[blind-chess] Re: Seeking concensus concerning the ladder list

I think Rod's comments are very apt. It hardly seems fair to finish the ladder 
in the top ten even, having lost more games than a person has won. By the way 
my internet is back now so I'm back in.
I suppose some of this should be self-monitoring, like the number of games one 
plays on the ladder, but I think it's also reasonable to stipulate that if 
someone volunteers to be on the ladder, he or she must commit to play at least 
six games during the year, each lasting no more than thirty days. That at least 
guarantees some sort of objective chance to see whether someone in the top six 
deserves to stay there. I would just hesitate to see the tournament director 
saddled with yet one more ream of red tape, so we must all try to keep 
ourselves, (I didn't say each other) on track. I'm speaking for myself as much 
as for anyone else on the list, by the way.

Rebecca 
On 2011-12-03, at 12:47 AM, Roderick Macdonald wrote:

> Andy,
>  
> I am not opposed to the proposed Ladder change, and my comments here should 
> not be taken that way. However, here are some thoughts that might be 
> considered before a change is made:
>  
> Moving from bottom to top of the ladder isn't impossible. I myself went from 
> the very bottom to #2 by August. However, i was playing for fun and to meet 
> people, and did not aspire to being on top, so I requested relocation to the 
> bottom. The point here is that movement is possible.
>  
> The sticky part of moving up the Ladder came when most or all players higher 
> up on the ladder were already engaged. Sometimes weeks coudl go by before a 
> challenge was possible. The rules were changed to enable a player to 
> challenge even if the players immediately above were busy, and that allowed 
> for big jumps up the Ladder.
>  
> This also meant that the player on top at the end of the year would likely be 
> the player who successfully challenged the top player late in the year - no 
> matter where on the ladder that challenger might have been at the start of 
> that final game. In theory this could result in a player moving up the ladder 
> rung-by-rung, bottom to #2, but be unable to challenge the player on top 
> because someone further down - perhaps far further down - had made the 
> challenge before #2 had the chance to do so.
>  
> And then there is the matter of some Ladder games lasting for two or three 
> months. That pace is just fine for "friendly" games, but in a Ladder 
> competition it is not really fair to other players. In theory, the player who 
> held the top spot on September 1 might play very slowly with his or her 
> challenger, so that it is likely to be the final contest for #1 for the year, 
> and possibly the challenger, too, might play slowly for the same reason - 
> winner-take-all.
>  
> Finallhy, there is the fact that throughout the year, some players went 
> months without either challenging or being challenged.
>  
> Some suggestions for possible rule changes might be the following: (And I am 
> NOT necessarily supporting these dieas - just tossign out ideas)
>  
> 1. Limit Ladder games to a maximum of 30 days. If the game is still in 
> progress after 30 days, Richard can arrange to have the game adjudicated 
> (decided by an impartial judge, probably Fritz.)
>  
> Any player who neither issues a challenge nor accepts one for a 30-day period 
> automatically drops one Ladder position. The exception would be the person on 
> top, since that player cannot challenge anyone higher and must await a 
> challenge.
>  
> A player must play a minimum of six Ladder games throughout the year to 
> qualify for "Champion" at the end of the year.
>  
> Players in the #2-#4 slots can issue challenges only one rung higher than 
> their current placement. With a 30-day limit per game this becomes feasible. 
> The diea is that the player reaching the top should have played the three 
> next-highest players to get there.
>  
> I would point out that the Ladder was conceived as a year-long tournament 
> where the year's best performance (in the Ladder) was rewarded with the 
> championship title. And yet four of the top six finishers thsi eyar ended 
> with losing records. I certainly do not want to point any fingers, but thsi 
> result does make you wonder if the Ladder's promise is being fulfilled.
>  
> Again ... thoughts to ponder.
>  
> Rod
>

Other related posts: