- Joined
- 06 Aug 05
- Moves
- 42926
11 Dec 06
Originally posted by David TebbI have to say that I disagree with the exact implementation of this solution. I agree that 30 days is just a pathetic amount of time to calculate the eligibility for tournaments, forever is such a long time.
Yes, it's pathetic for someone who used to be rated over 2000 to enter a tournament designed for players between 1400 and 1550.
Whether he wins it or even qualifies from his group is irrelevant. Just by being in the tournament this player is ruining it for others.
The rules need to be changed. A player's highest ever rating must be taken into acco ...[text shortened]... of 1700.
.... and so on, all the way down to the bottom.
Why wouldn't that work?
Why not just increase the number of days to something like 180 days, or 365 days, it has the same effect and Russ should be able to implement this immediatly, depending on how he's coded the limit, it could be as simple as changing 30 to 180 and then recompiling!
11 Dec 06
Originally posted by iraxyeah i would agree with this, a lot of peoples peek rating will be no where near their true ability.
I have to say that I disagree with the exact implementation of this solution. I agree that 30 days is just a pathetic amount of time to calculate the eligibility for tournaments, forever is such a long time.
Why not just increase the number of days to something like 180 days, or 365 days, it has the same effect and Russ should be able to implement this immed ...[text shortened]... on how he's coded the limit, it could be as simple as changing 30 to 180 and then recompiling!
- Joined
- 26 May 02
- Moves
- 72546
11 Dec 06
Originally posted by iraxI don't see the point of limiting the time scale to 180 days or a year, or any other arbritary amount. A player who has been highly rated at some time in the past (and it's irrelevant whether that was last month or last decade) should never be able to enter banded tournaments designed for low rated players.
I have to say that I disagree with the exact implementation of this solution. I agree that 30 days is just a pathetic amount of time to calculate the eligibility for tournaments, forever is such a long time.
Why not just increase the number of days to something like 180 days, or 365 days, it has the same effect and Russ should be able to implement this immed ...[text shortened]... on how he's coded the limit, it could be as simple as changing 30 to 180 and then recompiling!
Let's take the example of Dustnrogers. Dustin Last moved 392 days ago. His current rating is 927.
If tournament eligibility was based on the last 180 days or a year, Dustin would be allowed to enter practically any tournament on the site.
But this completely ignores the fact that Dustin is an incredibly strong player who used to have a rating over 1900 whilst playing hundreds of simultaneous games!
What if one of the 2200 players who was active on the site a couple of years ago, but left for whatever reason and was timed out in masses of games, came back? They would probably have a very low rating. and their highest rating over the last 180 or 365 days would be the same. Would they also be allowed to enter any tournament they liked?
No, the eligibility for banded tournaments based on a player's highest rating should apply for their lifetime.
11 Dec 06
Originally posted by David Tebbis there more 2000 players who left the site for a year, came back and won a pile of low rated tournaments, or is there more people who have reached 200 points above their chess ability through a bit of good luck or timeouts taken? your idea is not fair on these people, they'll never have a chance of winning a tournament again. whereas if there's was a max rating of 180 days eligibility for tournaments at least in 6 months when they're back at their normal rating they'll be able to enter tournaments more suited to their ability.
I don't see the point of limiting the time scale to 180 days or a year, or any other arbritary amount. A player who has been highly rated at some time in the past (and it's irrelevant whether that was last month or last decade) should never be able to enter banded tournaments designed for low rated players.
Let's take the example of Dustnrogers. Dusti ...[text shortened]... y for banded tournaments based on a player's highest rating should apply for their lifetime.
11 Dec 06
1 edit
I would like to add that the clan system needs a similar overhaul. I have had a rash of challenges offered lately where former 1600+ players now have 1300-1400 ratings and were paired as such. Thankfully, in that instance I can simply decline the challenge.
Edit to add that this behavior (in tournaments or clans) is despicable.
- Joined
- 16 Dec 04
- Moves
- 56692
11 Dec 06
Originally posted by trevor33Exactly, that's why this problem is such a tricky one to tackle, especially when you start throwing in the factor of provisional players too. I see certain players names coming up time and time again with this issue, so it's evident that this can't be left to rely on the good nature of people.
is there more 2000 players who left the site for a year, came back and won a pile of low rated tournaments, or is there more people who have reached 200 points above their chess ability through a bit of good luck or timeouts taken? your idea is not fair on these people, they'll never have a chance of winning a tournament again. whereas if there's was a max ...[text shortened]... ck at their normal rating they'll be able to enter tournaments more suited to their ability.
