It's been a while since I give my contribution to improve the game of backgammon. Whereas many of my ideas were adopted and that there is much less complaint about the tournament, I would suggest a further amendment. When you participate in the tournament at the end, I realize that my potuação out of the tournament drops about 100 points. Recovering these points is not very easy and I consider it very unfair. So, I sujerir the games played during the tournament does not alter the overall ranking scores. Maybe so I can return to the top positions?
Tournament Backgammon.
Posted in
Backgammon
Tournament Backgammon.
Yes, I agree with this suggestion. I actually made a post about it in this thread:
http://forum.flyordie.com/thread.jsp?forum=48&thread=58422&tstart=0&trange=15
. I really hope that this is something considered, because the massive luck factor in backgammon makes it so that you can't win every game, and if you have a lot of points, your rating will most likely take a major hit by participating in the tournaments.
Proof of the tournament temprejudicado participants with regard to the overall score is that players that have participated have been fewer graduates overall score. This is bad both for non-participation of the senior players (not to lose 100 points on average) and for those who are participating, since one has the impression that the tournament is played by players less skilled, and thus, lower importance.
I do understand motives which Caneta and Praine have to support such proposition, but have to add that I like that kind of risk element - if you want to take some grand prix points, you're risking your game table position. Maybe that should be supported another way - to add tournament success to pointing table accordingly. So, for winning tournament you could give 500 points to player, for 2nd place 250, for 3rd 150... and so on, up to 10th place. That way mentioned risk would have rewarding side, not just losing side.
Sorry to disagree with Mr Plisani. Both he and I were in the tournament from the start. At one point I realized that both he and I were between 300 and 500 points in the general table. From there I modified my strategy a bit. In the last five tournaments I only attended one, despite being first in the general table of the GP. Certainly it hurt me a lot in the GP, as I was parked, with no points. In this same period, I threw up looking at the overall score and today I am in 2nd, in the general table of those who are subscribers, with 1233 points. Of course, any player wants the crown of King and at the same time, be in front to have more chances of winning the Grand Prix at the end of the year, but this seems impossible, because success in one affect the other. Tomorrow, Saturday, April 21, there will be another round of the tournament. I'm just a dot in front of the Plisani and I have doubts of what to do, since I lack the same time 73 points to reach the present King, Mishal, who has 1309 points, or participate in the tournament to try to keep my lead? . Frankly, this is not fair.
Continuing. I decided to try the crown of King before starting the tournament on 21/04, but could not and fell to 1195 points in the general table. I decided to play the tournament that day and was fortunate to win, having lost only one game for the player who came second, Ge Theo. The Ge Theo currently has close to 900 points. Upon exiting the tournament, despite having been the champion, I was in 1170, which means that my seven victories in the tournament do not yielded any point, and my only loss for the Ge Theo made me lose 25 points. Frankly, this is very unfair and should be modified. If not modified will have to sit out a few more steps of 4 GP, until someone gets me again, which gives much advantage to competitors. On the other hand, none of the players that have more than 1200 points in the table is usually in the tournament. This makes the tournament something 2nd category, which is not good. We will attract the top players that have more than 1200 points to participate in the tournament, will be much better for everyone. It is true that this will make the tournament more difficult for those coming to participate, however, is much better.
Considering that so far no answer to the questions formulated here, is not known whether the fact that my questions are unavoidable, or if the silence is a way to answer NO, without explaining why. Given this doubt, I would like the system has OPERATOR consideration of answer about the feasibility of the modification suggested here, or at least explain why you want to keep the same way, so we have the feeling that this forum actually has useful.
1, due to the characteristics of the rating system, the suspected loss in the tournament will be "compensated" in other matches (if you play enough). If your rating drops during the tournament, each of your following wins will yield in more rating points, and each loss will subtract less, as long as you reach your previous "real" rating. 2, according to the rating system definition, if the difference between 2 players is higher than 720 points, the higher player should be able to beat the lower player 100%. If it is not the case, the rating difference is exaggerated, so it has to be lowered, by bringing the two ratings closer, even if the match is part of a tournament. 3, > players that have more than 1200 points in the table is > usually in the tournament. This makes the tournament > something 2nd category, which is not good" As far as I'm concerned tournament placings and grand prix placings are more important, as there are less distorting factors there (no doubling, no challenge system). The rating system is just a way of displaying each player's approximate skill (mainly to enable finding opponents of similar strength), but no doubt, it is distorted. Tournaments are less distorted, so I would take them as 1st category, and general ratings as 2nd category. The rating system would be perfect, if only tournament matches counted. But that is not the case currently. 4, you might have lost a couple of points even by winning the tournament, but you have lost 200+ since then, without a tournament, so I do not see it as such a big problem (see also point 1)...
