New category chess rapid 20002200


Back to forum

Andrew Stephenson    (2007-11-07)
New category (chess rapid 2000-2200)

Thibault I think there may be a case for rapid tournament category 2000 - 2200 as there may be enough players in that category at the moment who might not feel very motivated to enter the 1800 - 2200 but would go for a 2000 - 2200 event. In the available tournament 1800 - 2200 for example no player above 2000 has entered. Just a thought.

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-11-07 15:37:51)
New category (chess rapid 2000-2200)

Hello Andrew. True, but I don't think it is good to develop rapid tournaments too much, simply because it is quite hard to play, the risk is to see more forfeits on time & to concurrence the chess world championship as it is really hard to play 2 or 3 rapid tournaments at the same time. Also the more categories & players in rapid tournaments, the less in standard ones. Rapid tournaments are designed for players rated 1400-2200 who want to establish their rating quickly or to try the chess wch time control.

Andrew Stephenson    (2007-11-14 12:54:32)
new rapid category

Thibault please reconsider your decision and set up a 2000 - 2200 rapid tournament which I think will fill up quickly. there are about 60 active players rated 2000 - 2200 and of these about 5 have more than 10 games going. 2 of these (Jason and Sandor) probably wont enter a 2000-2200 rapid as they are qualified and down for higher level tournaments.If the rapids are for players up to 2200 why have you got higher rated rapid tournaments? Lets get more chess played isnt that what its all about? Incidentally the standard ratings of 2000-2400 and 2200-2600 seems a mistake as no one above 2200 will enter the 2200-2400 tournament. Has anyone else got any views on having a 2000-2200 rapid category?

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-11-14 16:13:39)
new rapid categories

Poll : Do you think that rating ranges for Rapid chess tournaments should be 200 instead of 400 points, like in Standard tournaments (I mean the rating range that separate tournament categories)

Thanks for opinions.

Wayne Lowrance    (2007-11-14 18:23:35)
ummmmm, not a good idea

Doesnt get my vote, sorry Andrew Wayne

Garvin Gray    (2007-11-14 18:26:42)
related issue

I think there is a bigger issue here. It is very rare to see a player who is just under the rating cut off enter said tournament.

For example: Tournament rating range is 1600-2000. It would be very rare indeed for a 1950+ player enter this type of tournament.

Maybe all the rating bands for tournaments need to change ie be moved to 200 points difference, with no cross over.

So the standard tournaments are:

1600- 1799

1800- 1999

2000- 2199

and so on upwards.

Rapid tournaments are:




and so on upwards.

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-11-14 18:47:42)
Cross over & rating cut off

Hi Garvin, that's an interesting idea to have different rating cut off for Standard & Rapid tournaments ! .. Cross over is not a problem IMO, but Rapid tournaments could be displayed this way :

1) Rapid M (2300+), Rapid A (1900-2300), Rapid B (1500-1900) ... ~400
2) Rapid M (2300+), Rapid A (2100-2300), Rapid B (1900-2100) ... ~200
3) Rapid M (2100+), Rapid A (1700-2100), Rapid B (1300-1700) ... ~400
4) Rapid M (2100+), Rapid A (1900-2100), Rapid B (1700-1900) ... ~200

Make your choice :)

Lincoln Tomlin    (2007-11-14 19:40:32)
The thing is...

If even fewer ~2000 players enter rapid tournaments won't that make it harder for those who enjoy rapids to rise through the ranks, improve their rating to similar levels and even improve their play in general?

Lincoln Tomlin    (2007-11-14 19:43:16)

I meant to say rapids with 'lower rated' players in. Regards, Link

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-11-14 20:07:38)
.. and of course the last option

5) No change.

I'm not sure what is best...

Andrew Stephenson    (2007-11-14 20:32:07)
New Category

I agree with Garvins point completely. I think there are crossover probs. I like Thibaults suggestion for the display of Rapid tournaments - people can then choose there category - great idea. There is plenty of scope for sub 2000 to progress under this format and I dont see any downside.

Andrew Stephenson    (2007-11-14 20:38:49)
New category

Sorry I should have said I like the 200 band ranges options 2 and 4 - preferably option 2 as under option 4 I doubt you would see any 2200+ players entering. Wayne why do not want the bands to be reduced to 200 point differentials? dont you think there are a lot of players 2000 - 2200 who would like to play rapid?

Garvin Gray    (2007-11-15 04:54:50)
Option 2 for me

Option 2 for me. That being said, the rating cut offs should be 1799 and then the next group starts at 1800. Currently some players could have the option of two groups.

