[blind-chess] Re: More ideas on the ladder...

  • From: "stan lovell" <lovell32@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <blind-chess@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 13:38:03 -0000

I like the ideas being put forward by Andy and others to enliven the ladder.  
Particularly, I like the ideas to publish good performances, such as: 1. Player 
who played the most games during a year;  2. Player who scored most points 
during a year; 3. Most improved player during the year.  This could be 
determined by the player who increased his/her rating by the most points during 
the year.

The only snag I can see by not flipping the ladder at all is that weaker 
players would be less likely to find themselves within striking distance of the 
top and, therefore, it would be more difficult for them to hit the top spot.  A 
flip every two years with the person who reaches the top dropping back to the 
bottom straight away might achieve the best of both worlds.

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Andrew Cooper 
  To: blind-chess@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 4:13 PM
  Subject: [blind-chess] More ideas on the ladder...

  Hello Players,


        I have written to a few of you off-list and Rod and I have some more 
ideas to share on the possibilities for the ladder structure. First are a 
couple of ideas from Rod:


  "Don't flip the Ladder at all, ever. Instead declare a yearly champion and 
flip that one person to the bottom to try again. Meanwhile everyone else 
continues their climb.

  Other ideas: The person in the top spot on the last day of the Ladder year 
gets proclaimed the King or Queen of the year and then moves to the bottom. The 
person with the best score (two points for a win, one point for a draw, nothing 
for a loss) gets proclaimed Knight of the year, a r Queen gets bounced to the 
bottom. Other possible titles might be for the most games played, or the 
biggest increase in ELO rating during the year." 


  I, Andy,  would like to suggest that we use a two-year structure, which Rod 
is neither for nor against. This way we could declare a champion at the end of 
the first year and then declare another champion for the tournament, which 
would last for two years. We could also reward with accolades anyone with a 
remarkable record at the end of each year, for example most wins, most games 
played, best record, most players played successfully, and so on. (Some of 
these ideas come from other folks.) I definitely like the idea of acknowledging 
several kinds of good ladder performance. Please let us know your thoughts, and 
thanks for helping us reach a concensus.





Other related posts: