Originally posted by magoalex ravello you are crazy man!!!!!
365 day ??????? it's a long period :-(((((
Sorry but it wasn't me to suggest to extend the rating to the last 365 days, it's a provisional solution, I'm sure Russ and Chrismo will come up with a suitable solution within the next couple of months.
Originally posted by Ravello Sorry but it wasn't me to suggest to extend the rating to the last 365 days, it's a provisional solution, I'm sure Russ and Chrismo will come up with a suitable solution within the next couple of months.
ok ok ..... you're my friend no problem :-) but... new year.... new solution!
Originally posted by Chris I've now changed it to be 365 days rather than 30 days so this might provide a slight solution until a more permanent fix is found.
Would you be able to update us to what solution you and Russ are thinking of implementing. It would be good to have a focus for any further discussion.
Originally posted by Ragnorak Would you be able to update us to what solution you and Russ are thinking of implementing. It would be good to have a focus for any further discussion.
D
I would like to take part of the over-all to-do list that you and Russ have in order not to discuss things that is about to be implemented next day or week.
So what is the next improvement of this already fabulous site?
Originally posted by Chris I've now changed it to be 365 days rather than 30 days so this might provide a slight solution until a more permanent fix is found.
Whilst I can appreciate that something had to be done about the losers that deliberately reduce their rating to enter banded tourni's I have to say that the new system is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut!!!
Using this method i'm now restricted to tourni's over 1701. I hit this high for 1 day after two timeouts in the clan league v a player rated 2000+.
I may get above 1700 again but I have to say that my record (currently) against players this high is poor.
It seems that fair players are being punished for the actions of a few losers. Surely a fairer method can be implimented.
I would suggest a rolling average over 6 months and couple this with a max rating minus 10% figure. The tournament entry criteria is whichever is the higher.
Thus those who go on a long break would come back and their tourni limit is still max - 10%. It would also smooth out rating spikes and would mean that the 'resign games to get in low banded tourni' players could no longer do so.
If this is too complicated then max - 10% would seem fairer as this would also smooth out rating spikes and stop the losers as well.
Oh cry on, your obviously around the 1650 range, your rating right now is 1662, which is only 38 points away from 1700, everyone has to deal with the same rating system as you do, dont make yourself out to be a victim when your clearly not.
Originally posted by David Tebb Yes, it's pathetic for someone who used to be rated over 2000 to enter a tournament designed for players between 1400 and 1550.
Whether he wins it or even qualifies from his group is irrelevant. Just by being in the tournament this player is ruining it for others.
The rules need to be changed. A player's highest ever rating must be taken into acco ...[text shortened]... of 1700.
.... and so on, all the way down to the bottom.
Why wouldn't that work?
Yes, although I'd give more leeway on the rating's margins. People's ratings on this site are not just a measure of their "chess ability" but also a measure of the amount of time they have to dedicate to their games. My rating is 1775 +/- 50 but other people vary by much more, I don't think people should be excluded from tournaments on the grounds that they had a rating of 2000 once when now they don't because they've got a new baby and can't sleep because it won't. Also one's rating depends on the rest of the community, which has increased by 5000 people since I joined the site - I suspect I'm going to find myself with a lower average rating as a result. On the other hand we want sandbagging discouraged. Perhaps if the highest rating in the last month were extended to 3 or 6 months that would be sufficient to discourage all but the most persistent sandbaggers.
People who make a habit of allowing their rating to drop by masses on a regular basis for any reason other than natural variation are a pain in any case as you get an unfair rating's hit from playing them.
I still think the highest rating limiter should be changed to the AVERAGE rating for a set time to be eligible for tournys. Highest ratings (for 30 or 365 days) have more to do with bragging rights than anything else and more often than not, nothing to do with ones auctual ability in a group setting for purposes of a tournament.
I mean we can still post the highest rating for XX days , but its mostly for show- some even post it on their bios! Now there might be a more correct statistical method but its going to take a lot of work and time to come up with a solution.
An average rating for a period is more of a players strength indicator so lets use it!
your rating for entering banded tournies is the smallest of;
4 year rating high less 600 points,
and
2 year rating high less 300 points,
and
1 year rating high less 200 points,
and
6 month rating high less 100 points,
and
3 month rating high less 50 points,
and
1 month rating high less 25 points,
and
current rating.
it is true that some very frequent players who suffer mass losses in a row and mass wins in a row will be inconvenienced - this is a good thing - it will encourage them to balance it up and resign a lost game each time they win a won game.
i guess a practical question is : is this easy for russ and chris to implement?
I hate..............
14 Dec '06 21:01
Back to Top