Wayne Lowrance    (2007-11-15 17:30:30)
new category

Hello Andrew. I have changed my thinking on this. 2000-2200> I would think 200 throughout would work. Wayne

Wayne Lowrance    (2007-11-15 17:37:28)
Not 400 window tho

I think a window of 400 as suggested is bad, too wide...a player of 1900 playing a 2400 player is not conducive for advancement of the 2400 player, hence he would not enter. for example to be honest, I a 2200+ player would not enter such a category, just being honest. Wayne

Wayne Lowrance    (2007-11-15 17:40:28)
Sorry I made a mistake misstated 2400

2400 should say 2300, same idea tho.. Wayne

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-11-15 20:06:25)
Rapid tournaments

1) Rapid M (2300+), Rapid A (1900-2300), Rapid B (1500-1900) ... ~400
2) Rapid M (2300+), Rapid A (2100-2300), Rapid B (1900-2100) ... ~200
3) Rapid M (2100+), Rapid A (1700-2100), Rapid B (1300-1700) ... ~400
4) Rapid M (2100+), Rapid A (1900-2100), Rapid B (1700-1900) ... ~200

Finally, is everyone ok with option 2.. or 4 !?

Dan Rotaru    (2007-11-15 23:48:05)
Rapid tournaments

Options 2 makes more sense

Wayne Lowrance    (2007-11-16 02:23:06)
Option 2

ok with me Wayne

Garvin Gray    (2007-11-16 06:14:13)
Just say yes :)

same vote as before, Option 2.

Will the standard tournaments be different rating cut off to the rapids? Please say yes :)

Andrew Stephenson    (2007-11-16 08:57:17)
option 2

yes option 2 gets my vote

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-11-16 21:52:04)
option 4 -> option 2

My choice is option 4 in a first time.. Option 2 will be ok as soon as we have players rated 2300+ enough IMO, the waiting time is too high at the moment. So I'll change the rapid chess tournaments this way as soon as the next Rapid M tourney starts.. and I'll add a higher category as soon as the waiting time for Standard (Class) M decrease.

Thanks for your suggestions :)

Garvin Gray    (2007-12-12 14:38:00)

I would like to offer that perhaps five player tournaments should be considered instead of seven player, at least on a trial basis.

This would have two effects:

1) Less waiting time for tournaments to start

2) Players have to enter more tournaments to get the same number of games, increasing the amount of players entering tournaments.

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-12-12 16:14:36)
5 vs. 7

5 players would be great this way, but it has many other effects including on tournaments results & cheating attempts.. 7 players is best for fair ratings IMO.

Garvin Gray    (2007-12-12 16:40:02)
5 over 7 as a trial :)

7 players is best for fair ratings IMO.

I do not disagree one bit. The more games and more players in a touranment, the better rating outcomes and fairer tournament all round.

That being said, I think this does need to be balanced against both how long it takes to get a tournament started (which can be quite a while in some cases) and keeping new players on the site by being able to get them some starting games sooner. This has to also be good for accurate ratings as it increases the pool of potential players.

Rodolfo d Ettorre    (2007-12-13 12:06:00)
Just an idea ...

What ever categories we decided, maybe we could add in some cases a "wild card", I mean, allowing one player with lower rating.

Andrew Stephenson    (2007-12-13 14:31:21)

what sort of cheating were you referring to Thibault?

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-12-13 17:59:07)
Wild cards & cheating

I don't think wild cards are useful (but wch cycle, maybe) cause ratings move quite fast, simple rules is best IMO, also to let the program apply accurate rules without human decision, as far as possible...

About cheating, if a player manage to play from several accounts that the program couldn't detect, the effects are negligible in 7-players tournaments, even more at a high level, so he'll stop quite quickly as it requires even more time.

Garvin Gray    (2007-12-15 17:28:26)
wild cards

I think a wild card would be a good idea for the higher rated tournaments if there was a rating limit to the wild card.

For instance, after a certain amount of time for entries, entry is allowed for one person rated less than 100 points below the lower rating cutoff.

This wild card player will not be outclassed and if a new player might even be quite under rated and competitive in the tournment.

The point is that after a certain time given for normal entries, I think most players already registered in the tournament would rather the tournament to start than to keep waiting around.

Andrew Stephenson    (2007-12-27 09:44:35)
option 4

Thibault please consider implementing option 4 now. I cannot see the current rapid M 00009 tournament filling up for a long long time but there are IMO plenty of 2100 players who would sign up for an option 4 tourney who are not going for the rapid A 000035

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-12-28 14:11:54)
option 4

I tried to change the rating ranges but a few 2200+ players would retire from the rapid M tournament... I'm afraid we have to wait. Anyway I'm to make a major update (challenges) and other improvements on the server, so I can't do it right now.

Andrew Stephenson    (2007-12-29 13:31:04)
New Category

ok Thibault look forward to the changes perhaps in a few months time we can revisit the matter ......