06 Apr 07
Originally posted by richjohnsonTournament 1013
I was robbed!!
http://www.redhotpawn.com/tournament/view.php?tid=1013&rndid=1&issummaryview=
(see Group 6)
06 Apr 07
1 edit
I wish they'd allow some way of allowing stronger players to bow out of Banded tournaments gracefully. I joined a number of Banded tourneys when I first joined and didn't know much about how tourneys worked. Now I really don't belong, and I'm far from the only one. I could resign games, of course, but that makes me uncomfortable and that's not really a permanent solution.
Perhaps if one's rating ever gets 150 (100? 200?) points above the upper band, you won't move on to the next round and the second place player moves on instead.
Maybe this has already been suggested, I dunno.
** EDIT ** In the OP's case, the high rating was due to computer assistance; but the above idea would work regardless.
07 Apr 07
1 edit
Originally posted by richjohnsonExcept you weren't - looks like you go through by default. Congrats!
I was robbed!!
http://www.redhotpawn.com/tournament/view.php?tid=1013&rndid=1&issummaryview=
(see Group 6)
Tournament 1013
07 Apr 07
Originally posted by HindsteinHe would have gone through, but it looks like the cheat was caught after the second round had already started, so richjohnson is right to be annoyed!
Except you weren't - looks like you go through by default. Congrats!
Tournament 1013
07 Apr 07
Originally posted by DawgHausProblem is that in a tournament with large group sizes it is likelt the player who tops the table will go well above the band limits. Should he/she be penalised for winning? What players would do of course is make sure they stay within the band by losing open invite games.
I wish they'd allow some way of allowing stronger players to bow out of Banded tournaments gracefully. I joined a number of Banded tourneys when I first joined and didn't know much about how tourneys worked. Now I really don't belong, and I'm far from the only one. I could resign games, of course, but that makes me uncomfortable and that's not really a p ...[text shortened]... he high rating was due to computer assistance; but the above idea would work regardless.
08 Apr 07
Originally posted by jayaitchThat's why the cutoff would be well above the upper limit. It wouldn't penalize anyone whose average performance is within the original band. Most steady players do not have ratings that fluctuate by hundreds of points - only those that are a) rapidly improving or b) quite underrated to begin with. These are the groups that don't really belong in a Banded tourney.
Problem is that in a tournament with large group sizes it is likelt the player who tops the table will go well above the band limits. Should he/she be penalised for winning? What players would do of course is make sure they stay within the band by losing open invite games.
Sandbagging in general is a separate problem. My proposal neither solves it nor makes it worse.
10 Apr 07
Originally posted by DawgHausor
That's why the cutoff would be well above the upper limit. It wouldn't penalize anyone whose average performance is within the original band. Most steady players do not have ratings that fluctuate by hundreds of points - only those that are a) rapidly improving or b) quite underrated to begin with. These are the groups that don't really belong in a Bande ...[text shortened]... dbagging in general is a separate problem. My proposal neither solves it nor makes it worse.
C. Play many many games on this site (50+) at a speed which is probably not appropriate for correspondence chess (i.e. me).
11 Apr 07
Originally posted by DawgHausThe idea is interesting, my main problem with it is that anyone who is at a lower skill level could easily improve in the time that it takes for a second round to start. For this reason, I think the idea of allowing them to bow out gracefully would be nice, but forcing them out because they studied tactics for 15 minutes per night seems unreasonable (a 1300 player who did this would easily move out of their band in any tournament with a timeout longer than 1 day).
Heh. Fair enough, zeb. What's your opinion of this idea?
BTW I subsequently posted this over in the Site Ideas forum.
11 Apr 07
1 edit
Originally posted by davidmaccOops, you're right. I didn't see the little "2" link for the sencond round.
He would have gone through, but it looks like the cheat was caught after the second round had already started, so richjohnson is right to be annoyed!
For what it's worth, I agree with you Zeb. With the length of time it takes for tournaments to get to the end, it is perfectly acceptable for even the laziest of students ("Hi" ) to rise significantly above the original rating boudaries.
I'm in a 7/0 tournament rated 1400-1599 that I joined in 2005 that it now in it's 4th round. It has been really hard work to stay in, so if I break 1800 (not likely) before the next round, should I be forced out? I don't think so.
The only issue is that of those new subscribers who know they are very much stronger than the top band and end up 500 points above before even the end of the 1st round - now that is more of a problem. Perhaps the implementation of something that would allow said people to stand down would be useful.