| |
BGonline.org Forums
Wrong direction
Posted By: Timothy Chow In Response To: Wrong direction (Iancho Hristov)
Date: Saturday, 4 October 2014, at 8:01 p.m.
Iancho wrote:
Titles should be given for achievements and winning tournaments, not for playing as close as possible to bot.
I have the same feeling when it comes to the standard chess titles, but I like Rick's revised proposal (M1, M2, M3, G1, G2, G3), which I feel adequately addresses my concerns. Do you feel the same way about the revised proposal?
Although I appreciate the sentiment that titles should be given for winning tournaments, the trouble is that the current number of tournaments, along with their standard structure, means that the luck factor is just too high. With the current system, the strategy for winning a lot of tournaments is clear: Play in a lot of tournaments. Skill doesn't hurt, of course, but it's relatively unimportant compared to how frequently you play. If Joe Averageopen plays twice as frequently as Jane Supergiant, guess who is going to earn a win-based title first?
As for encouraging participation, that's a good question. Of all the things that might induce me to play in a tournament someday, proposals like this one or Mochy's 4.0 club are the most attractive to me personally. I can't see myself playing in very many tournaments no matter what, so I'm unlikely to win a tournament (and if I do, I know it's going to be just because I was lucky). Whereas if I play in a few tournaments and manage to earn some kind of M rating or even get into the 4.0 club, I can have some sense of accomplishment. For example, I can tell people my PR and not be accused of lying.
Now, maybe I'm unusual, and you don't want to cater to people like me, because I'm not likely to play a lot in tournaments if I ever play at all. But if you're going to make a claim like "this is not the way to attract people," I'd like to see some data (for example, in the form of opinion polls) supporting it.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.