Originally posted by gezzaBanded tournies are meant to allow weaker players to enter a tournament at their own level. The bands aren't enforced though so EVERY banded tournie has at least ONE player in it who steals the tournament, thus p***ing off the other 63 members who entered. As far as i'm concerned, removing one or two strong players who've just returned from their holidays is protecting subscribers interests, simple as that.
Ok. This has been mentioned before.
You seem keen, and if it were possible for Russ to tweak the site so that you could bump people up (or down) a few groups before the tourney starts, then fine, I'd support it for a 3 month trial.
The trouble is that everyone who plays in tourneys has paid membership, so if you p*** people off, it hits the site financi ...[text shortened]... ners.
So Rec'd in principle, depending on if and when Russ has time to do the work,
Gezza
As for allowing provisional players to enter tournaments, they can only enter "open" tournaments. It was discussed some years ago whether they should be entitled to enter and it was decided they should because most people subscribe specifically to play in tournies. Forcing someone to complete 20 games is unfair as some people play very slowly and in some cases it might take them 3 or 4 months to complete this number of games. They are prevented from entering banded tournaments however, which is fair enough! I think there is an argument for refraining to grant entrance to a banded tournie if a new player is unbeaten. Often a 2000+ strength player will complete a 20 game provisional period and be graded 1500, i don't see why they should be able to enter lower bands if they simply haven't completed enough games but that's an argument for another day and should probably be decided by moderators, if they are ever created...
Originally posted by CoconutActually i did come up with this idea well over a year ago. I have reposted it at least 3 times now and have recieved countless rec's for it each time. I couldn't give a sh;t about the rec's, i'm purely interested in sorting out the banded tournies (which i also suggested by the way) as they are open to SO much abuse.
nice job coming up with an idea on your own and getting 7 recs for it. Holy crap.
Originally posted by marinakatombWell whatever. We could see who the first to post it was, but since there's no search, I won't.
Actually i did come up with this idea well over a year ago. I have reposted it at least 3 times now and have recieved countless rec's for it each time. I couldn't give a sh;t about the rec's, i'm purely interested in sorting out the banded tournies (which i also suggested by the way) as they are open to SO much abuse.
Originally posted by CoconutWell... I just came up with a totally original idea that I think might work.
Well whatever. We could see who the first to post it was, but since there's no search, I won't.
Let's set up tournament moderators. Pass the burden of setting up tournaments to people who want to set up exciting tournaments. ALL official tournaments have arbiters. Moderators could keep the banded tournaments banded, they could sort out the Tournaments overview, removing all the cheats. We would no longer have to complain about lack of tournaments, or have to pester you to start this tournament or that. It's a win - win situation!!
Any comments on my ORIGINAL idea?
- Joined
- 07 Jun 05
- Moves
- 5301
I'm afraid there were several plots in my last post. I probably did not present them clearly enough.
Plot 1:
I rec'd your first post (rec number 6 I believe), because I think it is a good idea. Good enough for a trial period in any case. In "site ideas" I count rec's as a suggestion that this is something people might like, so getting a few is, in my book anyway, a *good thing* (tm).
Plot 2:
It will take work by the site admins. They have other things to do. On tournaments, there is at least on bug which needs fixing: http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=44481
To my mind the bug is more important than tourney mods, but that is just an opinion.
Plot 3:
Originally posted by marinakatomb
Banded tournies are [...] protecting subscribers interests, simple as that.
You are asking for the ability to protect subcribers interests to be given to tourney mods. This ability could be abused. This is the internet: the site admins not only have to trust each tourney mod, but also be confident in their ability to notice if their system is hacked, and willingness to admit it. If the mods get it wrong, the admins carry the can. This gives tourney mods a serious ability to hack lots of people off, even by accident.
Not mentioned by me in this thread:
As for allowing provisional players to enter tournaments, they can only enter "open" tournaments.
