Originally posted by AikoThere is not ever going to be a completely fair way. What if you end
That's a very good idea. It really helps out (a bit more) starting an even challenge.
up with a huge jump in points because two people who you had more
than a few games will leave the site while playing you. Your rating
would take a huge leap up, and you'd never get to play where your
current strenght really is in the banded tournaments. If you took
away the ability to pickup points for that reason, some would abuse
it and not allow you to gain points for beating them. I suggest we
simply let the time back be maybe 60 days and live with the results.
It will not be perfect, but with a group of honest players it would be
fair. Cheaters and people who want to take advandage will always
try to find away to get around the rules.
Kelly
Originally posted by marinakatomb50 points would be too small of an amount if something like this was to be done. 50 points is nothing especally considering the winner of the tournament. Even if it was 100 points, you are saying that someone who enters in at lets say 1400 and wins all his games into the final round and also wins some of his other games he's playing could pick up 100+ points. So because he has started playing well he should be booted from the tournament?? Even if it was 200 points, there would still be complainers, and it could only be done at the start of a tournament. Plus if done at the start of a tournament you then dont have the same amont of players so what happens then do you wait again for someone else to join after that player has been removed for his rating going too high? I do agree there should be something though, but losing your games even if you don't lose rating points isnt good either.
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 Fat mans revengeI think this is as close as we're going to get to a compromise. 🙂
I like the 20 games way of doing things, by then your rating is pretty much right where it should be. It seems the biggest problem though, comes when people lose bunches of games, and their rating plummets. Then, on their way back up, this happens. As said before, I like the idea of the 120 day highest rating. That seems to keep the last 4 month ...[text shortened]... his with a check before the tourny starts, and we have ourselves a pretty fair tourny.
-Fatty
Originally posted by TRACKHEAD21We covered all that on the first page 😉
50 points would be too small of an amount if something like this was to be done. 50 points is nothing especally considering the winner of the tournament. Even if it was 100 points, you are saying that someone who enters in at lets say 1400 and wins all his games into the final round and also wins some of his other games he's playing could pick up 100+ p ...[text shortened]... something though, but losing your games even if you don't lose rating points isnt good either.
Originally posted by marinakatombWell, it seems it has probably been put on Russ's desk(via sticky note) thanks to Saint Nick. And thus, is probably added to his "to-do-list."
I think this is as close as we're going to get to a compromise. 🙂
I'm glad that it is going to get done, and even more glad that I have gotten responses from people at RHP HQ about my problem. Thanks Saint Nick, always good to know someone is listening. Good luck making your way through the list Russ.
-Fatty
Originally posted by Fat mans revengeLOL!
Well, it seems it has probably been put on Russ's desk(via sticky note) thanks to Saint Nick. And thus, is probably added to his "to-do-list."
I'm glad that it is going to get done, and even more glad that I have gotten responses from people at RHP HQ about my problem. Thanks Saint Nick, always good to know someone is listening. Good luck making your way through the list Russ.
-Fatty
Guess I should change my settings. I'm not affiliated with RHP. Me running around RHP HQ with my pants off was a joke between me and another player. Me putting a sticky on his desk (still with no pants on) was an extention of the same joke.
I did bring it to Russ' attention and he has noted our suggestion.
Sorry about the confusion
and ,yes, I'm still lurking in the shadows as I finish off my last few games. 🙂
- Joined
- 05 Aug 04
- Moves
- 226553
I like the idea of using the max rating minus a set figure. Ratings do vary a lot but some players stop playing for months whose rating is 1600 to 1800 then come back at 850. These players should only be able to enter tournies approx 10% less than their highest rating ie. for the illistrated rating of max 1800 this would equate to 1620. For someone with a max rating of 1500 this would be 1350.
This would also discourage those that only finish games they are winning to boost their rating. If they knew they would no longer be able to enter tournies at their true level they would finish games in the order they are played............Hopefully!
Originally posted by Grandmaster baterYou can't use constants like just taking a set percentage off a highest rating. If a player of around the 1200 mark was lucky to get 10 or so TO's against much higher rated opponents his / her rating could possibly jump by about 300 rating points in no time. By only taking 10% off the highest rating (150 off 1500) means this 1200 player would be 'rated' as a 1350 player. You can easily see the problems with this system.
I like the idea of using the max rating minus a set figure. Ratings do vary a lot but some players stop playing for months whose rating is 1600 to 1800 then come back at 850. These players should only be able to enter tournies approx 10% less than their highest rating ie. for the illistrated rating of max 1800 this would equate to 1620. For some ...[text shortened]... at their true level they would finish games in the order they are played............Hopefully!
See my post on the previous page for a possible solution.
Question: Ok, this banding thing sounds alright but there's 1 or 2 things I'd like to ask (to marinakatomb the starter of this thread). Ok, so after each round you plan to raise the number a bit more correct? Well, what if in the first round there's someone rated in say the 1580's or so, what if they have a temporary rating spike due to older games that he/she's won and there rating jumps of the 50 point limit in the first round? Should they get kicked out cause of older games getting finished even though they are rated in the 1500's? Just curious if there's a way around this or if I missed something. Thanks.
Josh
Originally posted by GalaxyShieldHey Josh, i think we've kind of decided against that idea now. I was just thinking out loud really. The general consensus seems to sway towards a 60 day highest rating instead of a 30 day. Also to have the ratings of all the entrants checked just before the tourny starts to meake sure there are no massively over rated players involved.
Question: Ok, this banding thing sounds alright but there's 1 or 2 things I'd like to ask (to marinakatomb the starter of this thread). Ok, so after each round you plan to raise the number a bit more correct? Well, what if in the first round there's someone rated in say the 1580's or so, what if they have a temporary rating spike due to older games ...[text shortened]... Just curious if there's a way around this or if I missed something. Thanks.
Josh
Also to have the ratings of all the entrants checked just before the tourny starts to meake sure there are no massively over rated players involved.[/b]Well, if there's going to someone checking tourney's to make sure there's nobody who should be rated higher involved then why not just use current rating? 60 highest rating would be aweful cause what if someone rated in the 1500's goes up to 1610 (an example) then goes back down they won't be able to play in banded's where they have a chance? Is there a good argument for 60 highest rating for banded tourneys?????
The aim with the 60 day high being taken is to stop really strong players, whose ratings plummet as they can't get online for a while, from entering bands far below their ability when they are on the way back up.
I've been falling into the situation you describe recently - my rating is currently 1630ish, but has fluctuated between there and 1490 in the last couple of month, so I generally can't enter the <1600 tournaments even though they suit my skill level the best. Perhaps it would be possible to set different limits on the current and highest ratings? For example set a maximum current rating of 1600 (when the tournament commences), but a 60 day high of 1650. This would still keep out very strong players but gives a little wiggle room to people who fluctuate around the 1600 mark. By the time you've peaked above 1650 you probably have a fair chance in the next band.
Yes but marinakatomb said that there's going to be someone watch banded tourneys to make sure there's nobody in them who shouldn't be. So, if that is the case then why not just go with current rating? That way the people slightly over 1600 (cause chances are if they're just slightly over they're in the 1500's) lose a game or to before a banded comes along then they can join rather then having to play in the 1600-1799 banded which they probably don't have a desent shot at.