|
|
|
Topic: TIE BREAK SYSTEMS IN TOURNAMENTS AT WWW.QUEENALICE.COM
| |
|
|
Author
| Message |
|---|
|
|
An arbitrary backup tie-break, has been used by FIDE, including in candidates matches
|
|
|
| An arbitrary backup tie-break, has been used by FIDE, including in candidates matches |
The individual rating has not been used by the FIDE as a tie-break system...
|
|
|
for as long as the rules were laid out before the game there should be no hard feelings about this and PLEASSSEEEE let's not be too technical on this. This isn't a FIDE sponsored tournament. If you don't like the way this website is handled you can always opt to withdraw your membership. It may sound unfair or you think you might have been judged unfairly. The question is, was there a chance for you to emerge as a winner in the tournament? If yes, then I don't think you did enough...
|
|
|
Some words on this questión: I think that all that we have said on the matter of the approaches in relation to deciding the champion of the tournaments, has been questions that are that it can be said, and therefore for the good of the community and of this magnifies web. Maybe in some moment has been able to seem that the tension has ascended, but after all we do face in the board again and will we enjoy the game and of the relationship with players from all over the world, that after all it is that is really important, i think. 
Alopinto is a great player that I appreciate and that it is appreciated by many of this web - the first of them the boss, I am sure - and he/she gives me the impression that if we leave the matter here, we take some beers I -invite - and we meditate the matter a little more, for sure we win all.
Unas palabras sobre esta questión: Pienso que todo lo que hemos dicho sobre el asunto de los criterios en relación a decidir el campeón de los torneos, han sido cuestiones que son opinables, y por tanto para el bien de la comunidad y de la web. Quizás en algún momento ha podido parecer que la tensión ha subido , pero al fin y al cabo nos volveremos a enfrentar en el tablero y disfrutaremos del juego y de la relación con jugadores de todo el mundo que al fin y al cabo es lo que cuenta, no?.
Si los criterios que deciden el ganador están claros, y mas o menos todos - o casi todos - estamos de acuerdo, pienso que podemos seguir adelante y discutir de cosas mas triviales como si ponemos o no ponemos una foto nuestra en la web-como propuse hace un tiempo , y Miguel dijo que se lo pensaria , como dice a casi todo el mundo -
Alopinto es una gran jugador que yo aprecio y que es apreciado por muchos de esta web- el primero de ellos el jefe, estoy seguro- y me da la impresión que si dejamos el asunto aquà , nos tomamos unas cervezas -invito yo - y meditamos el asunto un poco más, seguro que ganamos todos.
|
|
|
| PLEASSSEEEE let's not be too technical on this. |
Once again, I will put forward the same argument that I put when mandagarit and I suggested the average opposition's rating: We want the website to improve by a lot. I would like to see people coming here because this is a serious website and not just an amateurish effort...
I don't have a problem acepting that the tie-break systems were anounced in the begining and to move on. OK?
However, from this point looking towards the future Miguel ougth to consider making a revision of the tie-break systems because the individual rating is not an accepted tie-break system.
PROPOSAL
If the argument to break a tie is the strength of the opposition, then the average rating is much more optimal and consistent with the Buscholz system employed by Miguel. That Miguel, with all due respect, should be implemented.
The random tie-break system is decidedly arbitrary (though, even better than the individual rating tie-break.) I suggest replacing it by the Kashdan [ 4 tie break points per won game, 2 per drawn game, 1 per lost game and zero per unplayed game (I would define a unplayed game as that one where the opponent ceased to play before or at the point where five moves were made and the game was claimed or adjudicated on time. ]
I hope that was constructive.
Miguel is the only one coding here and for that reason patience is required with some of the things that the community has asked for such as the average opponents' rating per member, and many more things that have been suggested. I don't know how to program but, if Miguel needs my help with some things I will be happy to be of asistance.
Yo no tengo problema en aceptar que los sistemas de desempate fueron anunciados al principio y movernos hacia adelante. OK?
Sin embargo, de este punto en adelante Miguel si deberÃa hacer una revisión de lo existente porque el rating individual no se constituye en un sistema de desempate.
PROPUESTA
Si el argumento para desempatar es la fuerza de la oposición, entonces el rating ponderado de la oposición es más idóneo y más consistente con el sistema Buscholz que Miguel está empleando como primer criterio de desempate. Eso Miguel, con todo respeto, si deberÃa ser implementado.
El sistema de desempate aleatorio como tercer criterio es decididamente arbitrario (aunque mejor que el rating individual.) Yo propongo remplazarlo por el Kashdan [ 4 puntos de desempate por partida ganada, 2 por partida tablas, 1 punto por partida perdida y 0 puntos por partida no jugada (Se define partida no jugada aquella donde el oponente dejo de jugar después de cinco jugadas efectuadas y hubo reclamo o adjudicación de la partida por tiempo.) ]
Espero que eso haya sido constructivo.
Miguel es el único escribiendo código en esta página y por ello se requiere paciencia con algunas cosas que se han sugerido como el rating ponderado de la oposición por miembro, y muchÃsimas otras cosas que se han solicitado. Yo no se programar pero si Miguel quiere mi ayuda con algunas labores yo gustosamente aportaré en otras áreas de mi competencia.
|
| Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next |
|
|
|