(aside: the bug mentioned in plot 2 above allows them to enter bands which include 1200)
I think there is reasonable scope to allow tourney mods the ability to allow provisional players into a tourney, given evidence. i.e. an over the board grade or other internet site grade. There appear to be alot more banded tourneys than open, so why not. But, as you say, that is a discussion for another time.
why they should be able to enter lower bands if they simply haven't completed enough games
I am not aware that I ever suggested this one. If anything, I was suggesting that their grade from elsewhere be taken into account when putting them into a band. i.e., if someone asked a mod to put them up a band, why not, if there is evidence, whether their grade is provisional or not?
The whole issue of slow players and tournaments can be discussed at length, but by someone else now. I have finally managed to complete 20 games, after a mere 362 days, so although I care, it nolonger affects me personally - I entered my first banded tourney last week, as my current grade is close enough to my OTB grade for me to judge it fair. If the top player in the tournament pm's me his OTB grade before the tourney starts and it is lower than mine, I'll reconsider.
Gezza
Originally posted by Gastel😴
Well... I just came up with a totally original idea that I think might work.
Let's set up tournament moderators. Pass the burden of setting up tournaments to people who want to set up exciting tournaments. ALL official tournaments have arbiters. Moderators could keep the banded tournaments banded, they could sort out the Tournaments overview, removing all ...[text shortened]... art this tournament or that. It's a win - win situation!!
Any comments on my ORIGINAL idea?
Originally posted by gezzaGoodness, i don't know if i can address all your points, but one thing i will say is you are a shining example of a SLOW player. You've been here a year and have only finished 20 games! The reason i see that this hasn't already been done is because the admins would have to fit it into their time, which is no doubt short. However! Once it is implemented, they SAVE a load of time by not having to answer tournament complaints, they wouldn't have to listen to people ask them for this tournie or that, they wouldn't have to create new ones, they wouldn't have to check (every day) to see which tournaments have completed rounds and start the next rounds off, etc, etc, etc.... It's been said over and over, it's a win - win situation. Admin spend less time pissing around doing chores, subscribers get a more varied and well thought out choice of tournaments that they pay money for.
I'm afraid there were several plots in my last post. I probably did not present them clearly enough.
Plot 1:
I rec'd your first post (rec number 6 I believe), because I think it is a good idea. Good enough for a trial period in any case. In "site ideas" I count rec's as a suggestion that this is something people might like, so getting a few is, in my bo ...[text shortened]... B grade before the tourney starts and it is lower than mine, I'll reconsider.
Gezza
As for finding people they can trust, well, they managed to find forum moderators AND game moderators. These positions are also open to a little abuse, but the system has worked (on the most part). Sure people complain now and again, but people always complain. Hell, i LOVE this site, but i'm here complaining right now, it's what i do best!
Originally posted by marinakatombExactly.
Goodness, i don't know if i can address all your points, but one thing i will say is you are a shining example of a SLOW player. You've been here a year and have only finished 20 games! The reason i see that this hasn't already been done is because the admins would have to fit it into their time, which is no doubt short. However! Once it is imple ...[text shortened]... lain. Hell, i LOVE this site, but i'm here complaining right now, it's what i do best!
Taken from http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=31221&page=3
Ragnorak: "It seems to me that there are 2 seperate, though similar, problems here.
1) New players joining banded tournies before they rise to their true rating
2) Old players who's ratings have dropped due to T/Os entering lower banded tournies.
So, IMO, you need 2 seperate solutions.
To solve number 2, I'm sure the best solution is to use a rating spike minus a certain number of rating points as their floor. Instead of taking a one game spike as their spike, this rating spike should be gotten by getting the highest average of 10 (maybe some other number: 20/30?? ) continuous games. This minus say 100 or 150 could be set as the rating floor, purely for banded tournaments. Their rating could still drop below this floor.
When they come back, they can still enter banded tournies at their floor rating.
For new players, who haven't reached their correct rating, then they should only be allowed in banded tournies above the rating of their highest opponent in a game in which they won. If they have beaten 1600s, then they are in the 1600+ band until they beat a 1700. If they then get beaten by a 1600 while still rated below 1600, their band could be reduced by 1 band. "
Best solution I've seen, if I may say so myself. The site should be moving towards more automation, not less. Starting the next round of tournaments when the progressors are known simply needs a script. Keeping banded tournies banded could be achieved with an algorithm based on the above system. Removing cheats couldn't be done by Tournament Mods anyway, as it would require rooting around in the database, I think.
