Estonia's best card player 2016

Hello, General: We haven't put much emphasis on marketing the vint.ee portal, it has been more organic for the last eight years - a good thing advertises itself. In the areas of mind sports, we have the Mind Sports Olympiad, which brings young people to engage in mind sports. Card games also require skill, memory, and logical thinking. The idea came up to organize a proper tournament called "Estonian Best Card Player 2016", through which to promote the vint.ee portal. Participation in the competitions is free. It will take place over two months: February and March. On the last day of March, at midnight, we will sum up the ratings of three card games: Bismarck, Tuhat, and 4-kesi peredkidnoi. (assuming that the user is also in the rankings in all of these games at that moment). Whoever has the highest amount of ratings wins the title "Best Card Player in Estonia 2016", a trophy and a cash prize (for example 300 EUR). If the event is successful and we get hundreds of new users, we can make the event an annual event. What do you think of the idea? PS! The organizer of the competition himself will not participate (it is not necessary to collect more than 6300 rating points ;)).

The idea is good....

The sum of ratings is probably not the best idea. The sum of games won would probably be better.

The one who has played the game more creates a strong advantage. It wouldn't be fair to the one who has been playing for a year. In my opinion, this rating system creates an opportunity for everyone, depending on how many wins you have. This is my opinion.

I wouldn't give out prizes based on ratings. Ratings serve the entertainment aspect well - if you win, you get a "prize". However, if you start getting real money for it, the risk of manipulation immediately increases. The current rating system is quite easy to manipulate (e.g. intentional losses), but identifying them requires extra work and creates additional stress. Prizes could still be given out in tournaments. Why not organize a tournament where several card games would be represented.

Rating is not an indicator. It is possible for a group of interested people to inflate it by betting on one or two. One option is deliberate losses. Wins are definitely a better indicator.

if rating is not an indicator, then the question arises as to what an indicator is. As long as there has been a vint, rating has still been an indicator. In card games, your luck also plays a role. But in chess?? Try telling an Estonian chess master that rating is not an indicator. Where in the world are deliberate losses and how to determine it? It is almost impossible for me to even have 60 losses in a ton on the internet. If I classify them as deliberate losses, it would be the height of absurdity......would it be fair if a person has discovered their vint for 2 years...it is clear that they cannot get close to the older ones in terms of wins, it would also be unfair. Everyone should be given the opportunity to not get angry about whether they have been in vint for a year, five or eight

As far as I know, medals in chess are not awarded based on rating, but rather based on games.

The calculation is based on the number of wins achieved between 01.02.2016 and 31.03.2016. Now the question is how to achieve that all three games are played. A player who has 30 wins in one thousand and 0 wins in the others should be behind in the ranking than a player who has 10 wins in all three games... I guess I need to delve deeper into math :)

makeup why do you have to make this so complicated. you give preference to those who are unemployed retirees at home etc. I don't have that much time. I have my own responsibilities and I have to go to work. in basketball there is such a word as the difference in baskets, so who gets through. maybe we should also take some coefficient or what is the percentage of wins or losses or even simpler that if there are 300 wins and 250 losses 300-250 or the player gets 50 points. this would give the opportunity to those who don't have time to be in the gym every day to others who are in the gym 1-2 hours a day think about a player who has won, for example, 100 wins and lost 130, another won 50 wins and lost 10. with your method, 1 option would be the winner, although the other who has played less would be the loser. is this fair??? I don't really care how you do it, but be as honest as possible. You can't give advantages to the young or the old, to those who have been in the game for a year or 8, or to those who are addicted and those who are not. If you want, you can also reward the one who has played the most. But I doubt if he is the best, but he is more active.