Ok, saint Nick has brought this up in another thread so this is not really my idea. There should be a rule added to the banded tournaments that stops over rated players from starting.
ie, joeBloggs is 1450 when he enters a 1500-1599 tournie. By the time it starts he's 1890!
Could a rule be added so that anyone over 50 points higher than the maximum banding cannot enter. Players ratings fluctuate up and down, if someone has had a little run they shouldn't be punished for exceeding the maximum by a little (50 points is nothing), but to let someone start a banded tournie when they out rate everyone by 200 points is just silly.
Originally posted by marinakatombMaybe joebloggs is cheating, I would look that up. 1400-1800 in a few days is quite a big jump for a mortal.
Ok, saint Nick has brought this up in another thread so this is not really my idea. There should be a rule added to the banded tournaments that stops over rated players from starting.
ie, joeBloggs is 1450 when he enters a 1500-1599 tournie. By the time it starts he's 1890!
Could a rule be added so that anyone over 50 points higher than the maxi ...[text shortened]... t to let someone start a banded tournie when they out rate everyone by 200 points is just silly.
Originally posted by mateuloseI don't think so. Ironman31 shot up in no time, it's generally new starters who enter these tournies and then go off the scale. If i'd just joined the site i'd join a 1000-1200 banded just so i could win one. I think we all would, it's just not very fair on 1000-1200 rated players. 🙂
Maybe joebloggs is cheating, I would look that up. 1400-1800 in a few days is quite a big jump for a mortal.
I've been going on and on about this in the tournament forums, and trying to get people to withdraw from the tournaments that they shouldn't be in.
It has been brought to my attention, that often a players rating will fluctuate dramatically during a tournament, mainly because of the tournament. So I think that +/- 50 points before the tournament starts is a good idea.
Now to just get rid of all those players that are above the rating limits to an extreme. Even in the middle of the tournament.
-Fatty
Originally posted by Fat mans revengePut it this way. The majority of players who enter lower tournaments than their level, do so as they are on their way up. They only get one chance to do this as once they have exceeded the maximum rating for the tournament, they never drop below that maximum again. If RHP checked players ratings as the tournament starts and removed all the players who were over 50 points higher than the maximum, i think 'rating banded' would actually start meaning something.
I've been going on and on about this in the tournament forums, and trying to get people to withdraw from the tournaments that they shouldn't be in.
It has been brought to my attention, that often a players rating will fluctuat ...[text shortened]... ts to an extreme. Even in the middle of the tournament.
-Fatty
If you look at my chart, you'll see that i exist in-between two bandings. Sometimes im over 1600, at others im below. I've never been over 1650 though. I don't think it would be that unfair for me to enter a 1500-1599 tournament as that is pretty much my level, bearing in mind that the rules take my rating in the last 30 days as my rating. It's been about 5 months since i went 30 days in the sub 1600 rating band, which prevents me from entering these tournaments anyway.
Basically what im saying is, if a player wants to, they can manipulate their rating to enter any tournament they want. It just takes a month of not playing to do it.
Checking players ratings just as the tournament starts will at least make it more difficult for people to enter ones far below their level.
Another possibility would be to check the ratings as each round started.
For example...
1500-1599 tournament
Round 1 - maximum extra 50 points
Player is 1610
I don't think this is a problem, what's 11 points! As long as they've gone 30 days below 1599, that's fine. They could have had a timeout or a resign from a higher rated player. I jumped 50 points when Steve C (then 2100+) went into hospital and the tournament we were in timed him out.
Round 2 - maximum extra 75 points (ie:1675 is maximum rating)
Player is 1665
Assuming the player is only playing in the tournament, their rating will have increased to around here from their wins in the previous round. If their rating was now 1800, they obviously knew what they were doing when they entered and should be removed. Their rating should remain unchanged, but the second placed player in their group should advance.
Round 3 - maximum extra 100 points (ie:1699 is maximum rating)
Player is 1690
Again, assuming the player is only playing in the tournament, their rating will have increased to around here.
If a 1900 player entered this tournament, they would have to continue manipulating their rating for 6-10 months until the tournament was completed. Only the sadest individuals would do this, though we all know their out there!
My problem is when people know they are significantly stronger than the banding of the tournament. It's just unfair on the other players in that competition. The best thing would be to put a polite request on banded tournaments and hope that people adhered to it. Although the idea of putting thresholds on each round sounds workable I'd rather not have people knocked out in this way. It also would be possible to abuse this rule (by deliberately resigning if someone is near a threshold).
