Rapid chess entry rating

  
Free Internet Chess Games Server

Install FICGS apps
play chess online


Game result  (poker)


D. Sinsuat, 1792
L. Segur, 2024

0-1

See game 103719




 Hot news
 Discussions
 Files search
 Social network



Free Internet Chess & Go Server

                                          
Forum


Rapid chess entry rating


Back to forum


Wayne Lowrance    (2008-06-02)
Rapid chess entry rating

I sure do not like the entry 2100-2300. I guarantee you, I will not enter here, and I doubt that any other mid 2200 player will enter either, It is a opportunity bracket for 2100 players. It is not easy I know to managed rating requirements for tournaments. But the proper bracket for the 2300 entry tourney should be 2200-2400. That is my opinion. So it the rating entry of 2100-2300 will attract 2100 players for the most part, a great opportunity for them to advance and a darn good chance that a 2200+ player to loose points (guaranteed) cause rybka prevails, in the hands of a 2100 Player. Bravo Rybka ! With respect Wayne


Garvin Gray    (2008-06-02 19:14:39)
response


Wayne, this is an enternal problem and while you complain about it for the rating group 2100-2300, saying that only 2100 will benefit from it.

No matter what the rating bracket, it has been shown on this site many times that very few players will enter a waiting list when their entry is just below the cut off.

So changing the rating limits to 2200-2400 will not change this behaviour, all it will do is move the 'problem'.



Thibault de Vassal    (2008-06-02 20:56:43)
Entry rating

Hi Wayne !

You're probably right and I agree with Garvin, every range is a opportunity bracket. Well, probably more (all) players have a opportunity bracket this way.


Wayne Lowrance    (2008-06-03 03:56:21)
Entry Rating

Okey Dokey Gavin, your right of course. I just feel like fewer players are inflicted with this misery at 2200-2400. I guess I am biased tho. I forsee that for me reaching 2300 will be almost impossible with the new bracket...I am in several tournaments at the previous bracket rating system, my hope is I can make it in this way, just dunno Thank you Wayne


Jason Repa    (2008-06-04 09:22:21)
Rapid chess entry rating

I disagree with Wayne Lowrance completely. The 2300+ rapid category is an excellent idea. Obviously it's much more difficult to go from 2300-2400 than it is to go from 2200-2300. Without the 2300+ category it's ominously difficult for a 23xx player to get to the next level.

My only complaint is that the standard list doesn't have a 2300+ category as well.


Wayne Lowrance    (2008-06-08 06:24:35)
Rapid chess entry rating

Jayson Repa has a point but I think he is missing my point. If Engine help was not allowed, I would agree 100%. But with engine help, in practice mostly Rybka, a 2100 player is grossly under rated, I mean gross. So that is a huge barrier to overcome for a 2200+ rated player. It is not obvious that a 2300 player climbing the ranks against 2400 players has a larger barrier than a 2200 player reaching 2300. \The point I am making is: It matters little the ratings in correspondence chess with very very long time controls. Rybka does not know or care, the lil girl just makes best moves anyhow. The skill comes in when the human selects the best opening and is the most capable of steering his engine consistant with his chess knowledge. Heck Mr Repa I would love to play 2400 players, my chance of loosing is no greater than losing to a 2100 player, both would be using Rybka or engine of their choice. With respect sir Wayne


Jason Repa    (2008-06-08 20:37:40)
Rapid chess entry rating

No, Lowrance, you're the one missing the point here. And you're using engine assistance as much as anyone here, so don't pretend like you're somehow at a disadvantage. I've played you, and you're 100% program. Perhaps that's the problem.

