´╗┐ Quick Corr Chess


Quick Corr. Chess

Back to forum

Scott Nichols    (2009-09-16)
Quick Corr. Chess

With the recent narrowing of the band in standard tournaments, it occurred to me that there is even less opportunity to get games than before. For those of us (and I think it is many) who check the site many times daily waiting for the next move, there just isn't enough games to feed our tremendous appetite for chess. I propose a new catagory, Quick Corr. chess, I know that sounds like an oxymoron, but here it is. It would have it's own Quick chess rating. Bands would be, Over 2000, 1600-2000, and under 1600. Time limit-10 days per game, increment-8 hours. I truly believe there is a market for this here. Advanced chess requires that you actually be at the comp. for a length of time till game is done, so it is not an option for many. But as you can see there has been quite an increase in advanced games being played. So---if you are one of those players like me, that check for moves first thing in the morning and last thing at night, sneak your laptop into the bathroom at work to see if your opponent took the sacrifice you just offered, etc., and time after time are disappointed at not seeing any new moves, please offer your support and suggestions on this. Thank you, signed "Starving for chess". :)

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-09-16 13:23:31)
Quick Corr. Chess

Hi Scott :)

Why not playing blitz games between your correspondence moves ?

IMO the problem with that idea is :

1) If the quick corr. chess games share the corr. chess rating list, it may bring trouble in it with many losses on time. Some other servers offer this kind of time control & it is not serious IMHO.

2) If the quick corr. chess games do not share the corr. chess rating list, it will be less interesting for most players and it means another rating list, probably the one too much.

In all cases, it will be more waiting lists to fill. At a 2000+ level, it is never so easy.

Waiting for more opinions...

Daniel Parmet    (2009-09-16 23:04:15)
If the new bands are the problem...

If the new bands are the problem then remove them. I see no reason to add this "quick corr."

Daniel Parmet    (2009-09-16 23:06:50)

also I do agree the bands are a problem.

I am 1962 and only want to play higher rated players. So I won't play an 1800-2000 which means I have exactly ONE option the 1900-2100 rapid band which is mostly other 1900s anyways. The new bands lowered my opportunities to play and makes both the opportunities available to me lower overall rating averages.

Don Groves    (2009-09-17 03:41:11)
rating bands

If you are 1962 and you win a game against an opponent rated 1800, you will still gain rating points. It's entirely possible to reach 2000 by winning enough such games. that was the whole point of narrowing the bands, so that every game will count in the ratings.

Garvin Gray    (2009-09-17 04:32:42)
I call it reality :)

and the reality was that only players just above the lowest rating cutoff were entering the tournaments.

In a 400 point rating gap, incredibly rarely did a player from the top end of the range enter one of those tournaments.

Daniel Parmet    (2009-09-17 07:38:06)
The real reality

The real reality is there is no reason to play rated chess when i'm facing lower rated opponents. I can enter thematics and unrated events where I can play experts and masters (who cares if its unrated?). I'm not gonna play a rated event where i'm top seed.

So the rating bands have eliminated playing options not created them.

Don Groves    (2009-09-17 07:52:52)
Rating bands

What's the difference between 1800-2000 and 1800-2200? No one rated 2000 or above would enter that tournament either. I just don't see how your choices have been reduced.

Besides, if everyone adopted the attitude of only playing higher rated players, there would be no games at all.

Benjamin Block    (2009-09-17 19:41:23)
Quick corr. chess

The only swedish site where you can play corr. chess have some very smal times the lowest is 7 days for whole game (no increment). But it is very smal and only person that don┤t have a job or don┤t go to school can fix it. It is also a contest about how can make the last move on the night?

Scott Nichols    (2009-09-18 02:11:45)

This idea does not have near the backing I thought it would. Gave it a shot, right? And since this is the best site on the planet, no way would go elsewhere. So I will be content to wait for my next move, SIGH....:(

Don Groves    (2009-09-18 05:18:23)

I feel your pain, Scott. I would like to see a lower limit on the number of games one player can have at the same time. Maybe that would encourage some players to move more frequently...

Michel van der Kemp    (2009-09-19 08:58:08)
ICCF uses no rating bands

Maybe this was the reason ICCF has qualification tournaments to get into higher tiers. You win a tournament and are qualified to play in a higher tier, regardless your rating. Of course that also means new players will always start in the lowest tier and getting to a tier that suits them is a long long road.

I don't know how hard it is to implement this, but it would solve the rating issues.

Don Groves    (2009-09-19 10:00:50)

I brought this up a couple of years ago but it met some resistance ;-) I still think it's a good idea as it gives more reason to try to win games rather than settle for draws. Obviously, it also rewards those who win a tournament.

The biggest objection earlier was that higher rated players may be forced to play against far lower rated players, but with 200 point rating bands now instead of 400, that objection is greatly lessened.

Thibault, will you reconsider?

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-09-19 22:14:20)
Rating bands

Well, you have to win even more games to enter the upper rating category and I'm not sure it is always a fair system for the winner of a tournament to access it, based on the argument you quoted & also is it fair to play more games to finally win one tournament and lose elo points because of the number of games played at the same time, what happens if 3 or 4 players win a tournament ? (we could use the WCH tournament rules but is it appropriate in this case)

Moreover IMHO, such a rule wouldn't be necessary for ratings below 2200. On the other hand, it may be envisaged to casually offer to the winner of a 2000+ tournament to enter an upper waiting list to complete a waiting list in certain conditions, eg. if his rating is not more than 100 points below the upper rating band (it may be an idea to launch the 11th class SM tournament), what do you think ?

Don Groves    (2009-09-21 04:11:45)
rating bands

I agree with that: Under certain conditions, such as being less than 100 ELO points below the next higher rating and winning a lower rated tournament, a player gets a one time opportunity to play in the next higher group. If the player's rating is above the limit after the tournament, he/she remains in the higher class; otherwise they must play again in the lower class.

This would help fill higher rated tournaments faster and also allow players to advance more rapidly if they are good enough. This should apply to all FICGS games, Go and Poker included.

Lazaro Munoz    (2009-10-30 19:09:42)
rating bands

That is the way LSS (IECG's server) works. If you come in first place in a section, you get a ticket to higher section. If you win two sections you get two promotion tickets to a higher section, etc. If you have no more tickets you will only be able to enter in current rating group for class tournaments, everyone can join the opens of course.

I guess if you win a section in which you were promoted into, you would get a super-ticket to a two-level up (at least you can dream).