Originally posted by mikenayThis is possible, but the reason someone enters a tournament that they are far too strong for is generally born out of vanity. I personally hate to have any losses against my name. Putting myself in a position were i have to resign a game im possibly winning would spell the end of my desire to play chess. Im sure this applies to most people.
It also would be possible to abuse this rule (by deliberately resigning if someone is near a threshold).
Fatty and I have been talking about this quite a bit.
I've been thinking about it for a few days. Just can't seem to find anyway to stop it.
I'm not sure the idea of a maximum is feasible. Rating points just fluctuate too much and many times artificially.
I mean, if a bunch of your opponents resign around the same time for whatever reason and you automatically lose all games in a tourney?
Try this example- I'm playing in a banded tourney with this rule in place and am currently second. Player X is leading and we have two games going. I do the math and figure out that if I resign both of my games with X it will push him over the 50 point limit and he will automatically be resigned for the tourney! WooHoo! I win!
Really really ugly scenario, a group of players start manipulating the system as I did above to control who stays and who goes from a tourney...
----goes back to thinking--
Originally posted by Saint NickHmm, i see what you mean. I would say that would be an exceptional circumstance but an ugly one for sure. This would only be possible if the games being resigned were the last two games left to be finished in the whole tournament, otherwise the person could not be sure that it would get them through to the next round. This might have a knock on result of slowing down the tournaments.
Fatty and I have been talking about this quite a bit.
I've been thinking about it for a few days. Just can't seem to find anyway to stop it.
I'm not sure the idea of a maximum is feasible. Rating points just fluctuate too much and many times artificially.
I mean, if a bunch of your opponents resign around the same time for whatever reason and you au ...[text shortened]... as I did above to control who stays and who goes from a tourney...
----goes back to thinking--
Having said this, i still think this system could work. This potential problem of people resigning games to qualify for the next round would not happen very often. I would go as far as to argue that site admin could remidy these occasions manually without too much additional work load.
The point is to prevent people who are over rated joining banded tournies. The number of agreeved players in this system would be much smaller than the number of agreeved players under the current system. Players denied access to the next round of their tournament wouldn't loose any points off their rating, just their place in a tournament that they shouldn't have had in the first place.
Originally posted by marinakatombWhy not just start several at once, you join and when they start you
Hmm, i see what you mean. I would say that would be an exceptional circumstance but an ugly one for sure. This would only be possible if the games being resigned were the last two games left to be finished in the whole tournament, otherwise the person could not be sure that it would get them through to the next round. This might have a knock on result o ...[text shortened]... their rating, just their place in a tournament that they shouldn't have had in the first place.
are where you are.
Kelly
If relatively new member joined a banded tourney and his/her rating went steadily up and over the banded max, there's no 'fair' way to stop that from happening. Also it wouldn't be fair to kick them from the tourney. What if this high rating spike was really just from winning all the games in the tourney. There is nothing to do.
But stopping 'better' players from entering banded tourneys surely isn't so difficult.
I don't know too much about statistics, but surely we could have another indicator or rating value for each player. This could be a 'career' rating for RHP.
Our current ratings can easily be damaged by high gameload and many timeouts against a high rated player who loses against much lower rated people. These sudden spikes can bring a very god player to a very low rating, but in a short period of time their ratings go up to a more realistic value again.
If we had a 'career rating' for that player that takes into account the amount of time on high and low peaks it would be a better value that can be used to judge tournament entry. This is especially accurate for people who have been here for many years. The 30 day value is not a very accurate description of chess talent.
I think that people who enter banded tounies should have their ratings checked before Russ (or whoever) presses the start button. Then if their rating has changed to something significantly outside the boundaries of the rating band they should be removed before the touny starts.
otherwise yes it is simply making a mockery of the whole idea.
This surely can't be that hard to implement as the checks are in place already when they try to sign up.
the problem concerns people who for whatever reason have a rating that has collapsed - maybe they stopped playing for a month and all their games timed out. i'm sure for some people this is not 'deliberate' in that they genuinely were on holiday or just couldn't be bothered to play all the time, but for some i think it is (whether to enter a low-banded tournament or to start a load of clan games they are certain to win). either way a good solution would be a longer 'memory' for recent highest rating - like 3 months or even 6 months. for clan challenges it would be nice to see this figure as well as the current score by players' names when matching up a challenge.
sempre, murrow