Thibault mentioned once that a weak player running Rybka can get to around 2100 or so. To get beyond that requires some chess knowledge. While he may not be precisely accurate about the number....perhaps it's 2200 instead......nonetheless, the point is accurate. Everyone who's above 2000 on this site is consulting chess engines, but in corr. chess simply running a program alone is not the strongest way to play. You make it sound as though Rybka plays the perfect chess game. If that were the case everyone on this site would be rated about the same. It should be quite obvious to you that to go from 2300 to 2400 is much more difficult than going from 2200-2300. As a higher rated player, you get less points for winning or drawing, and lose more when you lose. As for your chances against 2400 players being the same as against 2100 players, that's pure nonsense. You'd be lucky to get the occasional draw against a 2400 player, (one who's really earned their rating and not just started with an artificially high rating as is the case with more than a few on this site) whilst you will lost most of those games. A higher rated player is higher rated for a reason. They win more games.

The correct spelling of my name should also be obvious to you, as it's on the same page that you're entering text into.


Wayne Lowrance    (2008-06-08 22:59:52)
Rapid chess entry rating

Sorry for mispelled name, not my intention. This my last post here with you, I do not wish to engage in insults. I have never claimed to not use a engine. of course I do. I do not know your rating, not bothering to look it up. I am so very busy with my tourny games I have no time for you. I will not forget your last post my friend. After I get a little free time from games I will challenge you to some match games. I doubt you will accept, but I will do it. So long my friend, good c hess, good luck with your problems Wayne p.s. do not bother with a follow. I thank you


Jason Repa    (2008-06-09 00:22:32)
Rapid chess entry rating

If you're not bright enough to figure out how to look up someone's rating, you better stick to "engine-assisted" chess. I'd probably beat you blindfolded in chess where you have to come up with the moves using your own mind. You're not even intelligent enough to figure out how to spell someone's name, when the spelling of it is right in front of you.

And for someone who doesn't want to engage in insults, you sure are doing a good job of insulting. Nice of you to "claim" I wouldn't accept your "challenge" of playing match games, before you even make the challenge. Obviously it's YOU who's backing down from match games with me, under the pretense of not having any time to play. What sheer nonsense. You seem to have a lot of free time on your hands....enough to blabber away with numerous forum posts where you whine about not being able to make it to 2300.

I'm challenging YOU to some human mind vs human mind chess on the playchess server right now. You can get a free trial account there (if you don't already have an account) in about 2 minutes. For a guy who's incessantly bickering about Rybka hurting your performance, you should love having the opportunity to prove to everyone reading this that you're not the spineless hypocrite coward I'm claiming you are and step up to the plate to play me some fast (so rybka or other engines cannot be consulted) online games.

Nice of you to tell us you have problems, but it was already obvious.


Garvin Gray    (2008-06-09 05:58:31)
dummies at 10 paces.

Geez it would be nice to have a discussion on here where it does not break down into a childish spat after about 6 posts.


Don Groves    (2008-06-09 06:47:09)
Brackets - both Chess and Go

In response to Garvin Gray's first response in this thread: There is a way around the problem of being stuck at a certain rating because you never get to play against higher rated players (which is necessary to move up) -- allow the winner of a tournament to qualify for the next higher classification regardless of his/her rating. This is done on at least one site already (IECG, if I recall correctly). If the player in question does not improve his/her rating enough to stay at the higher level, he/she drops back into the lower classification. Thibault would have to agree to allow this of course. I think it's a good way to reward the winner of a tournament.


Don Groves    (2008-06-09 06:52:34)
PS

And this should apply to both games.


Jason Repa    (2008-06-09 08:12:28)
Brackets - both Chess and Go

" -- allow the winner of a tournament to qualify for the next higher classification regardless of his/her rating."

This idea seems interesting, on the surface, but on closer inspection it's not feasible. The FICGS tournament categories are dependent on certain rating averages that determine the level of points required in order to achieve norms for various FICGS titles, starting at class "M" and higher. Throwing in lower rated players would dilute the rating average of the entire tournament. It's also unfair to the rest of the players in that tournament who are legitimately qualified to be there. They are forced to play a lower rated opponent artificially and now THEY are at a big disadvantage in their attempt to gain the points required to get to the next level.

