17 Feb 10
It is bad etiquette, when looking for a player to challenge on a ladder, to pick the player that's within range with the lowest rating? I guess the question is, how competitive are people when it comes to their progress on the ladder? Do they try to maximize their progress on the ladder, or do they look for the most challenging games? It's set up as a ladder for a reason, you're supposed to be trying to get to the top, right?
17 Feb 10
Originally posted by Udo HoerholdI cannot se the bad therein. Chose freely the one which suits you best, both in playing speed, rating level, or anything.
It is bad etiquette, when looking for a player to challenge on a ladder, to pick the player that's within range with the lowest rating? I guess the question is, how competitive are people when it comes to their progress on the ladder? Do they try to maximize their progress on the ladder, or do they look for the most challenging games? It's set up as a ladder for a reason, you're supposed to be trying to get to the top, right?
If you see someone you want to play with, but is occupied at the moment. Wait him out if you see that there is only a few moves left.
The ladder is all about to optimise your climbing speed.
- Joined
- 19 Dec 05
- Moves
- 301310
17 Feb 10
Originally posted by Udo HoerholdOf course its not bad etiquette. The aim is to get to the top. If they are in range then you can challenge. Why make it harder by challenging someone rated much higher than yourself. If you want that sort of practice then it is better to meet them in a tournament.
It is bad etiquette, when looking for a player to challenge on a ladder, to pick the player that's within range with the lowest rating? I guess the question is, how competitive are people when it comes to their progress on the ladder? Do they try to maximize their progress on the ladder, or do they look for the most challenging games? It's set up as a ladder for a reason, you're supposed to be trying to get to the top, right?
18 Feb 10
Originally posted by Udo HoerholdHell no, pick on the easiest every time.
It is bad etiquette, when looking for a player to challenge on a ladder, to pick the player that's within range with the lowest rating? I guess the question is, how competitive are people when it comes to their progress on the ladder? Do they try to maximize their progress on the ladder, or do they look for the most challenging games? It's set up as a ladder for a reason, you're supposed to be trying to get to the top, right?
However watch that it doesn't backfire. I thought I had an easy rise in the 1 day ladder when I was "lucky" enough to find an opponent who appeared to have stopped playing. I quickly jumped on the available game.
However, with just 7 hours and 11 minutes of their 8 days maximum alloted time, did they not come back to the site and start moving ðŸ˜
Ah well I will just have to beat them fair and square to advance up the ladder.
18 Feb 10
Originally posted by adramforallThis is why "one day" anything is a joke. Most wins are cheap timeouts.
Hell no, pick on the easiest every time.
However watch that it doesn't backfire. I thought I had an easy rise in the 1 day ladder when I was "lucky" enough to find an opponent who appeared to have stopped playing. I quickly jumped on the available game.
However, with just 7 hours and 11 minutes of their 8 days maximum alloted time, did they no ...[text shortened]... moving ðŸ˜
Ah well I will just have to beat them fair and square to advance up the ladder.
19 Feb 10
The optimum strategy is to pcik a player who you will beat, but who is beating someone higher up, outside your range, thus you can adavmnace far faster. And yes the idea of the ladder is to get a lot of easy wins until you get to your true range and then be beaten regularly by the big guns who are just breezng through 🙂