Iinstead of having seperate bands, they should setup one banded tournament and allow anyone to enter. Then when the time comes to start it, they move the top 64 (or whatever size is specified beforehand) into one bracket, the next 64 into the next bank and so forth. Theoretically the sql/script to do this should should be easy (I don't know any particulars about RHP so I will hedge my bet with 'should'😉.
This has the added benifit of correcting for peoples recent performance. i.e. I peaked at 1714 a month and a half ago, during that time my rating fell back to 1500 and is now around 1625. I managed to enter the Feb 1700+ banded, then a month after my highest rating I entered the Feb 1600-1699 tourney. Clearly this should not be possible and would be solved by such a system. It may also allow provisional players an extra game or two to rise through the ranks after registering for a tournament.
Originally posted by zebano Iinstead of having seperate bands, they should setup one banded tournament and allow anyone to enter. Then when the time comes to start it, they move the top 64 (or whatever size is specified beforehand) into one bracket, the next 64 into the next bank and so forth. Theoretically the sql/script to do this should should be easy (I don't know any particulars ab ...[text shortened]... al players an extra game or two to rise through the ranks after registering for a tournament.
good Idea but maybe it should be a open tournament where everyone plays everyone and the best score of each preset banded group is given credit as the winner of say 1200-1400 band even if he only got 3 points and a 1500 got 6points.
Originally posted by blackmanrook good Idea but maybe it should be a open tournament where everyone plays everyone and the best score of each preset banded group is given credit as the winner of say 1200-1400 band even if he only got 3 points and a 1500 got 6points.
That works in swiss tournaments and other non-knockout formats. In a knockout (which all tournaments on RHP are) this is distinctly unfair as one 1500 may have an easy pass to the second round but another may not so they first off play a different number of games. The second issue is that they play different caliber competition, this is mitigated in small OTB tournaments by pairing people in rating bands together in the latter rounds to resolve tiebreaks (large tournaments typically have completly differnt sections for each section that receives a sperate prize). The pairing on RHP is rather simplistic and currently does not seek to resolve these issues. Now if RHP implemented a swiss format, this may be feasible. Personally, I still prefer the seperate sections.
How about a handicap tournament? Open to everybody, but each person starts with a certain number of points depending on their rating. It just needs the formula tweaking so that it's roughly fair (and preventing, for example, very highly rated players from needing > 100% to win).
It would work not only in the first round but in subsequent rounds as well.
I'd just like to point out that the player in question from my original post has proved that he is an honourable player and withdrawn from the tournament (by his own volition and not because of my request).
I don't see a simple solution to this issue, but would like to think that players would look to their own values and ethics before entering tournaments in which they would have an unfair advantage.
For me, it ruins the fun of a competition if you feel you do not have a chance of competing on some sort of level.
Originally posted by noxidjkram I'd just like to point out that the player in question from my original post has proved that he is an honourable player and withdrawn from the tournament (by his own volition and not because of my request).
I don't see a simple solution to this issue, but would like to think that players would look to their own values and ethics before entering tournam ...[text shortened]... of a competition if you feel you do not have a chance of competing on some sort of level.
M
Yes, I would hope that players whom have a 300 and up point advantage or the next highest rated player would set out of said tournament. Is it unethical to want to play chess against any and all chanllengers, or is it having poor values to be addicted to chess and want as many games as possible.
Originally posted by blackmanrook Yes, I would hope that players whom have a 300 and up point advantage or the next highest rated player would set out of said tournament. Is it unethical to want to play chess against any and all chanllengers, or is it having poor values to be addicted to chess and want as many games as possible.
300 points is a huge difference, and so is 50 points or 100 points at many levels. I´d say it´s unethical to be entered in 3 (yes that´s THREE) different banded tournaments. I don´t swallow the excuse of ´addicted to chess´ and ´want to be playing 200 games or more´. There are other sites you know, why not play on playchess.com, that way you can play in real time while maintaining a level of chess on this fantastic site that keeps you happy.
i didn't read all the post so hopefully somebody didn't write this yet but the easy solution to me would be to make the highest rating in the last 60-90 days. That was if someone takes a nose dive in the ratings they would have to stay there for a much longer period of time before their "highest rating" is low enough to enter those lesser tournaments. The converse though is if you have a spike in your ratings you would have to enter higher level tournaments than normal for a longer period of time.
Originally posted by blackmanrook I was a positional player 10-13days ago and I been here for 14-15days and I am a chess addict although I came out of provisional status swiftly many other players do not have the drive or time to do so. My idea is to let provisional players and player under 30days join any band they want. That would have stop me from joining the lower bands on my way ...[text shortened]... t play until the higher players agree to play me? why should I suffer because of my rating lag.
Anyone remember when Blackmanrook came on the scene, blowing out his rear end.
Does anyone know if he´s been cured of his ´Chess Addiction´, or did he just get bored after a few months?
Originally posted by irax Anyone remember when Blackmanrook came on the scene, blowing out his rear end.
Does anyone know if he´s been cured of his ´Chess Addiction´, or did he just get bored after a few months?
His connection was at his college and his college year finished when he last moved, but he will be back when he gets a new connection, don't you worry 😉
Originally posted by adramforall Won't solve the problem 🙁
How do you work out how many points the player gets for winning if their rating is currently 1200, but true rating is nearer 1800 and they beat someone rated at 1750?
This will be the reason that nothing is done about the massive rating fluctuations of some players who then "muck about" playing in rated tourneys far below their true levels.
Easy. Implement a real rating floor, not just one for 'tournament purposes'. Once you've been at 1800+ for X games, then your rating cannot fall below 1700. Period.
Originally posted by expressiveoutburst His connection was at his college and his college year finished when he last moved, but he will be back when he gets a new connection, don't you worry 😉
Ah good! Then I can beat him yet again!!
Still one of my nicest wins in a blunder galore match.
fairness!
14 Feb '06 21:37
Back to Top