> The rating system is just a way of displaying each > player's approximate skill (mainly to enable finding > opponents of similar strength)... I can't agree with this - in backgammon, the only real difference between 500 and 1200 pts player is luck, and the way he is choosing his opponents. Skill and experience can't help you with dices almost nothing. Whole rating system is pretty similar to all the other games - that is what is wrong here. You can't find in any other game such luck factor as in backgammon. And that fact is reflecting to everything else, including the problem which Caneta is talking about.
> I can't agree with this - in backgammon, the only > real difference between 500 and 1200 pts player is > luck, So, if a 1200 pts player cannot beat a 500 player most of the time, don't you think that their points are not "real" and should be adjusted accordingly? > and the way he is choosing his opponents. This is not an issue in tournaments, and now you even want to remove these matches from the rating system. Strange...
Difference between points means nothing. An excellent player may be new to the site and have a few points because he played little, while an average player may have more points because he often played against players such as median him. What differentiates one from the other player is the percentage of wins over losses, and yet may not mean much, because players have cowards who are afraid to play with players who think they better go and insist on playing against average players .
> So, if a 1200 pts player cannot beat a 500 player most of the time, don't you think that their points are not "real" and should be adjusted accordingly? That is exactly what I think, yes. >This is not an issue in tournaments, and now you even want to remove these matches from the rating system. Strange.. Seems to me that you didn't understand what I said, or you mixed me with someone else's posts. :) I really do like tournament system as it is. My suggestion was to reward players for tournament success with appropriate rating points in addition.
Mr. OPERATOR! You see what the consequence on the incidence of tournament points impinge on the overall points table of the site. In the last stage, in 08/08/2012, the first 10 points that are classified for the tournament, four players have the record date as of May 2012. They are: barreiraroxa, recorded on 05/01/2012, Winner of the tournament, Mr Unu, recorded on 08/06/2012, two days before the tournament ranked 4th,. Liteo, recorded on 07/29/2012, 10 days before the tournament ranked No. 8, and be nice, registered on 05/24/2012, rated No. 9. Not to mention the other participants who did not qualify in the top 10, not analyzed. Surely these players are not beginners. Surely they are graduates who chose to create a second nick name for his participation in the tournament will not harm them in the score table of the overall site. I do not want to do the same, even though in each tournament round I lose about 100 points in the general table. This should be considered to be a modified scoring methodology, so that the games played in the tournament are not considered for the purpose of the general table and I can have a chance to return scores of Grand Master and have chances to put myself between the first, also in the general table of the site.
And the coincidence is repeated. In the tournament today, 8/11/2012, ranked among the top 10, three have site registration from May 2012. They are: professionalman, 1st place, 05/03/2012, in general scale score = 273; § on * can, rated No. 4, 26/06/2012, score = 321 in the general table, and barilochense42, 6th place, scoring in general table = 266. DOES SUCH PLAYERS ARE BEGINNERS? AND THE OPERATOR HAS NO ANSWER FOR THIS!!
Ok, I will not make it an issue. Thanks for the reply, although I do not agree with what was answered. This is because the tournament is the 1st or 2nd category, for the rules, there is a definition of the operator but an acceptance or not by the players. At this time the players put the tournament as the 2nd category by the fact that its participants have few points in the overall points table. This is not my opinion, is a fact that is substantiated where no player with more than 1200 points participate in the tournament. I consider that the implementation of the modification suggested that not only was accepted and implemented so far due to the fact that its implementation depends on changes to be made by the developers of the system, these modifications that will give much more work than benefit, the evaluation of the operator . If so, okay, I will continue having so much fun as playing in the tournament to search the crown of King. As reported to the fact that I lost 200 points in a given period, I have no complaints about it, since such loss results from games that I chose to participate and did not get success, unlike what happens in the tournament in which, although winner, the player loses points, the more those who reached the 5th position on. Under the present system, probably less players graduates who participate in the tournament, even with a result above the 10th position, must leave the tournament with the most points in the general table, with a view to eventually win a game a player much graduated.
I participate in another tournament and another big loss of points in the general table. I started the tournament with 913 points and was the player who had the most points among the participants. The final table of the tournament indicated that there were 30 players and I was in 10th, having won four and lost four matches. You can not say I had a good tournament, but was not as bad as it got 50% of wins and losses. However, out of the tournament room my points had fallen 120 points and I was on the table with 793 points overall. Sorry to insist more is VERY, VERY, very unfair.
OPERATOR! Open your eyes. In the last tournament of the day 5/16/2012, there were only 14 players participating. The score of the participants was very low showing complete disinterest of all. If no modification suggested here in the sense that the points of the tournament does not alter the overall points table at the end will win the GP who has greater resistance to participate in more tournaments and not one that has the highest quality among the players involved. The more I repeat it here in this forum of debate and fewer players with the lowest score in the general table participal tournament. I believe the change I'm suggesting is URGENT to save GP.