10 Jul 06
Whilst having a calculation in place is all well and good for entrants (if implemented effectively) it does still leave the potential for relative newcomers to enter an unreasonably low band. A tournament moderator could possibly have the power to remove players from a tournament if they advance unreasonably far above the band rather quickly (essentially voiding the games as far as points go, but allowing ratings as normal - which would be minimal change).
Another potential role for the tournament moderator would be to rejig later round qualifiers for active tournaments if players are banned. Probably rarely used, but there have been tounaments where all players in the group (generally two) have been quickly banned.
- Joined
- 07 Jun 05
- Moves
- 5301
10 Jul 06
Originally posted by PeakiteI tend to agree that tourney mods would be a good thing. marinakatomb seems keen, so why not give him (or her - I can never tell from avatars) a chance to prove it can work?
[snip]. A tournament moderator could possibly have the power to remove players from a tournament if they advance unreasonably far above the band rather quickly
[snip]
Another potential role for the tournament moderator would be to rejig later [snip]
Gezza
10 Jul 06
Originally posted by PeakiteCan you detail a possible scenario where that might happen using the system I proposed above?
Whilst having a calculation in place is all well and good for entrants (if implemented effectively) it does still leave the potential for relative newcomers to enter an unreasonably low band. A tournament moderator could possibly have the power to remove players from a tournament if they advance unreasonably far above the band rather quickly (essentially voi ...[text shortened]... re have been tounaments where all players in the group (generally two) have been quickly banned.
The system could automatically do the other thing you propose.
D
11 Jul 06
Originally posted by murrowNew players who are on a rise don't have a highest rating that prohibits them from entering tournaments at their current rating even though they may eventually reach a rating far exceeding it.
no-one has yet explained to me why my simplistic idea would not work really well for banded tounaments:
you can't enter a banded tourny if your all time high is 200 points or more above the top of the band.
12 Jul 06
Originally posted by XanthosNZyes that's true.
New players who are on a rise don't have a highest rating that prohibits them from entering tournaments at their current rating even though they may eventually reach a rating far exceeding it.
but most of the people that abuse the banded system are people who have been away for a while or have timed out on all their games recently and then enter a banded tournament to get a victory on their profile.
my idea is SO SIMPLE to implement and would PREVENT that!
isn't that a start?
if new players are also a big problem, then we could also have a minimum number of games completed - 50, say.
12 Jul 06
Originally posted by murrowRagnarok's two part idea utilises a slightly modified version of a rating floor as the second part. The main discussion here (and the bulk of the math) has been to address new players.
yes that's true.
but most of the people that abuse the banded system are people who have been away for a while or have timed out on all their games recently and then enter a banded tournament to get a victory on their profile.
my idea is SO SIMPLE to implement and would PREVENT that!
isn't that a start?
if new players are also a big problem, then we could also have a minimum number of games completed - 50, say.
12 Jul 06
Originally posted by murrowRead this post, and the next 7...
yes that's true.
but most of the people that abuse the banded system are people who have been away for a while or have timed out on all their games recently and then enter a banded tournament to get a victory on their profile.
my idea is SO SIMPLE to implement and would PREVENT that!
isn't that a start?
if new players are also a big problem, then we could also have a minimum number of games completed - 50, say.
http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=46202&page=2#post_828738
I don't agree that most of the people that "abuse" (whether purposely or not) the banded tournaments are people who leave for a while. Me and fckallie ended up competing in the final of a rookie tournament when we first joined. I didn't know what my rating was going to be, and when I realised that we shouldn't have been in that tournament, I proposed the exclusion of provisional players from banded tournaments, which Russ implemented within about 10 minutes.
D
22 Jul 06
Originally posted by PeakiteFrom the post linked to in the post above yours...
Timeouts or perhaps someone who hasn't played too frequenty of late could both deflate a players rating.
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. "
It helps to read the thread, or at least the specified relevant bits.
D
22 Jul 06
Originally posted by RagnorakYour last post prior to my earlier one focused upon the potential problems with newer players - and both my points in reply to your question are factors which could mean an early rating lower than the player might otherwwise have.
From the post linked to in the post above yours...
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 n ...[text shortened]... loor rating. "
It helps to read the thread, or at least the specified relevant bits.
D
22 Jul 06
Originally posted by PeakiteOk, sorry, I hadn't reread your earlier post. It seemed to me that you were talking about an established user in your post of today.
Your last post prior to my earlier one focused upon the potential problems with newer players - and both my points in reply to your question are factors which could mean an early rating lower than the player might otherwwise have.
Why can't the voiding of TO wins (good point, btw) for banding calculation be incorporated into my solution?
Frequency of play doesn't really enter the equation of my solution. How would a tournament mod decide that somebody belongs in a higher band because he hasn't played much lately?
I don't see why people so want to go down the more manual work route. It makes no sense whatsoever to me considering the coding of Tournament Mods is probably much greater than just writing the automatic system as proposed.
D
27 Nov 06
Ok, this thread has detailed an excellent proposal for resolving the banded tournaments. WHY are banded tournaments still open to so much abuse? I have recently been contacted by one of my clan members to say they are leaving the site specifically because the site does not enforce the rating bands in tournaments! This has gone on long enough now, can we please have some feedback on this.
(quote)
It makes me wonder why i bother paying for the 'benefits' of my subscription.
It makes me wonder too. Banded tournaments are POINTLESS unless the bands are enforced. SORT IT OUT ALREADY!!