D
- Joined
- 26 May 02
- Moves
- 72546
Originally posted by RagnorakRagnorak's suggestion of a rating floor based on the player's highest average of 10 (or more) continuous games is excellent.
Taken from http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=31221&page=3
Ragnorak: "It seems to me that there are 2 seperate, though similar, problems here.
1) New players joining banded tournies before they rise to their true rating
2) Old players who's ratings have dropped due to T/Os entering lower banded tournies.
So, IMO, you need 2 se ...[text shortened]... Tournament Mods anyway, as it would require rooting around in the database, I think.
D
I also agree with his comments about making the system more automated. Tournament mods are a step in the wrong direction.
However, I disagree with his other suggestion for dealing with new players. IMO, provisional players shouldn't be allowed to enter banded tournaments (unless it's the top band). Until they've completed at least 20 games, there just isn't enough information to assess their true strength.
Originally posted by David TebbThis is already the case (apart from a little loophole concerning p1200s but disregard that for the moment). From what I can tell Rag is aiming his new player solution at players between 20 competed games and say 100 completed games. They could still be rising in rating up until that point (and afterwards for very good players).
IMO, provisional players shouldn't be allowed to enter banded tournaments (unless it's the top band). Until they've completed at least 20 games, there just isn't enough information to assess their true strength.
Of course the problem is that a player with a skill level of say 2000 could very well start out and after 30 games have a rating of 1600 or so because his opponents tend to have similar ratings to his current one (this is a recognised trend in game matchups). In this case (which I believe is indicitive of a common case) Rag's solution will not help. This currently 1600 player's highest rated finished game will be a win over someone in the 1500s. So he could enter a band 400 points underrated for him.
Originally posted by XanthosNZCorrect, X.
From what I can tell Rag is aiming his new player solution at players between 20 competed games and say 100 completed games. They could still be rising in rating up until that point (and afterwards for very good players).
This currently 1600 player's highest rated finished game will be a win over someone in the 1500s. So he could enter a band 400 points underrated for him.
I believe I am on the right track though with the solution to Problem 1. It obviously needs some more thought.
Could the win expectancy be used to estimate a new player's (more than 20 games played) rating? Can somebody work out what opponent's rating would be if they won 100% of games against 1500, 1600, 1700 players?
Win Expectancy = 1 / (10^((OpponentRating-YourRating)/400)+1)
It works out that if you are rated 200 points higher than your opponent, then you should win about 75% of games. If we input Win Expectancy as 1 (or whatever record our new player holds against his highest rated opponents, then we might get a good indication of their rating. For some reason, I can't seem to get my head around the equation this morning. 😞
D
Originally posted by RagnorakCan somebody work out what opponent's rating would be if they won 100% of games against 1500, 1600, 1700 players?
Correct, X.
I believe I am on the right track though with the solution to Problem 1. It obviously needs some more thought.
Could the win expectancy be used to estimate a new player's (more than 20 games played) rating? Can somebody work out what opponent's rating would be if they won 100% of games against 1500, 1600, 1700 players?
Win Expectancy ...[text shortened]... ing. For some reason, I can't seem to get my head around the equation this morning. 😞
D
If a player plays against solely 1500 players then after 20 games his rating will be 1900. And from there to 100 games in 5 game intervals:
25: 1915
30: 1930
35: 1940
40: 1950
45: 1960
50: 1970
55: 1980
60: 1990
65: 2000
70: 2010
75: 2020
80: 2027
85: 2032
90: 2037
95: 2042
100: 2047
The trend eventually stops at 2169 after 253 total games.
The pattern is similar with 1600 and 1700 opponents but differs slightly during the first 100 games because you encounter the K change at 2100 during this time whereas you don't with 1500 opponents. The max ratings will be 2269 and 2369.