Originally posted by seraphimvulture My memory must have mistaken me then, for I was sure I recalled seeing a 1100-1200 victory on his profile. Regardless though, since mostly everyone who visits this forum recalls the argument over him joining all those Mini Banded tournies.
the arguement i have is:
we have two types of tournament players in discussion here:
1/ very keen to play anywhere and everywhere ... not caring if they break rules or step on toes ... just wanting to play chess ... and win .. against everyone.
2/ people selecting tournaments where they gain an unfair advantage, and avoiding facing the fury of challenging opposition.
it seems to have been claimed in this thread that fckallie is a type 1/ player ... and i agree ... fckallie has won many banded tournaments and shows no remorse ... fckallie has also won many open tournaments ... no problem with me.
it seems to have been claimed in this thread that TRACKHEAD was somehow different from fckallie ... this i disagree with ...TRACK just wanted to play ... TRACK obviously lacks some social fine tuning ... but this is a chess site.
Originally posted by flexmore the arguement i have is:
we have two types of tournament players in discussion here:
1/ very keen to play anywhere and everywhere ... not caring if they break rules or step on toes ... just wanting to play chess ... and win .. against everyone.
2/ people selecting tournaments where they gain an unfair advantage, and avoiding facing the fury of chal ...[text shortened]... t wanted to play ... TRACK obviously lacks some social fine tuning ... but this is a chess site.
Phrased with the immortal words of The Dude: "Yeah well, you know, that's just like your opinion man."
Originally posted by flexmore the arguement i have is:
we have two types of tournament players in discussion here:
1/ very keen to play anywhere and everywhere ... not caring if they break rules or step on toes ... just wanting to play chess ... and win .. against everyone.
2/ people selecting tournaments where they gain an unfair advantage, and avoiding facing the fury of chal ...[text shortened]... t wanted to play ... TRACK obviously lacks some social fine tuning ... but this is a chess site.
....So now wait.... you're saying that there's no problem with Trackhead, who all controversy aside is quite a good chess player, entering a tournament that is for players rated eons lower than him and whipping them? I realize now that he ended up not actually winning any of those, since he's endured another sudden disappearance, but you think that that's fair at all to those other players who entered those tournaments to play against other players of their calibur? If Trackhead wanted to win tournaments, he could've won probably half the tournaments he entered, so he had no reason to enter those 1100-1200-1300 banded tournies. As The Dude says though, this is only my opinion, so meh, but I just don't think it was right for him to enter those tournies in the first place.
Originally posted by seraphimvulture ....So now wait.... you're saying that there's no problem with Trackhead, who all controversy aside is quite a good chess player, entering a tournament that is for players rated eons lower than him and whipping them? I realize now ...[text shortened]... k it was right for him to enter those tournies in the first place.
i will rephrase to try to make myself more clear:
there are two types of behaviour being discussed here:
1/ a nice person, a keen chess player wanting to play chess - your friend and my friend - ... just wanting to move the pieces ....and naively enters every tournament they can ... stupidly including the banded tournaments.
and
2/ a baddie, dressed in black and smelling foul, a nasty player, enters the banded tournaments just to beat up on the less experienced players ... winning tournament titles on the way and fealling like a superior jerk ...
TRACK was typecast as a number 2 ... i believe this is totally false ... i believe: TRACK is a regular number 1.
Originally posted by flexmore i will rephrase to try to make myself more clear:
there are two types of behaviour being discussed here:
1/ a nice person, a keen chess player wanting to play chess - your friend and my friend - ... just wanting to move the pieces .. ...[text shortened]... this is totally false ... i believe: TRACK is a regular number 1.
Uh huh... Well then, I think that if people here placed Trackhead under your Option 2 there, it was because of his attitude. It wasn't much long before this that he stirred everyone up with his engine-use accusations, and I don't recall him defending himself very well when this whole banded issue came up a few months ago. You could be right though, I don't know Trackhead personally, so maybe he just isn't good at what impression he makes on people. But you can't really convince me that Trackhead was naive about what he was doing, since lots of people got on him about this at the time.
We can really just kill the issue though, since again I was wrong and he didn't end up winning any of those tournies anyway, so it's not really a problem I suppose. My original question was just wondering what people thought when they saw these types of banded victories in player's profiles who were rated much higher than the opponents they faced in those tournies... Whether their immediate assumptions were to think these players were in your Option 1, or your Option 2, in a sense.
I drew Trackhead in a banded tournament group. I seem to remember asking him (in a nice way) about him being in it, and he pointed out that he would need to play quite a lot of games to get his rating back, and joining lots of tournaments was one way of getting games.
It was quite nice playing him in a social sense - we chatted and it was enjoyable. The actual games, though, were painfully one-sided. For me, the losses were inevitable as soon as I saw the tournament draw.
The problem is caused by a dip in rating not automatically being reflected by a dip in form, because of the timeouts system. Maybe there should be a ratchet system. Tournament entry is based on the last 30 days rule, but if you have ever been more than 400 points higher (except if the peak was a provisional rating) than the top end of a band then the dip in your rating doesn't reflect a dip in form and so you can't enter those ones. This would rule people who allow their rating to nose dive that badly out of banded tournaments entirely until thier rating has recovered to a more realistic level and hopefully encourage people to be more careful about the number of games they are in (yes I know I did that recently - but not on the kind of scale that causes problems), or the irritating habit some players seem to have of stopping playing in the games they are going to lose, getting their rating unrealistically high and then resigning all their lost games at once so their rating crashes down again and denying their opponents the correct ratings reward. Russ could make exceptions for people when there's an acceptable reason for the loss in playing strength (Medical problems etc.).
Originally posted by DeepThought The problem is caused by a dip in rating not automatically being reflected by a dip in form, because of the timeouts system. Maybe there should be a ratchet system. Tournament entry is based on the last 30 days rule, but if you have ever been more than 400 points higher (except if the peak was a provisional rating) than the top end of a band then the d ...[text shortened]... ple when there's an acceptable reason for the loss in playing strength (Medical problems etc.).
That's a great idea, I think. Maybe try posting that in the Site Ideas forum?
Odd question...
25 Jun '05 10:24
Back to Top