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

Tournaments Forum

  1. 10 Feb '08 15:10 / 1 edit
    regarding the November 2007 Mini Banded Quartet ! 1250-1300.

    D1013 says "With your rating, why are you in this tournament? You're going to win. But is it worth it? MissOleum has already resigned in protest."

    I refer you to your own Clan (QPR). Your point leader Mulgabill has recently WON the 1300-1350 Octet V Tournament with a current rating of 1602 (I let you look into the history of this if you dare). So you, in fact, are on the same team with someone whose chess ethics you don't agree with. HMMM, do I sense some hypocrisy or is it ignorance? Perhaps a bit of both? If I were you the first thing I would be worrying aout is finding another team. So that when you take the "moral high ground" you don't have skeletons in your own home that people can use to easily pick your argument apart. So to recap, I don't feel a need to answer to the likes of a person who is not congruent with their argument and life decisions.

    But I will open this up to public forum since I can certainly see that there may be a valid point to your argument (even though you are not in my opinion worthy of making such an argument for the reason mentioned above).

    I have not won anything as of yet. There are other players in many other tournaments that have won their tourny with ratings that were lower at the time that they entered. I broke no rule according to RHP (as far as I know). I stand on my own chess abilities and use no books or sorcerers magic. Perhaps we should go back in the annals of tournament history and strip all the titles of players who held or hold higher ratings than there tournament allowed for entry? Is this a problem? Not for me I realize that it happens all the time. In, fact I would image the great percentage of tournaments a won by players who have higher rating than the ones they had when they entered. Knowing that I still proudly and happily participate. My rating fluctuates and although I would not admit to being a 1250-1300 rated player there are times that my game suffers and I lose to players of these rating. At the time that I entered I felt I needed to work my way back so I started with this tournament. The tournaments have their requirements. I fell within those requirements. I do not believe I am misrepresenting myself. My rating is open for all RHP players to view. You chose to enter into the tourny as did miss oleum.
  2. Standard member misterrigel
    Dosadi Survivor
    10 Feb '08 21:40
    madam,

    While it's true you didn't break any rules when entering the tournament, it was, at best, a pretty silly thing for you to do. Since November 2005 your rating has mostly stayed above 1500, and often above 1600, except for a few times when you were timed out in a bunch of games at once.

    Now, when you began playing RHP again in September you were rated around 1000, but you KNEW that this low rating was artificial, and that your "real" rating was much, much higher. With this knowledge in mind I fail to understand why you would enter ANY banded tournaments until you had regained your proper rating. I mean, after being consistently rated 1500+ for so long, why on Earth would you enter a tournament that was meant for players rated several hundred points lower than you? Like I said, at best your decision was a silly mistake - you knew you should never have entered that tournament but due to some unthinking clicks you accidentally ended up joining. At worst - knowing you were far stronger than 1300 but signing up anyway so you could take advantage of an artificial ratings drop to beat up on some weak players and grab an easy tournament victory - well, that's pretty despicable.

    Regardless of your motives, the result is the same: although you shouldn't have entered the tournament because you knew you were of greater strength than the banding allowed for, you did. And now you may very well rob some more deserving player of the victory. It's not the first time this has happened on this site, whether by accident or by malice, and it won't be the last either. Oh well, I guess.
  3. 10 Feb '08 21:45 / 1 edit
    The difference between yourself and Mulgabill is that Mulgabill joined the site and that tournament in the same month. His rating honestly met the criteria for that tournament during the entirety of the tournament. Since then he has improved. You, on the other hand, had a rating of 1600 then had a series of timeouts bringing your rating down to 1050 at which point you returned to the site and promptly regained your rating. Your opponents joined the tournament thinking they were playing someone with at the same level as themselves, Not someone 300 points above them.

    Many people here at RHP frown upon such actions.
  4. 11 Feb '08 09:36
    I play in the same turnament and like Madam, i received this post:

    ''Why, with your rating, are you in this group? Pourquoi, avec votre "rating" est vous dans cette groupe? Vous aller gagner mais ou est la (le?) satisfaction?''

    Here is my reply:
    I just improved my game. When i started the tournament i had a low rating and i was beaten by players with 1300...Since i learnt a lot like I actually do a lot with my game against Madam. (But never surrender cause i can make mistakes... By exemple i gave a queen for free to Misoleum). To play against me and Madam, it`s a way for you to improve. You should not play for the cup but for the game.
    My rating was low so i couldnt join tournaments with players rated 1500. That`s all! Anyway, make your best in your games.
  5. Standard member RDM
    11 Feb '08 10:52
    I guarantee your reponse would be different if you finally join your 1500 band tournament and get thrashed by a 2100 who let his rating slide.

    We join tournaments to win not to be beaten by sandbaggers. Both you an madam have both had serious drops in ratings which belie your true rating.

    Therefore you are ruining the tournament for others.

    Just because you can do something doesn't mean that you should do it.

    Oh - and thank you for the magnanimous opportunity to learn from you and madam.
  6. 11 Feb '08 13:09
    Here you are.
    You're right, i am loosing my time playing against player under 1300. If you dont enjoy to play against better than you, just ask me to resign and i will do it.
    I dont get any satisfaction to beat low rating peoples, but i do have when i drawn or win someone better.
    I told you that i dont play for the cup but for the game so If you want 6 points without to use your mind, ask me to resign and i do it right now.
    I entered now in better tournament so i dont need to finish this one. I just continue here to learn from Madam and to do my best to give to others an interesting game.
    I will do the same for other people from the group. If you want me to resign, just ask me to do it.
    I have no problems with my myself, even if it will drop down my rating, i will do it!
    I came on RHP to improve and enjoy, not to get a up or to reach one fake high rating.
    If you do, well, you probably didn't get the real purpose of Chess.
  7. Standard member RDM
    11 Feb '08 14:22 / 1 edit
    Poutch - its not that.

    There are unbanded tournaments and unbanded tournaments and, quite frankly, there are players that will never be more than a 1300. That's just fact. (I am most probably one of those players).

    However - I join the unbanded tournaments to learn (and Erice, ItsYouThatIAdore, Caissad etc ... are doing a good job of educating me ).

    BUT - I enter banded tournaments to be competitive and, hopefully win. Being smashed in a banded tournament is demoralising - especially when you are expecting to be competitive.

    And we don't want you to resign - because that's just like a slap in the face. Saying you'll just resign because it means nothing to you just is trying to close the barn door after the horse has already bolted.

    We don't want you to join at all because we like to know that everyone has their own little space in RHP - even if its between 1250 and 1300.
  8. 11 Feb '08 21:17
    Originally posted by RDM
    BUT - I enter banded tournaments to be competitive and, hopefully win. Being smashed in a banded tournament is demoralising - especially when you are expecting to be competitive.

    And we don't want you to resign - because that's just like a slap in the face. Saying you'll just resign because it means nothing to you just is trying to close the barn door after ...[text shortened]... to know that everyone has their own little space in RHP - even if its between 1250 and 1300.
    Beautifully put, RDM. It's what I would have liked to say myself, rather than just quietly resigning all my games. Thank you.
  9. 11 Feb '08 22:49
    Some interesting statements from madam regarding my performance, thanks to Drew L and others for the support.

    If madam dug into some of my early, and not so early, games they would see there's the ultimate patzer at one extreme and someone who's comfortable holding their own against players rated in the 1800's at the other.

    When I entered the tournament in question I honestly believed that my rating was perhaps 1400 max. By the time the tournament finished I realised that I could play, but knew that I had little clue about what I was doing.

    Since then I've studied some of Silman's Endgame Course, Serawan's tactics and acquainted myself with various opening theories. So with improved knowledge my overall game improved, and this is reflected in my rating.

    The issue of "artificially" lowering your rating and then entering lower bounded tournaments to bolster them is a constant RHP theme.

    My view is that this partly reflects the lack of "open to all" tournaments and partly that some players like to enroll for as many tournaments as they can, regardless of where they think their "true" rating is.
  10. 12 Feb '08 09:06
    The problem with banded tournaments is that you enter with a rating, not with your skill. If rating did reflect your skill perectly there would be no problem. But there is.

    The rating used is the "tournament entry rating" which is (your current rating) + (your highest rating during the last 100 days) / 2. This formula is constructed to try to eliminate sand baggers and others that have an artificially low rating that do not reflect their true skill.

    But the system let you to enter with an artificially low rating, therefore it is, technically speaking, okay to enter. But not morally.

    Why would some people enter a banded tournament in a far lower band compared to his true skill? Answer: To win the tournament. To win a tournament. Is this wrong? Most of us think so.

    Is it anything wrong with the "tournament entry rating" formula? Could it be formulated in a better way to eliminate immoral entering?

    We can point out some people who is of low moral, but it would be better to try to find a solution so they cannot enter banded tournaments in the first hand. How to do it? That's the important thing.
  11. 12 Feb '08 22:06
    Blimey, I certainly touched a raw nerve there. "The lady doth protest too much, methinks".

    "I don't feel a need to answer to the likes of a person who is not congruent with their argument and life decisions". Well don't then. Just get on with it. You're happy and it's only a 'king game of chess. A pastime, a hobby. Not life and death. But, how dare you make
    assumptions about me and my 'life decisions' based on three sentences and my membership of a clan! From what I've read from you, I could assume that you're a pompous bully who's fond of spouting pseudo psychobabble. But that would be wrong of me, so I'll do no such thing.

    You think that I'm an unworthy, ignorant hypocrite who lacks the courage to investigate the searing issue of mulgabill's 'history'. I'm sure you can guess what my inferior mind makes of you.

    Anyway, must go. There are some seven year old nippers outside playing football. I need to get out there, show off my skills and slot a couple past the 'keeper. Because I can.

    Warmest regards,

    Don
  12. 13 Feb '08 14:45
    I think all we need is a new "tournament rating" method.

    Your current rating reflects your performance. Your highest rating ever reflects your best performance. I think that (for the purpose of banded competition) a player should be measured on their best performance.

    Maybe some formula can be devised to adjust the "highest ever" rating for tournament entry purposes, but in my opinion the adjustment should never be more than 100 rating points.
  13. 13 Feb '08 14:53 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by alohatiger
    I think all we need is a new "tournament rating" method.

    Your current rating reflects your performance. Your highest rating ever reflects your best performance. I think that (for the purpose of banded competition) a player should be measured on their best performance.

    Maybe some formula can be devised to adjust the "highest ever" rating for tour ...[text shortened]... ntry purposes, but in my opinion the adjustment should never be more than 100 rating points.
    Highest ever is not very good value to base a tournament rating formula around. My very first game raised me from 1200 to 1400 in one go. Suppose I was really a 1000 point player, then my 1400 will haunt me for the rest of my career at RHP....
    User 342416, benlynn, is a good example of this effect.

    I remember that there were another formula for calculation tournament rating before the current one. The highest rating in the last 30 days, was it? The effect was that people who lost massively and stayed low in a month had great advantages when entering banded tournaments.

    That former rule was not all bad, but 30 days was to small. Let it be 100 days, or more.
  14. Standard member Ragnorak
    For RHP addons...
    13 Feb '08 16:36 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    Highest ever is not very good value to base a tournament rating formula around. My very first game raised me from 1200 to 1400 in one go. Suppose I was really a 1000 point player, then my 1400 will haunt me for the rest of my career at RHP....
    User 342416, benlynn, is a good example of this effect.

    I remember that there were another formula for ...[text shortened]... nts.

    That former rule was not all bad, but 30 days was to small. Let it be 100 days, or more.
    Obviously, you have to exclude provisional ratings in any algorithm,

    I posted this back in '06...
    ""It seems to me that there are 2 seperate, though similar, problems here.
    1) New players joining banded tournies before they rise to their true rating
    2) Old players who's ratings have dropped due to T/Os entering lower banded tournies.

    So, IMO, you need 2 seperate solutions.

    To solve number 2, I'm sure the best solution is to use a rating spike minus a certain number of rating points as their floor. Instead of taking a one game spike as their spike, this rating spike should be gotten by getting the highest average of 10 (maybe some other number: 20/30?? ) continuous games. This minus say 100 or 150 could be set as the rating floor, purely for banded tournaments. Their rating could still drop below this floor.

    When they come back, they can still enter banded tournies at their floor rating.

    For new players, who haven't reached their correct rating, then they should only be allowed in banded tournies above the rating of their highest opponent in a game in which they won. If they have beaten 1600s, then they are in the 1600+ band until they beat a 1700. If they then get beaten by a 1600 while still rated below 1600, their band could be reduced by 1 band. "

    Best solution I've seen, if I may say so myself. The site should be moving towards more automation, not less. Starting the next round of tournaments when the progressors are known simply needs a script. Keeping banded tournies banded could be achieved with an algorithm based on the above system.

    D"

    The idea is further fleshed out in the following pages.
    http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=46202&page=2

    D
  15. 13 Feb '08 19:09
    Originally posted by Ragnorak
    Obviously, you have to exclude provisional ratings in any algorithm,

    I posted this back in '06...
    ""It seems to me that there are 2 seperate, though similar, problems here.
    1)To solve number 2, I'm sure the best solution is to use a rating spike minus a certain number of rating points as their floor. Instead of taking a one game spike as their spike, t ...[text shortened]... g floor, purely for banded tournaments. Their rating could still drop below this floor.

    D
    Wouldn't a quick fix just be to increase the amount of time your highest rating stands from 100 to 365 days. That alone would stop most sandbaggers would it not?