14 Jun 09
2 edits
Originally posted by RenarsIt already happened before the new changes, and the changes will exacerbate the issue.
surely that's very unlikely, despite the new changes..
Think of this way: There were enough underrateds winning low-band tourneys to prompt enough threads on sandbagging to force a site rule change. Where are these players going to go now that their TER stays higher for a much longer time period? Naturally, to the high-band tourneys, or open tourneys. The problem has just been shifted from one group to another in hopes that the 'other' group won't complain as much. 😕
Edit: Check out Tournament 7403 - a 1750+ tourney with a 1000-rated player in it!
14 Jun 09
Originally posted by SwissGambitAs this player has had mass resignations this just proves that the new T E R is working already
It already happened before the new changes, and the changes will exacerbate the issue.
Think of this way: There were enough underrateds winning low-band tourneys to prompt enough threads on sandbagging to force a site rule change. Where are these players going to go now that their TER stays higher for a much longer time period? Naturally, to the high- ...[text shortened]... much. 😕
Edit: Check out Tournament 7403 - a 1750+ tourney with a 1000-rated player in it!
14 Jun 09
Originally posted by SwissGambitcatalinpv was a 2100+ player just a few days ago! I was playing against him in one of the octets where he resigned as well.. he/she PMed saying 'haven't got time' .. so don't think this is a good example 😉 well, from you I was reading it would be affecting tournaments [i]en masse[i]
It already happened before the new changes, and the changes will exacerbate the issue.
Think of this way: There were enough underrateds winning low-band tourneys to prompt enough threads on sandbagging to force a site rule change. Where are these players going to go now that their TER stays higher for a much longer time period? Naturally, to the high- ...[text shortened]... much. 😕
Edit: Check out Tournament 7403 - a 1750+ tourney with a 1000-rated player in it!
14 Jun 09
Originally posted by SwissGambitSurely the point is that a player with a high rating spoils a tournament if by sandbagging he/she is able to enter a lower rated tournament.
It already happened before the new changes, and the changes will exacerbate the issue.
Think of this way: There were enough underrateds winning low-band tourneys to prompt enough threads on sandbagging to force a site rule change. Where are these players going to go now that their TER stays higher for a much longer time period? Naturally, to the high- ...[text shortened]... much. 😕
Edit: Check out Tournament 7403 - a 1750+ tourney with a 1000-rated player in it!
However a player being forced by the 365 day rule to enter higher-rated tournaments surely should not be a problem as she/he will probably lose most of their games. An 1800 player playing in a tournament for 1300-1400 is more of a problem than a 1300 plsyer in am 1800+ tournament.
I always thought sandbagging was about pathetic players entering tournaments below their ability to add to their tournament weins.
15 Jun 09
2 edits
Originally posted by RenarsAfraid you've missed my point somehow. The example shows just what I said will happen under TER: massively underrated players in high-band tourneys.
[b]catalinpv was a 2100+ player just a few days ago! I was playing against him in one of the octets where he resigned as well.. he/she PMed saying 'haven't got time' .. so don't think this is a good example 😉 well, from you I was reading it would be affecting tournaments en masse[i][/b][/i]
15 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by jayaitchSurely the point is that a player with a high rating spoils a tournament if by sandbagging he/she is able to enter a lower rated tournament.
Surely the point is that a player with a high rating spoils a tournament if by sandbagging he/she is able to enter a lower rated tournament.
However a player being forced by the 365 day rule to enter higher-rated tournaments surely should not be a problem as she/he will probably lose most of their games. An 1800 player playing in a tournament for 1300- ...[text shortened]... bout pathetic players entering tournaments below their ability to add to their tournament weins.
The point should be broader. Lower rated players aren't the only ones who don't want massively underrated players in their tourneys [and clan challenges, leagues, etc.]
However a player being forced by the 365 day rule to enter higher-rated tournaments surely should not be a problem as she/he will probably lose most of their games.
No, they will not. Instead, they will take an undue amount of rating points away from their opposition, since they used to be much higher rated, and have probably not lost any actual chess strength.
An 1800 player playing in a tournament for 1300-1400 is more of a problem than a 1300 plsyer in am 1800+ tournament.
False.
I always thought sandbagging was about pathetic players entering tournaments below their ability to add to their tournament weins.
"Sandbagging" is an unfortunate choice of term for the TER/rating floor debate, as many of those who drop hundreds of points have merely needed a break from the site, and not deliberately tried to tank their rating.
