Banded tournaments should be for people in that band. Not for people just PASSING THROUGH that band. However it is regulated and enforced doesn't matter as long as it is - which right now it doesn't seem to be.
If I made the rules, you wouldn't be able to enter a banded tournament unless your rating had been in or below that band for 6 months.
Originally posted by MarinkatombI agree.
The improvements in the banded tournaments with the tournament entry rating have been really great but i still feel that players should be removed from tournaments if their grade shoots up hundreds of points past the top threshhold of the band. Surely we can have a cut off of say 250 points? If a players highest grade in last 100 days is 250+ points high ...[text shortened]... uld advance instead as the original player shouldn't have entered the band in the first place.
The fact that people 'improve' is irrelevant. Once you're +250 points over the rating band limits then it's blatantly obvious all your opponents are far below your skill level. At that stage, it ruins the tournament for everyone else involved and makes a mockery of the whole idea of banded tournaments. People enter banded tournaments to play opponents their own level so they have a fair chance at winning it. They don't enter them to be beaten by an opponent that's rated 350 points higher then them. Staying in a tournament when you're FAR over the rating band is just a blatant act of selfish greed to get your grubby mits on the title and should be cracked down on. If people don't have the integrity to back out of them, then they should be forcibly removed.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 07
- Moves
- 27653
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveI think the hardest case is for people who just recently joined the site (me, for example). I have no idea what my "real" rating on this site is, but I started joining banded tournaments just so I wouldn't have to play several rounds of players 300+ points below me before playing folks roughly equal in rating.
Banded tournaments should be for people in that band. Not for people just PASSING THROUGH that band. However it is regulated and enforced doesn't matter as long as it is - which right now it doesn't seem to be.
If I made the rules, you wouldn't be able to enter a banded tournament unless your rating had been in or below that band for 6 months.
I would definitely consider it a penalty not to be able to finish these tournaments just because I hadn't played enough games to establish a "true" rating. I'm not totally unsympathetic to the problem (its an even bigger probelm in OTB tournaments with "class" prizes), but I'd sure want the restictions to be pretty loose.
On the other hand, i agree with folks that current entry rating isn't exclusive enough. Last 100 games does not appear to be long enough for the "maximum" rating as many players seem to have had ratings many hundreds of points higher than these in the past. If they want to rehabilitate their ratings, they should be able (and required) to play in the higher rated bands.
If, during a tournament, a player reaches a rating or level which would have disqualified them from entering it, he should be allowed to withdraw either immediately, or when he has finished his current round.
I'm sure some highly rated players value their list of much lower rated tourney wins, but under the current system players who might feel embarrassed by beating much weaker opponents can't withdraw after the tourney has started. If a player wins his round (or comes second in some cases), he's automatically entered into the next one.
As all tournament games are rated, there would be a ratings dive if s/he resigned games during the round. Also those games would be recorded as losses in that player's game history.
A withdrawal option could allow a player to finish their existing games, but they wouldn't proceed to the next round. The second and/or third placed players would proceed in that case.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 07
- Moves
- 27653
Originally posted by c99uxActually, a withdrawal option (for the next round) might be a good idea regardless of the rating issues. For example, suppose you are in a tournament of many rounds that might take 2+ years (some of the 3 7 threesomes, for instance) and you are too busy to play for some reason. Right now, i think you'd just have to time out or resign when the next round starts. Looking through tournaments histories, it looks to me as though its not totally uncommon to have a player just "not play" a later round game. A withdraw option would allow this to be more graceful.
If, during a tournament, a player reaches a rating or level which would have disqualified them from entering it, he should be allowed to withdraw either immediately, or when he has finished his current round.
I'm sure some highly rated players value their list of much lower rated tourney wins, but under the current system players who might feel embarrassed ...[text shortened]... oceed to the next round. The second and/or third placed players would proceed in that case.
Originally posted by ErekoseAlso you wouldn't have a loss on your record for resigning or being timed out...
Actually, a withdrawal option (for the next round) might be a good idea regardless of the rating issues. For example, suppose you are in a tournament of many rounds that might take 2+ years (some of the 3 7 threesomes, for instance) and you are too busy to play for some reason. Right now, i think you'd just have to time out or resign when the next round st ...[text shortened]... just "not play" a later round game. A withdraw option would allow this to be more graceful.
What about a rule where your tourney entry score = (highest score ever - 100)/2. This way we would avoid those people who people who purposefully lose games then wait for 100 days to enter tourneys they can then walk all over. Does anyone know why 100 days was chosen? Alternatively, what about increasing this time to make it prohibitive - say 300 days, 400 even. Is anyone really going to stick that time out just so they can say they won a bunch of 1200-1300 tourneys?
I feel really strongly about this subject as I've been in quite a few tourneys which were obviously sandbagged and it's flippin' annoying. Any other ideas please? If we want this to be fixed we need to have a better suggestion than the current system.
Originally posted by GarethNichollsYou think this one is bad?! You should have seen the old Tournament system that this one replaced!
What about a rule where your tourney entry score = (highest score ever - 100)/2. This way we would avoid those people who people who purposefully lose games then wait for 100 days to enter tourneys they can then walk all over. Does anyone know why 100 days was chosen? Alternatively, what about increasing this time to make it prohibitive - say 300 days ...[text shortened]... ase? If we want this to be fixed we need to have a better suggestion than the current system.