Chess tournaments
101 хэрэглэгч унших
I think Vint should hold more chess tournaments a week, not just once. Maybe 3 tournaments a week. That would be good.
You can also organize tournaments yourself, and I think they are also held. There are no plans to hold more official ones, because it becomes tedious if you do too much. However, there are already 2 chess matches a week. There is Sunday chess and there is Saturday chess (3-fire, pickling or Fischer).
There could be more funny ones then the rating will increase, but if someone else does it then it won't increase :S
The rating could also change in tournaments organized by users, there is no need for a separate tournament rating, let alone the same ordinary chess room rating.
[i]posted by bazooka[/i] In tournaments organized by users, the rating could also change, there is no need for a separate tournament rating, let's just change the same regular chess room rating.
I completely agree, why make things even more confusing! Official tournaments, organized tournaments should have a separate rating. Let's just have a room rating in organized tournaments. It would be the same if you played with others in the room, unfortunately (red, blue) you don't want to play with the gray ones, I don't know if it's because of the fear of the rating? Then you have to play with everyone, (including the gray ones) let them prove that they are the ones who did it and didn't cheat!
I agree that it is not so important who organizes the tournament, but that chess is played. This does not harm the official status of the game in any way, but simply gives people the opportunity to choose what and when to play and, in my opinion, increases its popularity. The seven-player tournament held in Ohmu has become pleasantly regular, and it has quite a few participants of different levels. I see no reason why the games held there are not reflected in the tournament rating. Perhaps, I would propose that the tournament rating also include the results of tournaments organized by users.
[i]posted by Trillatrulla[/i] I agree that it is not so important who organizes the tournament, but that chess is played. This does not harm the official status of the game in any way, but simply gives people the opportunity to choose what and when to play and, in my opinion, increases its popularity. The seven-player tournament held in Ohmu has become pleasantly regular, and it has quite a few participants of different levels. I see no reason why the games held there are not reflected in the tournament rating. Perhaps, I would suggest that the tournament rating also consider the results of tournaments organized by users.
Yes, because you miss an official one and have to wait 2 weeks, otherwise I agree
[i]posted by odin[/i] It would be the same if you played with others in the game room, unfortunately (red, blue) you don't want to play with the greys, I don't know if it's because of the fear of the rating? Then you have to play with everyone, (including the greys) let them prove that they are the ones who did it and didn't cheat!
You are accusing the players of cheating or fear for no reason. Look at the rating system and calculate for yourself: if the difference in the opponents' odds is 720 points, the stronger side will only get 1 (read: one) point for a win. In other words - for one random draw, you have to beat the same opponent at least 20 more times, but if, for example, the internet connection was lost during the game (and the game is considered lost) then you have to play over 40 games... If the difference in the ratings is already over 720 points, the stronger side won't get even one point for a win, but would you want to play if you have no chance of winning at all? The question is why this rating system is like this, but well - it has to be something, and once it's like this, let's just take it into account...
[i]posted by Dilbert[/i] [quote][i]posted by odin[/i] It would be the same if you played with others in the game room, unfortunately (red, blue) you don't want to play with the gray ones, I wonder if it's because of the fear of the rating? Then you have to play with everyone, (including the gray ones) let them prove that they are the ones who did it and didn't cheat! [/quote] You are accusing the players of cheating or fear for no reason. Look at the rating system and calculate for yourself: if the difference in the opponents' odds is 720 points, then the stronger side will only get 1 (read: one) point for winning. In other words - for one random draw you have to beat the same opponent at least 20 more times, but if, for example, the internet connection was lost during the game (and the game is considered lost) then you have to play over 40 games... If the difference in ratings is already over 720 points, then the stronger side will not get a single point for the win, but would you want to play if you have no chance of winning at all? The question is why this rating system is like this, but well - it has to be of some kind, and if it is already like this, then let's just take it into account...
That's quite true, I wouldn't want to play with an opponent with a 900 rating, reason=rating, but otherwise this official stuff is somehow unpleasant to me too):
The reason why you don't get points for a difference of more than 750 points is very simple: if you could, the first ones would go very far ahead and they would only play with the weaker ones (they would only take sure wins). At first we had a system where you get a point for every win, and allever went to about 3400 in gomoku if I remember correctly. Then we changed the system and set it to zero. And another positive thing about this system is that the strong ones play with the strong ones. It's good when two strong ones play. If you are weaker, then practice until you get stronger, and then the stronger ones will play with you :)