Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Tournaments Forum

Tournaments Forum

  1. 07 Jun '10 18:07
    In the past there have been numerous ratings-based public tournaments instantiated by RHP. It seems that there are far fewer now.

    The issue is that certain VERY-highly-ranked individuals are entering many generic public tournaments - there is nothing wrong with this and it's in violation of no rules, morals, or ethics. Unfortunately, however, when the last round or two come into play, it's apparent to all other participants that the tournament title is not generally available, because one player rated 400-600 points higher than everyone else is going to collect the "trophy".

    Does anyone other than myself find this frustrating? This could be resolved to some degree if more tournaments were created with a rating "ceiling"...

    Interested in others' thoughts.

    Dave
  2. Subscriber Kewpie
    since 1-Feb-07
    07 Jun '10 23:59
    Totally agree. Why can't there be regular banded tournaments? Russ, are you listening??????
  3. Standard member atticus2
    Frustrate the Bad
    08 Jun '10 00:19
    I agree entirely. As a higher-rated player, keen to play tournaments, I turn down dozens of opportunities because it seems pointless to me, and unfair, that I should enter a tournament 500 points higher graded than the rest. For the sake of a game, I do enter one or two, but with misgivings.

    Better more banded tourneys. But no point banding 1800+ with an 81 entry limit. It will never fill
  4. 08 Jun '10 01:42
    Atticus' point regarding ratings is exactly the perspective I have (mine is from below of course 😉).

    We would love to see more banded tournaments, even knockouts, within reasonably configured ranges, and as Atticus points out, proportioned so that they will fill in timely manner.

    I'm sure the 2100-2200 and higher-rated players would be equally keen not to be wasting their time playing 1500-1700s. This is identical in concept to myself and my peers at 1500-1600 playing a tournament filled with 900-1100s.

    Russssssss????
  5. 09 Jun '10 18:49
    MORE BANDED TOURNAMENTS PLEASE !!!!!!!!!
  6. Subscriber Paul Leggett
    Chess Librarian
    18 Jun '10 02:56
    Originally posted by honus
    MORE BANDED TOURNAMENTS PLEASE !!!!!!!!!
    honus has played so many games here, that if he asked to smoke in the non-smoking section, I'd give him an ashtray.

    Just sayin'.
  7. Standard member GighaTec
    Flammable
    25 Jun '10 13:34
    Yup - totally agree, more banded tourneys please Russ. Its extremely off-putting when you do dive into a tournament and find yourself paired up with a 2100+ player in the first round. I don't seem to learn that much from getting mullered and I am positive they dont!!
  8. 26 Jun '10 21:48
    i agree and would like to see more banded tournaments (personally prefer 1 and 3 day timeouts).

    also, i like the idea of a rating ceiling and think that the majority of non-banded tournaments should have one.
  9. 18 Jul '10 16:08
    While I do realize that this is a pretty stale thread, somebody bumped it so I'd like to put in my agreement with the sentiments here.

    I seek out the banded tournaments as a way to combine a sense of larger competition with anticipation of games that will be interesting, win or lose. I think they are a good way to judge how your game is progressing. I too would love to see more of them.
  10. Subscriber Kewpie
    since 1-Feb-07
    19 Jul '10 09:56
    Banded tournaments are rare on this site nowadays. Those of us at the bottom just can't play competitively on RHP. I've been forced to go to another site just to find tournaments where I won't be forced to play people with ratings 500 above my own.
  11. Standard member clandarkfire
    Grammar Nazi
    19 Jul '10 16:51
    Quick - go join the July Mini Banded Quartets!
  12. Subscriber joesheppe
    Lesser Poobah
    02 Aug '10 14:08
    There appears to be an interesting development afoot. It could just be my fertile imagination, but when I see 10 out of 15 entrants in the July 2010 Mini Banded Quartets III 1800+ tourney rated lower than 1800(!), I have to wonder if a lot of true 1800+ players are protesting the fact that once one reaches 1800, he is always eligible for the 1800+ tourneys. This is what I'd like to see Russ fix.

    That is certainly no offense to folks rated lower than 1800 (I figure they are not as serious about the game, or just not 'there' yet, and that's fine), but I think the current guidelines cheapen the site. I don't want or need the easier points. I like knowing that my rating was solidly earned.
  13. 03 Aug '10 16:38
    Originally posted by joesheppe
    There appears to be an interesting development afoot. It could just be my fertile imagination, but when I see 10 out of 15 entrants in the July 2010 Mini Banded Quartets III 1800+ tourney rated lower than 1800(!), I have to wonder if a lot of true 1800+ players are protesting the fact that once one reaches 1800, he is always eligible for the 1800+ tourneys ...[text shortened]... . I don't want or need the easier points. I like knowing that my rating was solidly earned.
    Ratings rise and fall. That is the nature of the game.

    How many of these sub 1800 rated players are actually 1850+ or 1900+ at their best?

    In what way would you like Russ to fix the position?

    At present your TER is based on your
    (highest rating in last 365 days plus your current rating)/2 , with a pointer in place that your TER can never drop less than 100 points less than your current highest rating in last 365 days.

    If someone is eligible for an 1800+ tournament but is well below that rating entry level then then they must have been at a rating of 1900+ in the last 365 days.
  14. Subscriber joesheppe
    Lesser Poobah
    03 Aug '10 17:45
    Right, well the fact that they touched 1900 for thirty seconds doesn't impress me. These guys typically play in excess of 50 games, mostly with players rated well below them, and their rating can yo yo up and down with little real significance. Are they really 1800+ strength? I doubt it. Play them head to head with someone long rated at least 1850, and they're going to get crushed. I'm willing to bet on that.

    So something needs to be done. One seemingly easy solution would be to require that the player beat ten 1800+ rated players before he qualifies for the 1800+ tournament, regardless of current rating. I don't know; that's just one idea. Something has to be done. I don't think the July 1800+ quartets is an accident. Do you see any players there rated higher than 1900? How many above even 1800??
  15. Subscriber Paul Leggett
    Chess Librarian
    04 Aug '10 00:47
    Originally posted by joesheppe
    Right, well the fact that they touched 1900 for thirty seconds doesn't impress me. These guys typically play in excess of 50 games, mostly with players rated well below them, and their rating can yo yo up and down with little real significance. Are they really 1800+ strength? I doubt it. Play them head to head with someone long rated at least 1850, and the ...[text shortened]... accident. Do you see any players there rated higher than 1900? How many above even 1800??
    I know you like to go back to that theme of playing lower-rated players, but the ratings formula accounts for that. If you play much higher players and lose, you lose few points, and if you win against a much lower opponent, you gain almost nothing.

    My friend Niculae and I (we met on the sight when I was new and had the ol' p1200) have played some 70 or so games, and I have won something like 63 or so. With his 7 wins, we're about even in rating points. Ihave better technique, but sometimes his wild attacks bust me pretty good. And sometimes I just suck, too.

    We're playing for fun, and we don't really care about ratings, but for anyone to suggest that either one of us gains or loses points because of our disparity in rating means that they don't appreciate the sliding scale of the system.

    As a rule, the more games played (I mean total, not at one time), the more accurate the rating, as things regress to the mean.

    In the grand scheme, ratings are only an approximate guide. I think the only really accurate way to assess how good or bad someone can play is to play them and see.

    There's also a little of the "chicken and egg" paradox- are these guys higher rated because they beat their opponents, or did they beat their opponents because they are higher rated? If they don't deserve to be higher rated, they will lose against lower rated players, and after a while they won't be "higher".

    Paul