Deal ! Remember - no exceptions and do placement only strictly base on rating. If rating is about right - this would work ... hopefully.Chexhero wrote:Alex, thanks for your understanding and support on my position in this. I will send my proposals and we will see how it goes. Like you said, we will adapt to this system and not make any exceptions. I have faith that this will work and will make division placement of players more accurate an fair. We can at least give it a shot!
Sounds nice as-of today. But the most current list not stabilize yet ... isn't ? We still have players with low activity and 2300-2500 ratings. I would feel comfortable if we start to use new rating with full strength when everything will be cleanup.Chexhero wrote:Master- 1950 and above
Minor- 1649 and below
John, I am curious - how you comeup with this ? For the time now I propose do no do anything crazy and keep existing system in place until ratings stabilize.JohnAcker wrote:Well Alex, if we did things your way, then the Nationals would consist of you playing Richard Hallett eight times while everyone else watched and occasionally kowtowed.
We have limited number of players and events in Anglo-American checkers and at this point ratings will never work properly - no fault of anyone, just math. We used ratings before for many years and are going start using again soon ... still old way.JohnAcker wrote:I'm just trying to figure out why that is.
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest