Originally posted by mrmistYeah, but it sais:
Surely you'd go into position 2 in this eventuality, not position 1.
When you overtake someone who's 2nd in a race, you go 2nd, not 1st.
"Should you win, you will be positioned above your opponent's current position."
I think that requires a new formulation.
Originally posted by zozozozoI'm guessing this is a mis-statement. It should probably say, "Should you win, you will be positioned at your opponent's current position, while he drops down one position."
Yeah, but it sais:
"Should you win, you will be positioned [b]above your opponent's current position."
I think that requires a new formulation.[/b]
Edit: Another way of thinking of it is that when you lose, you drop down one position, so when you win, your opponent drops down one and then you are placed above their current position, which is one below where they were. It's much more clear to say that when you win, you take their position, and they drop down one.
Originally posted by SuzianneThat other way of thinking is a bit wierd, because its not a rule that when you finish a game, the player who loses, loses first, and then the winner wins....it happens at the same time.
I'm guessing this is a mis-statement. It should probably say, "Should you win, you will be positioned [b]at your opponent's current position, while he drops down one position."
Edit: Another way of thinking of it is that when you lose, you drop down one position, so when you win, your opponent drops down one and then you are placed above thei ...[text shortened]... much more clear to say that when you win, you take their position, and they drop down one.[/b]
I like your suggestion, Russ should change it in my opinion.
Originally posted by jayaitchIt is.
Isn't the position that when you win you replace the person who has lost who is then placed one rung below your new place on the ladder?
In the help section its described as: "Should you win, you will be positioned above your opponent's current position."
Which i consider misleading. Suziannes suggestion is better.
Originally posted by RopespierreAt the same time that the economy of the world totaly changes, when money is unimportant and all services everywhere will be offered for free.
When can I expect to have a ladder available for non subs?
In other words; I wouldnt wait for it😉
Edit: maybe a bit sooner tho, Russ did say this:
Once this feature has bedded in with just subs, I am considering opening this feature up to everyone, but non-subs will not be able to challenge an opponent if they are playing 6 games. They can be challenged though - essential to keep the ladder moving - so this could push non-subs to 7 games. Which I’m fine with.
(Thread 117832, page 5)
I have a query. Please excuse my slow wits, but I just joined the ladders - at the bottom! I can't say I wasn't warned because it's made amply clear in the instructions.
But as I say, I'm pretty dozy at times and joined late. This means I'm in position 547 on one ladder when my grade would put me at 2. No worries, I think. Do me good to start at the bottom and work my way up. As in life, so in chess; it's character-building.
Then I think a bit more. I'm challenging a guy ten places above me, like it says. He's graded 1000 points below me, so I should win. I've sheepishly apologised for the need to play him, but assuming I win, I'll 'zoom' to place 537 and challenge No. 527. At this rate, assuming one month per game if I'm lucky - and winning, I should hit the top 20 in just over four years time 🙄
...which doesn't seem a splendid use of anyone's time. So my question is this: will the ladder be re-jigged at any point? Or is this it? If the latter, then I might as well quit now which would be a pity.
Originally posted by atticus2I dont think the ladders will be "re-jigged" (Im not familiar with the term and neither is google translation, but im assuming it means that the ladders would start all over agian, where positions are sorted by rating), because that would mean everyone loses the (possible) progress they are making now...
I have a query. Please excuse my slow wits, but I just joined the ladders - at the bottom! I can't say I wasn't warned because it's made amply clear in the instructions.
But as I say, I'm pretty dozy at times and joined late. This means I'm in position 547 on one ladder when my grade would put me at 2. No worries, I think. Do me good to start at the bott ...[text shortened]... r is this it? If the latter, then I might as well quit now which would be a pity.
As you already stated its kind of your own fault ofcourse, but i understand your problem. Maybe its an idea to allow, for example, players on position 100 and lower (lower meaning a worse position) to be able to challenge more then 10 spots above thiers?
Yes, 're-jig' = re-set' or 're-align' or 're-allocate' or 'put into a new order'.
It's worse than I thought. No one is going to want to challenge me with much hope of taking my position because there will usually be a much lower-rated player nearby. By the same line of reasoning, it is in my interest to challenge the highest-placed weakest player in the group of ten above me. In practice, I can simply challenge the highest-placed player since none of the next 400 players falls within 800 points of me!
The result is that I will be playing mismatches for ages - no fun for anyone. It's like I'm being forced into 'sandbagging'. Not good.
One possible solution might be to re-align late entrants like me by placing them on entry, say, 30 places below their graded position. Otherwise, it's pretty pointless for any high-graded players to join the ladders if they didn't at the start. An alternative would be to band the ladder into 'divisions', allowing up & down movement of individuals, but feeding new entrants into the bottom of the relevant division, not the bottom of the entire ladder.
Originally posted by atticus2I think your sugestion is just unfair for the lower rated players, they too have a right to try to move up the ladder, just as much as you do, but I do agree with zozozo, perhaps make it possible to challange 20, or even 25 places under the 100/150 mark.
Yes, 're-jig' = re-set' or 're-align' or 're-allocate' or 'put into a new order'.
It's worse than I thought. No one is going to want to challenge me with much hope of taking my position because there will usually be a much lower-rated player nearby. By the same line of reasoning, it is in my interest to challenge the highest-placed weakest player ...[text shortened]... into the bottom of the relevant division, not the bottom of the entire ladder.
I have the opposite problem to Atticus - I joined the 7-day ladder late and the only available players for me to challenge are two who are very much higher-rated than I. If I challenge either I'll definitely lose, wasting both our time. I'm blocking people below me who are higher in rating than I am and might be happy to challenge one of those. I can't see any solution under present rules than to take myself out of the ladder altogether. Kind of defeats the purpose if the "start at the bottom" rule stands. So high-rated are unhappy and low-rated are unhappy, and only those in the original ladder structure get a fair go. OK, Atticus and I can blame ourselves for signing up late, but what about all the new subscribers?
Originally posted by atticus2I think your first suggestion is a bit tricky. Right now the ladders are still based on rating, but when challenges are won and lost, people with a lower rating could end up relatively high on the ladder (because they might put very much effort in thier ladder games or whatever), and vice versa. So if your rating is 1200 and you should be placed somewhere in the ladder there is no actual 1200 position because all the ratings are mixed up.
One possible solution might be to re-align late entrants like me by placing them on entry, say, 30 places below their graded position. Otherwise, it's pretty pointless for any high-graded players to join the ladders if they didn't at the start. An alternative would be to band the ladder into 'divisions', allowing up & down movement of individuals, but feedi ...[text shortened]... new entrants into the bottom of the relevant division, not the bottom of the entire ladder.
I do like your second suggestion: "An alternative would be to band the ladder into 'divisions', allowing up & down movement of individuals, but feeding new entrants into the bottom of the relevant division, not the bottom of the entire ladder."
And (, orion25,) I also think this would be pretty fair to lower rated players since they would be placed in thier own playing strength division. They too should have the right to move up the rankings, but lets just face the facts; a 1200 player is never, ever going to make it to position 1.
The only 'problem' i see for this suggestion is that, when someone new to the ladder would be placed at the bottom of a higher division, he/she should get a rank/position. This would mean all the players below that division position would lose 1 rank without finishing any games.