It is decided that each player should have a current rating and a tournament rating, and so far all I can see is that the player's highest ever rating should be used, or an average of 20/30/40 of the highest rated points on the graph, that would help level out people who have one-off sharp rises and fall back down to their normal level again.
- Joined
- 06 Aug 05
- Moves
- 42926
11 Dec 06
Originally posted by David TebbIt'd take a very dedicated sandbagger to wait a year with a low rating in order to enter a few low rated tournaments. Also, how many people actually return to the same account on RHP if they've not been active in the past year? The answer to that question affects this thread.
I don't see the point of limiting the time scale to 180 days or a year, or any other arbritary amount. A player who has been highly rated at some time in the past (and it's irrelevant whether that was last month or last decade) should never be able to enter banded tournaments designed for low rated players.
Let's take the example of Dustnrogers. Dusti ...[text shortened]... y for banded tournaments based on a player's highest rating should apply for their lifetime.
Also, there are a number of reasons why someone's rating may legitimly drop.
1) As Trevor33 pointed out there could be a rating spike, perhaps caused by the entry of a Hardcored, or one of those ultra hardcores! Or, perhaps just through some inspired play, or a drunk 1900 opponent?
2) Someone could develop a medical condition which affects their play, but they still want to continue playing at a level suitable to them.
3) Maybe someone has a kid, suddenly they can't spend 2 hours a day on RHP, but they still want to continue playing quickly.
4) Someone could decide to start playing lots of games quickly, rather than a few slowly.
5) Perhaps a player could develop knightphobia and they'll get rid of knights from the board at any cost, seriously affecting their game!
Ok, so some of these aren't too serious! but the point that I'm really trying to make is that forever really is too long, it would encourage some people to start a new fresh account, denying them the possibility of account continuity.
Also, as an aside, what about people who are proud of their highest ever RHP rating? browse a few profiles and you'll see that people regularly display their highest RHP. People would become less willing to spike in this manner, because they'd forever be stuck in a tournament with the bigger boys.
As an example, have a look at my rating just now, it's 1680, higher than usual due to a purple patch at the moment, with a 'forever' rating scheme for tournaments I'd be afraid to cross the 1700 mark, as most tournaments open to you become 1700+, with no upper limit. How do I avoid crossing this limit? by resigning games of course, maybe I'd have to resign some prematurely, now is that fair? I'm a big fan of making my opponent fight for their win, why shouldn't I be allowed to do that?
Sorry for rambling a bit here, but I am very strongly against the 'forever highest rating' system.
11 Dec 06
1 edit
Rather than the highest rating for a particular time period, how about a highest rating for a certain number of games (e.g. 200 games)?
Maybe a combination of both. Highest rating for the past 180 days or 200 games, which ever is the longest period of time. Obviously not necessarily these figures, this is just an example.
This will get round the problem of people who peaked and dropped very recently, as well as players who haven't been on the site for a while and dropped through a load of timeouts.
- Joined
- 06 Aug 05
- Moves
- 42926
11 Dec 06
Originally posted by lauseyYes, a very good compromise.
Rather than the highest rating for a particular time period, how about a highest rating for a certain number of games (e.g. 200 games)?
Maybe a combination of both. Highest rating for the past 180 days or 200 games, which ever is the longest period of time. Obviously not necessarily these figures, this is just an example.
This will get round the problem ...[text shortened]... ell as players who haven't been on the site for a while and dropped through a load of timeouts.
- Joined
- 26 May 02
- Moves
- 72546
11 Dec 06
1 edit
Originally posted by trevor33Well, if someone is able to fluke a rating 200 points above their ability by winning lots of "lucky" games and taking time-outs, then they're just as likely to fluke a tournament victory by similar means. Anyone who regularly plays in tournaments knows that some of their opponents will drop out, resign their games, get timed out, or leave the site during each round. The person who wins the tournament is often not the strongest player at the start.
is there more 2000 players who left the site for a year, came back and won a pile of low rated tournaments, or is there more people who have reached 200 points above their chess ability through a bit of good luck or timeouts taken? your idea is not fair on these people, they'll never have a chance of winning a tournament again. whereas if there's was a max ck at their normal rating they'll be able to enter tournaments more suited to their ability.
In OTB events, a player's entry is usually at the discretion of the tournament controllers. If the player has been highly rated in the past, the controllers will see this when they look them up in their rating lists and will bar the player from entering the lower sections of the tournament. The player has to take their chance in the top section, competiting with all the higher rated players. In some countries this is done automatically.
