0

One month is more than enough time. If on September 15th Narue doesn't show up, then quintoncoert is the champion.

0

It would be better if you declare Quintoncoert as the winner as of now and start a new competition. There are many people out there who are waiting for their turn to participate in the coming competitions. Waiting would be doing them injustice.

Just start a new competition already...

0

Okay Sanjay, you are entered in the new competition. ;)

And again, I think we should do a continuous ladder-type rankings.. and only have tournaments like twice a year. This prevents us on waiting forever for people to play.. people can play at their own pace without disrupting other's. Also, sometimes we may not be able to visit the forums for a certain amount of time.. and the ladder would help us not feel obligated to continue checking this thread and/or finding a mutual time for the next game that we must partake in.

0

i would say start a new tournament in order not to wait for narue to show up. but when she does show up i want to play her. until then i shall be willing to be provisional champion. narue is better than me and unless she left daniweb or died she should have the chance to defend herself. remember. she is the only unbeaten person in the tournament.

actually josch's idea is better. hold tournaments twice a year and leader system for the rest. but we shall have to think out how we are going to do the ladder system.

in cricket tests, which is to long to hold world cups for, the rules are simple. teams are placed in a group and are obliged to play each other so many times during such a period.

that way the teams can decide for themselves when they play as long as they play all their alloted opponents during the specified time.

0

Okay, officially quintoncoert is the champion unless Narue makes a challenge in the next two weeks. We won't wait to start the ladder system. I'm not as good with the specifics of a ladder system so I'll do as much as I can anyway. The next actual tournament will start around...say...mid October? That will also attract people to the ladder system in the meantime so we can have a lot of people for the next tournament. We can still use this thread to discuss the ladder system and future tournaments, etc.

Let's get started.

0

I think all of us can be a part in its making. Josh is probably better at developing things, like the bracket that he made for the tournament, so I guess I would say Josh.

0

Well you could do like the World Cup does it, in where you have a mini league of 5 people playing each other once, then top 2 proceed into what we had this time around with final 16 -> quarter final -> Semi Final -> 3rd place -> Final

0

It isn't supposed to be a tournament.. People just play each other randomly, and then are ranked based on their overall record. This way, we will actually have seeded rankings when we do have tournaments.

1

about the ladder system

if there is anyway that you know that i can help say so and shall help. if you suspect that i can help say so and i shall make an effort.

@ josh and serunson

true this is not a tourny so that wont work. but we would have to have some form of organization. else two bad players can play and draw each other every single hour pushing their own rating up while they avoid the stronger players.

i would suggest something like they have in the european soccer leages. with everyone playing each other twice. once as white and once as black. then we give three points for win, zero for lose and one for draw. we keep the tally and so we always know one another's rank.

we adapt it so that anyone can join at any time but of course we post a time frame as well. no one is allowed to join in the last month or so of the timeframe since he will have to play every one else in that short period of time.

or else we do cycles. a new cycle starts every four months. anyone can join at any time. in the short run late joiners who cant finish all of their games will cause the rankings to be a bit erratic but in the long run things aught to smooth out. anyone who dont finish all of his games in a cycle is punished with automatic forfeit but i honestly dont know what to do about anyone who deliberately dont want to play someone while the other one wants to play.

Votes + Comments
fabulous
0

I don't like the idea of giving any points for draws. A few people could just keep giving each other points. I don't like how regulated it is. I was thinking of it this way. Yahoo already has a ranking system. Why don't each of us create a new yahoo name and with those names we play each other and only each other. This way we don't have to worry about time frame forfeits. People can continue to join at anytime. (Draws on yahoo lose a small amount of points I think). The way their ranking system goes is that if you play someone with a high rank and lose, you lose little points. If you play someone with a high rank and win, you win a lot of points. If you play someone with a low rank and win, you win a few points and if you play someone with a low rank and lose, you lose a lot of points. I like this ranking system, we just all have to be sure that we only play games against each other and with no one outside Daniweb. That should be easy because we can all post our games and our results on this thread (or a new thread for the ladder system). This also makes it easy to design, because we don't really have to design anything, we just have to organize it. I think all our names should start with DW_ or something like that so that we can easily point each other out in the rooms (for example mine would be DW_sk8ndestroy14). What do you guys think?

0

Well going back to a points system, do like football/soccer does in where you have 3 points for a win, 1 for a draw, 0 for a loss.

