07 Dec 07
Originally posted by cluWould it deflect entries from the main tournament?
Not to take away from the main championship but would anyone be interested in banded championships?
Perhaps six levels with the same settings as the current main championship.
0-1000
1001-1200
1201-1300
1301-1400
1401-1600
1600+
I am all in favour, as I prefer playing people nearer my own level, less demoralising.
07 Dec 07
Originally posted by adramforallI would hope that if people wanted to join the banded championships that they would also join the main. I don't want this to take away from that at all. I wonder if it would be possible to make it an optional part of the current championships. As in you would only be able to enter the banded level champinoships if you were already signed up for the main.
Would it deflect entries from the main tournament?
07 Dec 07
Originally posted by cluActually we would have the snadbagger discussion in this again.
Not to take away from the main championship but would anyone be interested in banded championships?
Perhaps six levels with the same settings as the current main championship.
0-1000
1001-1200
1201-1300
1301-1400
1401-1600
1600+
And being a weak player myself: what title would be site champion of the 0-1000?
07 Dec 07
Originally posted by cluWhy not two banded Championships being 0 - 1600 and 1600+, or whatever the middle ranked players rating is so that there could be, theoretically, equal numbers in each.
Not to take away from the main championship but would anyone be interested in banded championships?
Perhaps six levels with the same settings as the current main championship.
0-1000
1001-1200
1201-1300
1301-1400
1401-1600
1600+
09 Dec 07
Originally posted by surtismThat's far too harsh.
Why not two banded Championships being 0 - 1600 and 1600+, or whatever the middle ranked players rating is so that there could be, theoretically, equal numbers in each.
You could get away with 4 I think:
0-1200
1200-1500
1500-1800
1800+
would be the fairest way to divide ratings in the fewest bands.
A 1600 vs 2000 player would be a bloodbath, as would a 900 vs 1500.
10 Dec 07
I don't think there should be any banding. It seems that part of the fun of the championships is that it is such a massive tournament and everyone can play. There are plenty of banded tournaments during the year for those that want them, yes? Lower-rated players should instead be happy that the championships aren't of the Closed or Invitational variety.
Just wanted to cast a vote for the non-banded supporters. Your mileage may vary.
11 Dec 07
Originally posted by Doctor RatI actually agree on the banding (though it would be nice to see a few larger banded tournaments) and that it's good to try and have a competition for everyone.
I don't think there should be any banding. It seems that part of the fun of the championships is that it is such a massive tournament and everyone can play. There are plenty of banded tournaments during the year for those that want them, yes? Lower-rated players should instead be happy that the championships aren't of the Closed or Invitational variety.
Just wanted to cast a vote for the non-banded supporters. Your mileage may vary.
However, I'm not a particular fan of the tournament format as it stands. The biggest problem is that there is so little chance of progression. I've entered for the past couple of years, but despite being comfortaby above the site average rating, feel that without a lucky draw, a timeout or a 3(b) turning up, that my tournament will only ever last a single round.
Ideally, though probably not feasible, I'd prefer something along the line of the FA Cup or Trophy where weaker entrants had to play against each other for a round or two before higher players entered. Either that or have a system where everyone gets placed in a second round group based upon positions in the first round, enabling a full ranking order to be made so improvements can be seen from year to year.