The problem of players having a rating far below its actual value and then winning banded tournaments is causing ongoing debate -
Part of the solution may be to rename the banded groups so there is more prestige to winning the higher banded groups and therefore more incentive to play up a group rather than down.
If we had a rating based on the current system (highest in year) or as Grandmaster B is suggesting - average over 6 months - I would then suggest your rating allows you to enter tournament groups banded into class divisions like in boxing.
Thet have 17 groups but taking the 10 main names and assigning them rating bandings would give the following for example
Below 1200 = Straw Weight
1150-1350 = Flyweight
1250-1450 = Bantam Weight
1350-1550 = Feather Weight
1400-1600 = Light Weight
1450-1650 = Welter Weight
1500-1700 = Middle Weight
1600-1800 = Cruiser Weight
1700-1900 = heavy Weight
+1800 = Super Heavy Weight
I think at if my highest rating was 1699 I'd be desperate for the extra point to gain me qualification for the heavy weights - gaining the next band has a title and prestige to it just for taking part.
I.e. I would prefer to say i'd gone 3 rounds in the december Middle weight contest than I won the Bantam Weight title -
Any thoughts?
Originally posted by horseyI doubt boxing titles will appeal to everyone. It'd probably be better to use chess themed ones instead.
The problem of players having a rating far below its actual value and then winning banded tournaments is causing ongoing debate -
Part of the solution may be to rename the banded groups so there is more prestige to winning the higher banded groups and therefore more incentive to play up a group rather than down.
If we had a rating based on the curren ...[text shortened]... s in the december Middle weight contest than I won the Bantam Weight title -
Any thoughts?