@ Nichito
Well we could but down all of our Yahoo (if we use their chess service) names on a big list so that we know who is who, put it as a new thread in the coffee house.

0

On yahoo, you can easily look at statistics of games completed, games won and games lost. We will all post on here the games played and the results. This way it would be very easy to see if someone played anyone outside of Daniweb. And by the way I don't like the 3 for win 1 for draw 0 for loss thing because that ranking system really only ranks how many games you've played rather than how good you are. And loopholes can be made like finding a buddy and continuously drawing. Or saying, you win this one and let me win the next and that way they both get three points. It's a bad system. And with yahoo's ranking system points earned or lost is due to your opponent's and your current rank, which I think is very fair.

0

On yahoo, you can easily look at statistics of games completed, games won and games lost. We will all post on here the games played and the results. This way it would be very easy to see if someone played anyone outside of Daniweb. And by the way I don't like the 3 for win 1 for draw 0 for loss thing because that ranking system really only ranks how many games you've played rather than how good you are. And loopholes can be made like finding a buddy and continuously drawing. Or saying, you win this one and let me win the next and that way they both get three points. It's a bad system. And with yahoo's ranking system points earned or lost is due to your opponent's and your current rank, which I think is very fair.

> finding a buddy and drawing.

that is exactly why i want us to use that system. remember. i also proposed that everyone play everyone else only twice. once as white and once as black. if you agree to draw both games against your buddy you come out with two points while if you had won you would have came out with six.

even if you look at both then the two draws would get them only a four when taken together but when they had won it would be a total for six points.

this would discourage draws. everyone knows that both people lose more than what they gain by drawing.

if there some purest who would argue that draws are part of chess then we change a win to just two points. by limiting everyone to two games against each other we would still prevent two people from ganging up and drawing for if you agree to draw any one person you seriously hamper your chances of ending high up in the log.

the key here is limit and force. you must play everyone and you only play everyone twice. that way you cannot cheat except by agreeing with your "buddy" that both of you come out with two points out of your two games instead of a six. even if you only win one game you still have a higher score than if you draw both.

this system is used in european soccer matches and it works fine there. to manny draws means that a team cannot realistically aim to win its league.

0

I hate the idea of limiting the number of games someone can play against anyone. And again, with that system, you can agree to win a game and lose a game with somebody and you get points out of it. It's bad that you don't lose anything for losing. Then it's really just a measure of how many games you've played rather than how good you are. I still haven't seen a good argument against my idea of using yahoo already established system within our own circle of Daniweb chess players. (No offense to anyone.)

0

well, then... i'll argue because... because i want... that must count as a good argument... i mean... it's my word after all... :D

0

What? Lol. I mean I don't really understand the advantages of limiting the number of games people can play or not penalizing someone rank after a loss.

0

Can't we just do a huge round robin tournament, the winner of each match gets 2 points, looser get 0 points, draw gets 1 each.
That would work.

0

@ sk8ndestroy

the only problem with your system is that it is going to be easy for people to abuse it by forming clicks.

if a group of people decides to team up and then they only play one another and nobody else then they are going to benefit. This will mean that the more games they play against one another the higher their rankings are going to be.

This is because yahoo's reward for winning far outweights it punishment for losing. The amount of points one gets for winning far exceeds the amount of points one drops when one loses.

This will favour any group of people when they form clicks. By playing one another many times over in their click they build up one another's points.

Sure they may agree to play the others now and then but even if they lose it wont matter since they can always go back and rebuild their ranking after a loss to someone outside their team.

That is why I am in favour of force and limit. You just have to play everyone. And you can only play any one person twice.

This way people will be discouraged from teaming up as it they would not gain as much from just two games against each other as they would from say a hundred games.

The whole problem is the way yahoo punish and reward defeat and victory. Your idea would have been good if yahoo had subtracted as heavily from someone who loses as yahoo gives to someone who wins. just try it. take someone with a rank similar to your own and see how little is subtracted from the loser but how much is gained by the winner.

0

yeah... i think we should limit the games played by each person to two by opponent... as quintoncoert said: one as white and one as black...

0

Can't we just do a huge round robin tournament, the winner of each match gets 2 points, looser get 0 points, draw gets 1 each.
That would work.

I've explained like five times why that doesn't work. That's more a measure of how many games you've played than of how good you are. You need to lose points when you lose the game and yahoo's system is the most appropriate one.

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.