12 Apr 04
1 edit
Originally posted by skeeterwhat are you ?
.........if the odd 'pear' emerges ..............
What others think?
skeeter
a banana ?
😀
p.s. not a bad plan.
it easily fits in with other plans too.
have some "p-only" tourneys and some "non-p" tourneys and of course "all in" tourneys.
12 Apr 04
Originally posted by flexmoreThanks flex, high praise indeed from you. 😉
what are you ?
a banana ?
😀
p.s. not a bad plan.
it easily fits in with other plans too.
have some "p-only" tourneys and some "non-p" tourneys and of course "all in" tourneys.
Still, I think the proposals have some merit?
skeeter
12 Apr 04
In the "My Tournaments" screen would it be possible to put an indicator next to the tournmanents that you have completed your round in. Maybe a blue arrow pointing up if you are going through to the next round and a red arrow pointing down if you're not. Something like that so you can see at a glance and don't keep having to go back and drill into them, if you're in a few the names are so similar its hard to remember which are which.
16 Apr 04
Originally posted by skeeterIt's not just sub-1200's that have a problem.
I think I have a solution. If the sub 1200's feel that they need protection from all those GM's sneaking around with a 'p' rating then petition Russ and get the cut-off lowered to 1199.
skeeter
With a rating that was in the 1300s at the time (it has only recently got up to the high 1400s), I thought I'd have a good chance in the Xmas and New Year Mid tournament (eligible ratings from 1151-1450). However, I reckoned without being grouped with Colleman, a p1200 at the start of the tournament, a 1700+ player by the time our games finished, now rated 2002 and almost certain to win the tournament.
I learned quite a bit from playing Colleman, who was kind enough to give me some helpful analysis of one of our games, but it would have been nice to have had the chance to progress.
16 Apr 04
Originally posted by RolandYoungYep. Good point and more the reason to limit all 'p' raters to tourneys amongst themselves until they achieve that 20 game threshold and thus a real rating.
It's not just sub-1200's that have a problem.
With a rating that was in the 1300s at the time (it has only recently got up to the high 1400s), I thought I'd have a good chance in the Xmas and New Year Mid tournament (eligible ratings from 1151-1450). However, I reckoned without being grouped with Colleman, a p1200 at the start of the tournament, a ...[text shortened]... ul analysis of one of our games, but it would have been nice to have had the chance to progress.
skeeter
16 Apr 04
Originally posted by skeetertrue;
Yep. Good point and more the reason to limit all 'p' raters to tourneys amongst themselves until they achieve that 20 game threshold and thus a real rating.
skeeter
- but as a 1500 - 1700 player i can tell you 20 games is not enough for many players.
i think i have probably played half of the top 40 players at times when their ratings were only 1600-1700 and not provisional.
don't get me wrong, i enjoyed every loss 🙂, but there is a definite theme that 20 is insufficient for some and too much for others.
i think better might be a p rating until they get both a win and a loss.
16 Apr 04
Originally posted by RolandYoungThanks Roland. I am always happy discuss a game after it is finished.
It's not just sub-1200's that have a problem.
With a rating that was in the 1300s at the time (it has only recently got up to the high 1400s), I thought I'd have a good chance in the Xmas and New Year Mid tournament (eligible ratings from 1151-1450). However, I reckoned without being grouped with Colleman, a p1200 at the start of the tournament, a ...[text shortened]... ul analysis of one of our games, but it would have been nice to have had the chance to progress.
As my p1200 rating indicated I was new to the site then and just wanted to play lots of games. I think I would have been happy to be restricted to a tournament for players with provisional ratings only at that stage.
I seem to remember suggesting in a Forum that new members should be allowed to choose the level at which they start in which case I would probably have put myself at p1800 and taken it from there. The suggestion went down like a lead balloon!!
Best wishes
Dave 🙂
17 Apr 04
Originally posted by flexmoreThat would mean that Dantes could never have entered a single tournament. I do not like that idea.
true;
- but as a 1500 - 1700 player i can tell you 20 games is not enough for many players.
i think i have probably played half of the top 40 players at times when their ratings were only 1600-1700 and not provisional.
don't get me wrong, i enjoyed every loss 🙂, but there is a definite theme that 20 is insufficient for some and too much for others.
i think better might be a p rating until they get both a win and a loss.
-trekkie
19 Apr 04
Originally posted by trekkieI understood the consensus of this thread to be that 'p' players should be excluded from rating-restricted tournaments, not from all tournaments.
That would mean that Dantes could never have entered a single tournament. I do not like that idea.
-trekkie
Dantes (and any other 'p' player) could have entered any of the 'grouped random', 'free for all', 'grand split', MOAKT, etc tounaments, but not anything called 'Rookie' or 'Mid'.
19 Apr 04
Originally posted by Prefectto come back to the original question I'm just wondering if it might be an easier proposition to have the game name, when a tournament, in the my games page, be a link to the tournament page. Probably easy to implement and not too demanding on the server. (just a thought). Would that do Prefect?
When I go under my tournaments. All my tournaments is not shown only the ones most resently that can fit on one page. It would also be nice if it was possible to sort them after it your still in the tourny or out. Is this something you can do something about Russ.
Prefect.
24 Apr 04
Just some extra info on the 'my tournaments' page would be nice.
Something like, 'progress?' yes/no/busy or something to that effect.
Just some info on where I am in the tourney.
Also could we get better highlighting of the goup I'm involved in? Something akin to the way my name is highlighted in the player tables?
25 Apr 04
How about giving players a choice for their starting rating, if they know their apporiximate strength? I am still in the provisional stage right now but my strength is hundreds of points higher than the 1200 starting point. On my first day as a subscriber, I was so in a hurry to get into a tournament that I didn't notice the rating limit of 1200-1400.. It was pointed out to me after the tournament had already started, and to the other players in that tournament, I do apologize. But had I been given the opportunity to represent my approximate playing strength from the day I signed up, I would most certainly have done so.
25 Apr 04
Originally posted by RolandYoungpoint taken.
I understood the consensus of this thread to be that 'p' players should be excluded from rating-restricted tournaments, not from all tournaments.
Dantes (and any other 'p' player) could have entered any of the 'grouped random', 'free for all', 'grand split', MOAKT, etc tounaments, but not anything called 'Rookie' or 'Mid'.
-trekkie