| From | Message |
nathanman22
2/26/2008
16:39:43
[ report abuse ] |
 Subject: Promotions in GK tournaments
Message:
Ok, so I was signed up for the 43rd gameknot tournament, and my rating went up above 1500, so I was moved into the advanced section as stated by an email. However, I had to resign a few games I was severely losing (like 9 points down) and I went down below 1500 again to 1498. Will I be placed in the Advanced tournament or the Intermediate tournament.
Hypothetical situation--if someone were to win a tournament like the advanced section, but had a rank that dropped below 1500 due to some legit losses (I'm not talking about any purposeful sandbagging here--my losses are legit), then would he be placed in the Advanced tournament for round 2 or would he be demoted to the Intermediate tournament. Why couldn't he have this option since he has a ranking below 1500? I'm sure this has happened to other people--and I was wondering what people thought about it.
I just wanted to add that I am totally against sandbagging....I am right around 1500 and have been for some time (due to a series of depression that caused my rank to drop down about 90 points)--and so my rating flunctuates above and below the GK tournament rankings.
Any thoughts about this topic are welcome here.
-Nathanman22
|
nymersic
4/05/2008
23:50:09
[ report abuse ] |
Message:
You are never demoted due to a drop in rank. There's only limits on the upper end, not the lower end.
Once you go above the rating limit you will be in the next section up, and stay in that section. The reasoning is obvious.
|
wuzzie
4/25/2008
04:49:47
[ report abuse ] | sandbagging
Message:
I think players should only be moved to a higher section if their rating raised significantly, like 100 or 200 points above limit.
|
usethepawn
5/13/2008
06:21:26
[ report abuse ] | .
Message:
I like wuzzie's idea but am not complaining about the current system.
It just sucks for me because i got promoted in all my current tournaments (i think 3 or 4) to the expert section.
and with a rating of only 1750 having to come up against players with a 2200+ rating it really is hopeless. I know its been discussed countless times here in the forums but i really think there needs to be another 1 or 2 sections in the tournaments such as 1700-2000 then 2000+ or even 1700-1900 then 1900-2100 and 2100+. Because there is only 200 pts difference in the bottom two sections and then in expert theres some 800 points between the bottom most and top most player. So a 1700 rated player really never has a chance at winning a tournament so my idea as i said is to have the sections as:
1300 and below
1500 and below
1700 and below
1900 and below
2100 and below
2100+
or you could even throw in a 2300 and below then 2300+.
This would also decrease the amount of time it takes for each section to complete giving speedier results would it not? and ive learnt the hard way about people on this site being uphappy with slow play.
It is alot of sections but seems fairer to me.
Thanks
Nick
|
cyberknight999
5/13/2008
10:46:04
[ report abuse ] | Excellent Suggestion for...
Message:
1300 and below
1500 and below
1700 and below
1900 and below
2100 and below
2300 and below
2300+
Maybe even a few brackets for lower rated players as there are plenty of players in those groups too!
we could have...
900 and below
1100 and below
This would definitely make the matchups more equal
CK999
|
usethepawn
5/15/2008
05:57:38
[ report abuse ] |
Message:
You are right cyberknight999, there are quite a few players with a rating below 1000 but i would comfortable say that 99% of them have a rating of that because of timeouts. I wouldnt think there would be many players on this site that play at a level of below 1000 at all and for all these low players that i look at they have an avg opp rating of 1000+ anyway. So you could perhaps have an 1100 and below but that would be the lowest you would have to go.
I for one would like to see these changes implemented sooner rather than later and i know that a majority of us have been asking for it for a long time. Its certainly been discussed since ive been on the site and i hope that GK are working on it.
Thanks
Nick
|
cyberknight999
5/15/2008
10:06:22
[ report abuse ] | Pawn...
Message:
I never considered why some player's ratings are as low as they are. But I suppose its reasonable to assume that a certain percentage of them are due to a greater than average number of timeouts (accidental, sandbagging, technical problems or whatever).
I think the two biggest benefits of increasing the number of sections would be:
#1 better match ups based on rating. Obviously this isn't a perfect system due to timeouts etc..., but 1700s playing 2100s is a losing proposition and not fair to the weaker player.
#2 the tournaments would finish sooner, as we would need fewer rounds to complete them. I think that a minimum of three (maybe four) rounds should be required to win a tournament. Anything less than that and the tournaments lose their effect. The length of each given round cannot be reduced without changing the time controls, and I can't see an effective way of doing that, other than separating the tournaments by time controls. Besides, this is CC so I think the time controls are fine.
Another idea to throw out there...
Since the ratings distributions are likely similar to a bell curve... Why not break up the groups a little further in the middle sections. The only problem that I can see here is that players would jump around from group to group too much.
1100 and below
1300 and below
1400 and below
1500 and below
1600 and below
1700 and below
1900 and below
2100 and below
2300 and below
2300+
Any thoughts out there..
~Knight
|
usethepawn
5/16/2008
02:06:44
[ report abuse ] |
Message:
I dont think you would be able to have sections with just 100 points between them.
Because as you said, players would jump around alot and it does leave you with alot of sections. I think 200 points in between each section from 1100-2300 would be fine. Even if a 1501 player had to come up against a 1699 player they wouldnt find it as difficult as a 1701 player coming up against a 2500 rated player. And besides, any player that has a 1699 rating will most likely get bumped up to the 1700+ section after round one anyway.
Thanks
|
tjaalzchess
5/16/2008
03:05:01
[ report abuse ] |
Message:
...and why not just look at the average rating from the past 90 days, or past year or all rated games, in stead of the current rating to divide players into the sections?
I think this would be more logical in a way...?
|
cyberknight999
5/18/2008
15:55:39
[ report abuse ] | tjaalz...
Message:
The average rating seems like a good idea.
|
nathanman22
6/12/2008
11:40:04
[ report abuse ] | I like the idea
Message:
of breaking things up a little more, but maybe 100 points is too small. How about 200 points (1300-1500, etc) with the ability to join higher groups if so desired. Usethepawn, I feel your pain about people's complaints about slow play. But people like us have lives outside of chess and don't sit staring at the board waiting for someone to move. Postponements and taking the full length of time are necessary for those of us who have a social life. (:
-Nathan
|
|
Post a reply to this message:
|