Additionally, I don't think groves thought about this long enough to realize that there is no guarantee that each "A" level tournament will end precisely as each "M" level tournament does. What if two "A" level events are completed in the time it takes for one "M" level event to finish, which isn't an unreasonable possibility as the "M" level players generally take the game more seriously and tend to use their time more? Should we then throw in TWO players into an "M" level event that don't deserve to be there? At any rate, it's a poor idea. If someone is winning tournaments, they're definitely gaining rating points and will qualify legitimately for the next rating level soon enough.


Don Groves    (2008-06-09 09:01:24)
Brackets - Chess and Go

Thanks for your reasoned response, Jason. I'll answer your points in order: (1) Having one lower rated player in a group of seven does not seem to me to be much of a dilution. Also, remember that this player is at or very near the top of the next lower rated group, and again, this doesn't seem like a large enough disparity to be of concern. (2) The other players in the group will have five other opponents rated within the group's normal limits and thus will have plenty of opportunity for their own advancement by winning a majority of those games. Remember also that Thibault instituted a rule that losing to a lower rated player only counts as a loss to someone a maximum of 150 ELO below. So, losing a game to this one player will not constitute a disaster to anyone's rating. (3) The new rule could easily specify that no more than one lower rated player may enter any given tournament. (4) Your point here is simply not true in general. In my own case, I'm the highest rated player in a current Go tournament. Even if I win every game, my rating will improve at most from 8 kyu to 7 kyu. The next cutoff point is 5 kyu and there's no way I can reach that level without playing against higher rated players.


Jason Repa    (2008-06-09 11:05:13)
Brackets - Chess and Go

"Thanks for your reasoned response"

Somehow I don't think you know the meaning of the word "reason", groves.

"(1) Having one lower rated player in a group of seven does not seem to me to be much of a dilution"

It is very much a dilution. As I just finished explaining to you, it will not only make it more difficult for the other players in the tournament who legitimately qualify to be there by rating, to acquire the rating points necessary to get to the next level, but it will lower the overall rating average and effect the awarding of norms.

"Also, remember that this player is at or very near the top of the next lower rated group"

Total rubbish. You just finished saying, in your previous post, that you propose to allow the winner of a tournament to qualify for the next higher classification REGARDLESS of his/her rating. There is no certainty that the winner of the tournament will be near the top of the next lower rated group. They could very well be at the bottom of the next lower rated group, as I often was, as were many others, when I won tournaments.

"and again, this doesn't seem like a large enough disparity to be of concern."

And AGAIN, As I just finished explaining to you, it will not only make it more difficult for the other players in the tournament who legitimately qualify to be there by rating, to acquire the rating points necessary to get to the next level, but it will lower the overall rating average and effect the awarding of norms.

"Thibault instituted a rule that losing to a lower rated player only counts as a loss to someone a maximum of 150 ELO below"

Where did you get the 150 ELO figure from? I was under the impression it was a 200 ELO ceiling. Not that this has any relevance in terms of supporting your position anyway.

"The new rule could easily specify that no more than one lower rated player may enter any given tournament."

I just finished explaining to you that there is no guarantee that the "M" class tournaments will end at the same time as the "A" class tournaments. Not only do "M" class players tend to take the game more seriously and move slower, but there are more "A" class players than "M" so it takes longer to fill an "M" class list, hence less "M" class tournaments are played. If you propose to have only one "A" class player sent to an "M" class tournament at a time, then you'll quickly accumulate a waiting list backlog of "A" class players waiting to be seeded into a tournament they don't legitimately qualify for, stretching for decades. The other reasons I mentioned are MORE than enough reason to ditch this suggestion. This is just gravy.

Additionally, and once again, as I just finished explaining to you, if someone is winning tournaments, they're gaining rating points and will soon be able to qualify for the new rating category through legitimate means. So there is no reason at all to provide such "handouts".

I hope I don't have to repeat myself a third time here. It seems quite silly that you don't yet understand the simple and logical truth of what has been explained to you.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-06-09 23:36:06)
Invitations

Ok, that's an interesting discussion, the idea is interesting and it has some advantages but in the other hand to limit the number of invited players from a lower rated tournament (like IECG) is a problem. My main argument remains the same : too many rules is not good.

