27 Sep 11
Originally posted by ptriple42Yes, I understand. I just wanted to point out that for the first 50-100-150 games I played here I rarely played anyone with a decent rating. Only recently have I been able to play some higher rated players. And having 30 games at once against equal or higher rated players can be very taxing.
I was merely commenting on your opponents being higher rated than you had implied.
Statistics and probability do interest you as they are to some extent part of the study of chess...
27 Sep 11
Originally posted by Bebop5I've seen several complaints in this thread about the 3rd round group size being too big. If you - being the one who has voiced his reservations about the quality of play obtainable in such a big,strong group - put your suggestions in the Site Ideas, I'm sure you'll be well supported and a better format will be found for next year's championship.
Yes, I understand. I just wanted to point out that for the first 50-100-150 games I played here I rarely played anyone with a decent rating. Only recently have I been able to play some higher rated players. And having 30 games at once against equal or higher rated players can be very taxing.
28 Sep 11
Originally posted by ptriple42Not that many fewer in the 3rd round in previous championships. In 2010 there were 14 participants, and 2008 there were 13.
I've seen several complaints in this thread about the 3rd round group size being too big. If you - being the one who has voiced his reservations about the quality of play obtainable in such a big,strong group - put your suggestions in the Site Ideas, I'm sure you'll be well supported and a better format will be found for next year's championship.
Had their been outright winners in each of the 13 groups then you would only have been looking at 13 participants and 24 games.
It could have been much worse if there had been more ties for 1st place in the 2nd round.
30 Sep 11
Originally posted by Bebop5That is a good suggestion.
That's a good idea to limit the entries to those who have a rasonable chance of winning. perhaps Class A (1800) and above. Then there could be a "reserve" section for under 1800 rated players. That would go a long way to having reasonable size groups.
30 Sep 11
Both modi have their point. The question is if the boundayr conditions are well agreed upon.
I sense the following:
* The championship should be played out in one year. (Thus timebank only three times 60 +60 days). This is suffering from the fact that the tournament doesn't start in beginning of January and that some people try to extend their time by vacation.
Suggestions: Make the championship "no vacation" tournament meaning that the vacation flag is not honoured in this special tournament. (Maybe not easy to
implement programming wise, depending on how the flag is actually implemented)
AND Start in Januray, meaning recruiting should start end of November
* Everybody should get a shot. This contradicts part of the aim of point one.
Suggestion: Create the possibility for high rated players (say 2000+ TER) to start in the second round only. This would remove gameload, however it would remove the games which should be the easiest for the big calibers and it would remove the possibility for "everybody" to play against the big guns (chances or not very high now) New players could fight their way through the first round anyway regardless of rating.
* We want the champion to be (or at least very near to) THE BEST player on the site.
This is not normally achieved. In previus tournaments we saw alot of bannings. Very strong players meet in the first or second round. THE best can be the best to cope with the gameload...
Suggestions: Very strong players could be seated this would at least prevent early "endgames". But it would also take a bit of the surprise out of the whole scheme. And of course if a seated player would be banned people playing in their group could have a grudge....
what do people think?
30 Sep 11
Originally posted by PonderableHow about a progressive timebank scale. 20 days in the first round, 30 in the second and 40 in the third. More thinking time is desirable against stronger opposition.
Both modi have their point. The question is if the boundayr conditions are well agreed upon.
I sense the following:
* The championship should be played out in one year. (Thus timebank only three times 60 +60 days). This is suffering from the fact that the tournament doesn't start in beginning of January and that some people try to extend their time ...[text shortened]... be banned people playing in their group could have a grudge....
what do people think?
Also, use carrot and stick approach to include every 2000+ player. For example,
add/subtract some rating points for participation/non-participation in the Championship.
Originally posted by Bebop5its called the 2011 championship for a reason, anyone can enter if you dont want to play against us lowbies then dont enter. if you can stand to big a game load again the simple answer is DONT ENTER. join a 2000+ club and play against people who you think are worthy enough for your attention. 🙄
That's a good idea to limit the entries to those who have a rasonable chance of winning. perhaps Class A (1800) and above. Then there could be a "reserve" section for under 1800 rated players. That would go a long way to having reasonable size groups.
Originally posted by roma45Please, no offence intended. All chess players are worthy of my attention, just as I would hope to be worthy of theirs.
its called the 2011 championship for a reason, anyone can enter if you dont want to play against us lowbies then dont enter. if you can stand to big a game load again the simple answer is DONT ENTER. join a 2000+ club and play against people who you think are worthy enough for your attention. 🙄
I don't mind playing a good-sized number of games, but don't you think 30 at a time against master strength players is a wee bit too much? I realize the time constraints make it well nigh impossible to have smaller groups. If you have a better, constructive suggestion I'm sure we would alll be glad to hear it. As it stands now, I believe most of the players in the Final would have preferred to have a smaller game load than this.
02 Oct 11
Originally posted by Bebop5sorry did not mean to be offensive, its hard for the admin to have smaller groups considering how many enter it, the only way to have smaller groups is to limit the time to say 10 days a game with no timebank, again a lot of members would not be happy with that as well, no easy solution but who ever wins has got the greatest respect from me. sorry again if i offended you.
Please, no offence intended. All chess players are worthy of my attention, just as I would hope to be worthy of theirs.
I don't mind playing a good-sized number of games, but don't you think 30 at a time against master strength players is a wee bit too much? I realize the time constraints make it well nigh impossible to have smaller groups. If you have a be ...[text shortened]... most of the players in the Final would have preferred to have a smaller game load than this.
02 Oct 11
Originally posted by roma45No offence taken. Re-reading my posts I see that I may have sounded arrogant. I hope my comments were not construed that way. It is difficult to measure the intent, intonation, etc. of something that has been written online without knowing the person. Guess that is what it would take to be a good writer instead of a chess player! Thanks for understanding and accept my apology also. I should proof-read my posts first and try to understand how others may take them.
sorry did not mean to be offensive, its hard for the admin to have smaller groups considering how many enter it, the only way to have smaller groups is to limit the time to say 10 days a game with no timebank, again a lot of members would not be happy with that as well, no easy solution but who ever wins has got the greatest respect from me. sorry again if i offended you.
On another note, perhaps a large swiss-system (5-6 rounds with shorter time controls) to determine the last 6-8 players to reach the Finals?? Gets rid of the problem of top-heavy groups then also!
02 Oct 11
Originally posted by infomastSo you envisage penalising subscribers who do not want to enter the annual championships?
Also, use carrot and stick approach to include every 2000+ player. For example,
add/subtract some rating points for participation/non-participation in the Championship.
How is that fair when non subs are not to be penalised as they CANNOT enter?
The only people who should be dictating how many games they want to play is the member themselves.