Should I be unlucky enough to meet this person in a later round I will make one move, express my contempt of them and resign.

The whole idea of banded tournmants is that you should be playing people around your level.

Originally posted by adramforall
What is the point of stalling a lost game while accumulating wins? All that will happen is that when the losses kick in you will lose points based on a much higher rating.

While many people will get a spike, a 150-200 tournamnt entry level should ensure you are playing within your true playing area.

It would stop those at 1600+ dropping to 1100

The whole idea of banded tournmants is that you should be playing people around your level.

Rec'd...This is what I am talking about, nothing fair about that at all 🙁

We really need moderators to STOP this ! Something has to be set up, this can not be let go, January 2008 Banded Quartets 1350-1450 and this person is an established aprox. 1900 player !!!

P.S. If you see this, do the right thing drop out of the tourney, as you have an unfair advantage !

Originally posted by adramforall
What is the point of stalling a lost game while accumulating wins? All that will happen is that when the losses kick in you will lose points based on a much higher rating.

While many people will get a spike, a 150-200 tournamnt entry level should ensure you are playing within your true playing area.

It would stop those at 1600+ dropping to 1100 ...[text shortened]...

The whole idea of banded tournmants is that you should be playing people around your level.

He shouldn't have entered this tournament.It looks like he had some problem to have dropped so low.
Why not have a tournament entry rating based on the highest in the last hundred days plus highest ever divided by two

Originally posted by Very Rusty
So if I was to let my rating drop to say 1200 keep it there for the required 100 days, enter in one of your tournaments and win it, you would find this perfectly acceptable?

I don't believe I said anything about that being acceptable. I said it wasn't fair to penalise lots of people (who have rating spikes) for the sake of stoping a FEW sandbaggers.

I also think that forcing people to only enter bands at their highest ever level would be just as bad (if not worse) than the current situation. If you think about it properly. I'll describe it, in fact -

Currently, say you have 1 person in 10 who sandbags (for example)
Currently, say you have 4 people in 10 who have dropped > 100 points from their highest ever.

In the current situation, that means that 1/10 people entering a banded tourny would be low rated.

In the proposed "fix" situation (enter your highest ever band) that means that 4/10 people would be low rated for the band.

If you believe that those 4/10 SHOULD be playing at the higher level (IE you think that they are capable of it, because one time they did) then you are saying that you are happier to have 4/10 people in your tourny playing lower than they are able than you are with 1/10. That doesn't seem quite right in my book.

Originally posted by mrmist
I don't believe I said anything about that being acceptable. I said it wasn't fair to penalise lots of people (who have rating spikes) for the sake of stoping a FEW sandbaggers.

I also think that forcing people to only enter bands at their highest ever level would be just as bad (if not worse) than the current situation. If you think about it properly. ower than they are able than you are with 1/10. That doesn't seem quite right in my book.

Good, Glad to hear it !! that you do not actually find it acceptable.

What the answer is, has been thrashed about in several threads. As long as sandbagging is not against the rules it will happen. The problem is, it becomes so difficult to enforce all cases, because you would have to know the reasons for the drop in rating.

For Example if you climb to 1800 by game load....You probably are not really a 1800 player... I been watching this fairly closely lately. Now if you drop from that 1800 to 1200.... Then enter a 1300-1450 banded tournament, at 1300 rating...I would say that is a case of sandbagging. Game load can get you to a certain rating, but the chart, usually shows where that players playing strength is really at.

Perhaps make that the rating level that a person would have to use to go into a "banded tournament" , the persons own chart would dictate where his/ her rating level was?

How about if their rating had increased by 300+ in a round, they were moved up a band and joined it in the next round, as in the case of seeding. I am sure a genuine player wouldn't mind

Rating floors are the best solution. The 'rating spike' concern is easily avoidable; just wait to set the floor until a player has maintained a certain rating class over X games in a row.

If someone ends up 'floored out' for too long, they can petition the site owner to drop the floor down 100 points [or perhaps the floor can be dropped automatically if the player has been stuck on the floor for Y games].

This is [close to] how the USCF rating system handles it.

What about increasing the period for obtaining the highest rating (currently in last 100 days) to, for instance, in last 365 days, or even longer? The formula itself (entry rating = (the highest + current) /2 ) is fine isn't it?