A poll could be instructive anyway.


Jason Repa    (2008-06-10 01:03:04)
Free entry into unqualified tournaments

As for the discussion of allowing lower rated players to play in events with higher rated players after winning a tournament.....such a thing already exists. They're called FICGS Championships!


Don Groves    (2008-06-10 02:09:17)
Brackets...

(1) "Somehow I don't think you know the meaning of the word 'reason', groves." Ah, here they come -- the insults so typical of you... (2) "Where did you get the 150 ELO figure from? I was under the impression it was a 200 ELO ceiling." I thought I remembered 150. If that's not correct you have my sincere apology... (3) "There is no certainty that the winner of the tournament will be near the top of the next lower rated group. They could very well be at the bottom of the next lower rated group, as I often was, as were many others, when I won tournaments." This is true and there is a simple fix -- add the condition that, in order to qualify for the exception, the player must be within 25 ELO of the next higher classification... (4) "I hope I don't have to repeat myself a third time here. It seems quite silly that you don't yet understand the simple and logical truth of what has been explained to you." Poor boy! I'm so sorry I made you repeat yourself. I get the feeling though you don't really mind as you seem to love the sound of your own voice so much. Thibault has decided this anyway and I abide by his decision. Your precious class M tournaments are safe from pollution by losers who are not yet up to your lofty standards. You can have the last word now -- you always do anyway.


Jason Repa    (2008-06-10 04:52:22)
Senility is a terrible thing

"Ah, here they come -- the insults so typical of you"

Sorry groves, but I was simply stating facts. It's difficult to find anything to say about you that you won't construe as an "insult". Everything that has spewed out of your keyboard thus far is evidence of your complete lack of reasoning ability, and very modest IQ.

"I thought I remembered 150. If that's not correct you have my sincere apology"

You "think" a lot of nonsense that isn't true, groves. This is nothing new.

"-- add the condition that, in order to qualify for the exception, the player must be within 25 ELO of the next higher classification"

I realize that with your condition you can scarcely recall your own words from moments ago, but it was YOUR idea that the player in question be seeded into the higher rating classification event REGARDLESS of their rating. So now the little light bulb went on in that melon head of yours and you now realize what I was telling you earlier....about there being no guarantee that the tournament winner is rated near the top of his classification? If you're going to change what you proposed earlier, and only allow players who are within 25 elo of the higher classification, what's the point of it? You might as well let him get the remaining 25 elo on his own and enter the higher classification event normally.

I'm so sorry I made you repeat yourself.

You're doing an awful lot of apologizing, groves. Your very existence seems to be one big apology. I'm sure quite a few people in your life have to repeat themselves, ad nauseum, for your benefit.

"You can have the last word now"

The last word should have been my previous post. As usual, you've contributed nothing of value here. Just more pathetic whining and blabbering, as per usual.


Don Groves    (2008-06-10 06:42:54)
Whining, etc...

You call it whining and blabbering and yet you respond to it. What kind of person responds to the blabbering of a senile old man, eh, repa? Everything you write says far more about yourself than it does about me, or whoever happens to be your target du jour.


Jason Repa    (2008-06-10 07:14:50)
Senility is a terrible thing

I thought you said you were done posting in this thread, groves? In addition to being an intellectually-deficient cretin, you prove yourself to be a liar as well.

Everything I said about you is true and accurate and you know it. That's why you're so frustrated. The truth hurts.


Don Groves    (2008-06-10 08:05:43)
Brackets

Sometimes truth hurts, repa, but your opinions most certainly are not truth. Your rants about me are simply the opinions of one person who seems to believe that belittling others makes himself seem more important by comparison. There's a word for someone who mistakes his own opinions for facts: delusional. From what I've seen of most of your posts on FICGS, it fits you perfectly. Ta ta.