15 Jun 09
Originally posted by SwissGambitHe was averaging around 1700 before his dump .So he has the ability to play at that level.Now he can't enter tournaments that he is not entitled to.
That's like saying a crime prevention program is working if someone else gets robbed instead of you.
I realise that you may be penalised in the short term but in the long term this can only be a benift.
15 Jun 09
3 edits
I'm not getting this... the particular example does all but proves your concern: the player in question would've qualified for the said tournament regardless, either under old or new T E R (at the time of entering the tournament his/her T E R was representative of his/her actual rating ) The only problem there is that she/he failed to withdraw himself from the tournament he had entered before leaving the site (which he had apparently done), leading you believe that this was a case of, quote, massively underrated players in high-band tourneys . Maybe you do have a point, but this is just a bad example... imho
15 Jun 09
2 edits
Originally posted by RenarsI was not privy to the fact that he had joined the tourney before mass-resigning, and while I do agree that it makes the example less forceful, it does not invalidate it entirely. It shows that there is still a loophole in the system. The fact remains that such a player can still enter a high-band tourney, whether he resigned his games 3 days ago or 300 days ago.
I'm not getting this... the particular example does all but proves your concern: the player in question would've qualified for the said tournament regardless, either under old or new T E R (at the time of entering the tournament his/her T E R was representative of his/her actual rating ) The only problem there is that she/he failed to withdraw himse ...[text shortened]... in high-band tourneys . Maybe you do have a point, but this is just a bad example... imho[/b]
Edit: In the one high-band tourney I've played in, there was a player 200 points below the minimum grade, and 400 points below his real strength, with a note in his profile: "If we're still playing after 5 moves, then be prepared for your rating to drop." A concept like TER, that allows, and even encourages, this sort of nonsense, is flawed.
15 Jun 09
Originally posted by padgerIn other words, "I don't really care what happens to anyone else, as long as the problem is fixed for me." 🙄
He was averaging around 1700 before his dump .So he has the ability to play at that level.Now he can't enter tournaments that he is not entitled to.
I realise that you may be penalised in the short term but in the long term this can only be a benift.
15 Jun 09
Originally posted by SwissGambitbut I thought you simply objected (kind of) to the possibility of some 'weak(er)' players somehow sneaking through 'cause of the new F E R, in the case of the said player it's simply not true, I reckon he'd be a worthy opponent for you.
The fact remains that such a player can still enter a high-band tourney, whether he resigned his games 3 days ago or 300 days ago.
I do think it is actually right (that he is allowed to do that, regardless how many days ago he resigned). I mean if you were forced to leave the site for some reasons (with vacation balance exhausted) I think it would only be fair if, when back, you were considered for 2000+ or similar tournaments..)
ahh oh well, nevermind.. I was just trying to understand your concern
15 Jun 09
I must agree with swiss gambit, I can't see any improvement in replacing the problem, even worse, the rating difference is bigger and whil thus cause more harm playing higher rated players. The solution IMO is to create a minimum rating say 300 points below the maximum (for 100 days). I also tournament entry rating should be calculated over a shorter time period for example 50 days
15 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by RenarsSigh. It would help if you read my posts more carefully.
but I thought you simply objected (kind of) to the possibility of some 'weak(er)' players somehow sneaking through 'cause of the new F E R, in the case of the said player it's simply not true, I reckon he'd be a worthy opponent for you.
I do think it is actually right (that he is allowed to do that, regardless how many days ago he resigned). I mean if you ...[text shortened]... lar tournaments..)
ahh oh well, nevermind.. I was just trying to understand your concern
I never said anything about weaker players. Underrated was the term I used. Big difference.
The problem is not that the game is not competitive. It's that the rating change is totally unfair. If I lose to Mr. 1000, I lose 32 points or more. If I win, I get zero. This despite the fact that he actually is as strong a player as I am. I ought to get something for beating the guy, and ought to lose less points for losing to him.
15 Jun 09
Originally posted by SwissGambitEntry to banded tournaments should be prevented unless players are within say 100 points of the lower entry limit.
Speaking as a 2000+ player, I'm not thrilled with the idea of seeing 1400 rated players [who used to be 2000] in the high-band tourneys... 😕
There should be an auto facilitity in place to remove players from unstarted tournaments, if their rating drops below the entry limits.
This should prevent most cases, but will not stop ratings drops after a tournaments has started.