|
|
|
Back to forum Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-01 17:44:41) Format For Championship Hello John. After all, if it wasn't unusual, the interest would be lower for sure... :) So you noticed, the 8 players with the highest established correspondence chess ratings play a pure knockout tournament. I thought about this format a long time ago (and a long time). Combining a knockout tournament (more "spectacular") and a round-robin cycle (everyone can play, no more than 5 cycles) gather together the advantages of both. It is one of the reasons I made FICGS... I think pure knockout or pure round-robin wch cycle is not efficient enough for chess championships. The other thing you'll notice in the rules : "The special rule is that in case of equality (4-4), the winner is the player with the strongest tournament entry rating if all games are draw, the player with the lowest tournament entry rating if not all games are draw. The winner is qualified for the next stage." This rule (in case of equality in the round-robin tournaments, the player with the strongest TER is qualified too) is another way to avoid short draws... It may sound strange at a first sight, but I really think it's fair enough and a good way to find most probably the really strongest players in the last stages. Anyway, it's amazing for sure :) The FICGS chess wch rules : http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#tournament Thibault de Vassal (2007-01-21 14:31:00) Chess ratings Hello to all. I have been submitted this case : "Rating system: Look at this situation: Current rating ot the player: 2200, 10 games, all players with TER 2200, result 9=, 1+ Case 1: Finished games: 01.01-28.02: 9= --> New rating 01.03: 2200 01.03., no other finished games in this period: --> New rating 01.05: 2228 Case 2: Finished games 01.01-28.02: 9=, 1+ --> New rating 01.03: 2200 --> New rating 01.03. 2214 In case 1 the value of the won game was 28, in case two it was 14. IMO the value of a result should not depend from the number of games you finish in a period. The value of a result only should depend on the rating of both players that they have at the start (preferable) or at the finish date of the game and the result. And the rating formula should be like NewRating = LastRating + SumOfAllValuesOfFinishedGamesInThisPeriod. That's the way (idea) IECG is computing the ratings." This result looks quite normal to me as a player's level may increase as time passes. Rating calculations are done after periods long enough to avoid big differences... I don't know if you're right about IECG rating calculation, FICGS ratings seem to evolve quicker and I think it's best. By the way this system is used by several chess federations. Best wishes. Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2007-01-21 15:16:26) Chess ratings I have formatted my message (and partly corrected) to be able to read the text better. Rating system: Look at this situation: Current rating ot the player: 2200, 10 games, all players with TER 2200, result 9=, 1+ Case 1: Finished games: 01.01-28.02: 9= New rating 01.03: 2200 01.03. 1+, no other finished games in this period: --> New rating 01.05: 2228 Case 2: Finished games 01.01-28.02: 9=, 1+ --> New rating 01.03: 2214 In case 1 the value of the won game was 28, in case two it was 14. IMO the value of a result should not depend from the number of games you have finished in a period. The value of a result only should depend on the rating of both players that they have at the start (preferable) or at the finish date of the game and the result. And the rating formula should be like NewRating = LastRating + SumOfAllValuesOfFinishedGamesInThisPeriod. That's the way (idea) IECG is computing the ratings. Thibault de Vassal (2007-03-19 18:30:34) Tournament performance Perf in crosstable is the tournament performance. It is calculated exactly the same way chess ratings are calculated every 2 months. It uses your TER (tournament entry rating) and TER of your opponents. Jason Repa (2007-07-15 21:18:20) IQ is intelligence. Skills are Skills You're resorting to telling blatant lies again eh burrows? I guess I shouldn't be surprised. This is what you were doing before when you painted yourself into a corner. I in in way, shape, or form said that "chess ratings prove nothing". You need to re-read my post and stop teling lies. That's very pathetic behavoir. As I said, it's clear now why you're an under 100 BCF player. Jason Repa (2008-05-13 15:25:34) Elo rating system I trust I didn't use any "biggie" words you were unable to comprehend Stephenson. Hopefully you now understand your error and realize that the elo system is not only peculiar to FIDE chess ratings, but indeed used by many chess organizations, as well as other games. Jason Repa (2008-06-04 10:02:42) Poker Groves, it's pretty sad if you aren't capable of understanding what you did. But in your case I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. And I don't need to meet you in person to know what you're all about. Your words speak volumes. And FYI chess ratings aren't obtained by flipping coins. You're a mere 1600 and change player. It's not the result of "bad luck". You equate the stating of facts with "insulting". The problem is when I'm dealing with a very modest individual like you, every objective fact I state is interpreted as an insult. As I said, read a poker book, or get someone to read one to you so that you can learn the basics of the game. Perhaps then you'll understand that there is more to the game than simply managing your money and knowing when to bluff. Thibault de Vassal (2008-09-18 20:48:47) Big Chess Championship Well, I have to find some time to make changes first. Big Chess ratings are probably too confusing :/ William Taylor (2008-09-20 17:55:27) Too confusing? Why are Big Chess ratings more confusing than any other kind of rating? τΏτ Thibault de Vassal (2008-09-22 17:07:19) Big Chess ratings They are because "provisional big chess ratings" are correspondence (classical) chess ratings minus 300 points. I estimated this was a good idea because Big Chess was quite different but I'm not sure anymore... What do you think ? William Taylor (2008-09-22 18:33:42) Big Chess ratings Hmm. As you say, the game is quite different from ordinary chess, and as we can't use engines and very little research has been done into Big Chess we might all be 300 points or so weaker at it than at real chess. It might be quite nice to have the ratings over a similar range to ordinary chess ratings, but that doesn't really matter. Presumably once you have determined the provisional ratings you then use the same algorithm as you do for normal chess ratings? It's hard to suggest a format without an estimate of how many people would play, but we don't necessarily have to have an accurate and established Big Chess rating system to hold a championship.
[Chess rating list]
[Go ranking list]
[Chess & Go links]
[Chess forum]
[Players blog]
[Countries]
[Chess openings]
[Encyclopedia] [Seo forums] [Discussions] [Buzz] [Meet people] [Directory] [Contact] [Legal informations] |
|
FREECHESS SPAGHETTICHESS FICGS is also a social network including seo forums, a hot news & buzz blog, a free web directory and discussion forums to meet people from all over the world. Discuss the last events, improve your search engines optimization, submit your website, share your interests...
Feel free to link to FICGS to get referer links. |