Jason Repa    (2008-06-10 08:34:35)
Senility is a terrible thing

How long are you going to keep whining and crying here groves? If I had any doubt about the accuracy of my comments, it would certainly be removed after this emotional protest from you. You're extremely pathetic, even for the standards of a geriatric imbecile. First you say that you won't be posting in this thread anymore, then you prove to everyone reading this that you're a bold-faced liar, in addition to everything else that has been said about you. I proved how patently stupid you are, in point by point form. You don't even realize that you've contradicted yourself repeatedly. You can't even remember your own words.

Do yourself, your family, and society a favor little man, and see someone about euthanasia.


Ilmars Cirulis    (2008-06-10 15:04:25)
Hmm

[moderator : deleted]


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-06-10 15:19:31)
Rules : 11.1 Netiquette

Hello all, I would like to apologize to all members for reading such unacceptable posts in this forum. Rules are not so easy to apply in some cases, now I've taken measures.

Thanks for understanding.

11. General rules

11. 1. Netiquette

(...) It is possible to leave public comments for your games and to send private messages to other members. No player may post in forums or send to another member any voluntary message that contains abusive, insulting, provocating, advertising, vulgar, foul, racist, sexist or other discriminatory or politically sensitive content. Doing so may lead to being immediately and permanently banned. You agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic, comment or message at any time should they see fit. Responding to a provocative message is strictly forbidden and may lead to get a limited access to the server during a few weeks, at the moderator's discretion. In this case, please just warn the moderator or webmaster in private.


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-06-10 15:28:32)
Comments

I give up Ilmars - why?


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-06-10 15:31:45)
Comments

Sorry I see Ilmars comment has been deleted


Ilmars Cirulis    (2008-06-10 16:27:21)
...

Because his messages are so angry. :)


Wayne Lowrance    (2008-06-10 16:44:32)
Rapid chess entry rating

I am pleased that Thiabalt has/is taking steps to put a stop to this bickering and name calling here at the chess site. For my part I would like to apoligize to all for opening this "Rapid chess entry rating" topic in the first place. It is my bad ! And I will not repeat this mistake again. It was never my intension to creat such chaos. I thought it was a harmless topic and was giving an opinion. I feel bad that one individual has such a dislike for me. I have been playing c hess on internet for perhaps 20 years, and in all of that time I have never had anyone dislike me, I confess it does bother me. Wayne


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-06-10 18:09:02)
No apology necessary

You have nothing to apologise for Wayne your comments were reasonable. It is up to Thibault to enforce the policy and to stop this kind of thing happening. To have this happen every time different opinions are expressed is very damaging for the site. I respect everyone on this site whatever their grading and whether they agree or disagree with me. If someone cannot control their language and become abusive they should not be allowed to post on the forum - its that simple.


Michael Aigner    (2008-06-10 18:31:02)
No apology necessary

I agree completely with the things you sayed. I feel bad every time I stumble over such aggressive and unpolite behavior in the forum.


Garvin Gray    (2008-06-10 19:11:59)
impressions.

One poster in particular always seems to be involved. Could just be an impression??


Pablo Schmid    (2008-06-10 21:33:16)
Always the same guy

It's always the same guy, I don't even want to write his name, he would be happy. In each topic where he speaks there is a new victim, he is sure to be the most intelligent and take everything personnally, and insult anybody who don't think like him. I don't know why Ilmars's comment have been deleted, I didn't read them but the King of insults seems to have impunity. If you put his name on google you will see how much trouble he makes everywhere. That behavior should really not be accepted here. I never saw a chess player so rude in my life.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-06-10 22:00:22)
You're always welcome, Wayne :)

Of course you don't have anything to apologize for, Wayne. I'm very sorry about how the discussion finished. Now time to end (and bury) this thread...









 

Message




Chat



 

December 13, 2018

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 chess server, register & win Epoints :






FICGS Go server, weiqi baduk banner facebook      
Correspondence chess

World championship

Play chess games

Go (weiqi, baduk)

Advanced chess

Play big chess

Chess trainer apk

Rated tournaments

Poker texas hold'em

Fischer random chess

      FICGS correspondence chess banner facebook