Additionally, if the gap between the highest and current ratings is detected to be larger than 500, then perhaps the site could block the players entering banded tournaments.

Another solution would be to simply scrap all the banded tourneys 😛

Originally posted by kyue
What about increasing the period for obtaining the highest rating (currently in last 100 days) to, for instance, in last 365 days, or even longer? The formula itself (entry rating = (the highest + current) /2 ) is fine isn't it?

Additionally, if the gap between the highest and current ratings is detected to be larger than 500, then perhaps the site could ...[text shortened]... ing banded tournaments.

Another solution would be to simply scrap all the banded tourneys 😛

You answered your own question. The formula [midpoint between highest and current] doesn't really stop sandbagging. An 1800 player can drop himself to 1000 and then enter all the under-1400 tourneys he likes.

Rating floors also protect well-meaning players who nevertheless must take breaks from the site. Let's an 1800 player has to take a few months off the site [due to a family emergency, work, etc.] and resign all his games. Why let a rating dive to 1000 in that case? The whole point of ratings is to measure chess strength. Mass timeouts/resignations are not an indication of chess strength, and therefore should not be allowed to have such a large effect on a rating.

By giving him a 1700 floor, he could come back and immediately enter banded tournaments at his proper grade. Everyone wins, because he's not down in the lower bands wreaking havoc.

With the 500-point rule, he would be unable to enter any banded tourneys until he raised his rating back up enough to satisfy that rule. Why punish a player like that?

I'm still not sure why this proposal meets with so much opposition, especially since the alternative seems to be scrapping the banded tourneys!

Assuming a "normal" rating fluctuation of about 200 points, which occurs with natural surges of games, or real-life events (taxes filing time, exams time, projects due, family visits, vacations, etc), or just plain old timing (a series of sharp wins after intense concentration that follows a purge of a few hopeless games), then the rating should never be assumed to be more than 100 points higher than a "true rating" nor less than 200 points below the highest ever rating. Any other extremes are just manipulations that make a mockery of the ratings for purposes of categorial tournaments or setting up clan matches or any other uses, other than ego and the joy of messing things up.

Recommend all or any of the above solutions. The easiest is just to say that the tournament, clan, and other "entry qualified" rating is 200 points below your highest ever rating, or anything along those lines.

While I understand that a lot of players with a certain rating want to play against players of similar strength in banded tourneys, I don't understand the motivation of higher rated players to play there. All you get is an award called something like winner of April 2008 Banded Quartets 1200-1300. I wouldn't like to have that in my profile.

Originally posted by gambit05
While I understand that a lot of players with a certain rating want to play against players of similar strength in [b]banded tourneys, I don't understand the motivation of higher rated players to play there. All you get is an award called something like winner of April 2008 Banded Quartets 1200-1300. I wouldn't like to have that in my profile.[/b]

errr, thanks for that :'(

some of us would like a 1200-1300 banded victory on our profile... a 1000-1100 would even be alright!

Originally posted by Virtue76
errr, thanks for that :'(

some of us would like a 1200-1300 banded victory on our profile... a 1000-1100 would even be alright!

Don't misunderstand me. If it is a tournament win with opponents of similar strength it is great and you can be proud. But do you would like to have a win for a banded 500-600? If I would be rated 2600, I wouldn't like to have win in a 1900-2200 banded tourney (if such thing would exist here), but being a 2100 player, this would make me happy. See what I meant?

Originally posted by gambit05
Don't misunderstand me. If it is a tournament win with opponents of similar strength it is great and you can be proud. But do you would like to have a win for a banded 500-600? If I would be rated 2600, I wouldn't like to have win in a 1900-2200 banded tourney (if such thing would exist here), but being a 2100 player, this would make me happy. See what I meant?

That is my point my friend, I shouldn't be allowed to enter that tournament because I would kick serious butt!

600's wouldn't be able to handle my devastating moves! 😀

Originally posted by Virtue76
That is my point my friend, I shouldn't be allowed to enter that tournament because I would kick serious butt!

600's wouldn't be able to handle my devastating moves! 😀

Sure I understand your point. My point is, if you would win such a tournament, would you be proud of that? I think most people would not.