For instance, one of my friends won the Major Section in a tournament in Italy (I think it was Under 2000 Elo). As a result of this victory, he was banned from ever again playing in the Major section. The next year (and all subsequent years) he had to play in the Masters section. That might seem a bit harsh, but there was a money at stake and a lot of sharks try to enter such tournaments. Fortunately there's no money involved in RHP tournaments. But the sharks on RHP who enter the banded tournaments still manage to ruin the experience for everyone.
- Joined
- 26 May 02
- Moves
- 72546
11 Dec 06
Originally posted by iraxI don't think anyone would actually wait a year in order to be able to enter lower rated tournaments. However people leave the site all the time. Some of them will come back and resume playing on their old account. If they see that they can then take advantage of the rules to win a few easy tournaments, then many will be tempted to do so, Why allow them this possibiity?
It'd take a very dedicated sandbagger to wait a year with a low rating in order to enter a few low rated tournaments. Also, how many people actually return to the same account on RHP if they've not been active in the past year? The answer to that question affects this thread.
Also, there are a number of reasons why someone's rating may legitimly drop.
1) ...[text shortened]... bit here, but I am very strongly against the 'forever highest rating' system.
There are thousands of reasons why someone's rating could be much lower than it should be. It's much harder for a player to be over rated. When this does happen it's usually the result of a deliberate policy - i.e. the player drags out his lost games for as long as possible in order to postpone losing rating points, but is quick to cash in all his won positions. If someone has a lot of games in progress, they can easily manipulate their rating to be much higher than they deserve. I doubt that many players are over-rated by "chance".
I take your point about the 1700 limit. I don't know why so many tournaments have this as the cut-off point for the top section. There should be a greater variety of tournaments. But in any case someone would have to reach a rating of at least 1800 before they were barred from Under 1700 tournaments under my proposal. Perhaps a 100 point leeway is insufficient. If enough people agree, it could be 200 points or slightly higher. But almost anything would be better than the current system.
11 Dec 06
How would you decide on the amount of leeway? - whilst a fixed figure of say 200pts would work well for those who had been away from the site for a long period and slumped from a very high rating to a very low one, it wouldn't work for the sort of players that are succeeding in this tournament Tournament 1206.
This tournament sums up the problems that exist at lower bands. Of the three likely finalists, not one is a 0-1250 player.
Admittedly I have the highest rating of the lot but at the point I entered the tournament my highest ever rating was 1264 (or thereabouts). Through a combination of fewer late night post-pub moves and taking my chess more seriously (as well as good fortune with a few timeouts) my rating has risen to its current level.
My two opponents graphs however show a different story with tell-tale sharp falls in rating at regular intervals. Yet, it is me who would be most affected by any rule changes as detailed above as I have never deliberately kept my rating low. Whilst i would would accept that I should not be allowed in this level of tournament any more, it seems too easy to manipulate your rating should you be so inclined to keep within a certain leeway if one were set.
- Joined
- 26 May 02
- Moves
- 72546
11 Dec 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Snowman606Presumably at the time that the tournament started, you were all within the rating band. Tournaments can take years to complete, so it's quite natural that some of the players will have improved by a few hundred points during the tournament.
How would you decide on the amount of leeway? - whilst a fixed figure of say 200pts would work well for those who had been away from the site for a long period and slumped from a very high rating to a very low one, it wouldn't work for the sort of players that are succeeding in this tournament Tournament 1206.
This tournament sums up the problems that ...[text shortened]... nipulate your rating should you be so inclined to keep within a certain leeway if one were set.
There can never be a totally satisfactory solution to the problem. Whilst some people will always manipulate the system, many other honest players have highly fluctuating ratings. For instance a player who habitually takes on 300 games at a time and plays very fast will have all sorts of peaks and troughs. They could enter an Under 1200 tournament one month, but be ineligible for a 1500 tournament the next month, because their rating is too high, then drop right down to playing in the Under 1000 section the following month.
Then there are the really strong players who have just come out of their provisional rating period. Often these players are 500 or 600 points below their true rating and know it. But they've only recently joined the site and become a subscriber and are keen to play in as many tournaments as possible. So they enter everything that they can. By the second or third round of most of their tournaments, they realise that they are rated several hundred points higher than everyone else. Many will then do the honourable thing and withdraw from the tournament. However the damage has been done. They knocked out more deserving players in their groups in the earlier rounds and should never have been in the tournament.
I don't think there can be a banded tournament system that is fair for everyone. Every proposal that has been put forward has been criticised because it cannot solve all the problems or doesn't cater for every scenario. However the current 30 day higest rating method is hopeless.