Standardizing ACF Tournament Rules

[JohnAcker]

Never mind. You just seem to be deadset against using the ratings that lots of people have worked on for a long time. I'm just trying to figure out why that is.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

I'm just trying to figure out why that is.

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.

I also don't like an idea - if someone gets into Master Division, after winning Major or getting a good rating - this player can continue to stay here to the rest of his/her life. This make me really sick.

Players in Master Division must be rotated, maybe up to 50% every year.

Ideal system for Master Division - 12-16 players Robin Round. If someone is #17 - he should try next cycle.

6-10 top players from current year can continue to stay, other should be qualified again.

Anything rather than this - kindergarten and not porofessional.

Salute to all forum members !

BTW. If you propose to discuss things - be ready that not everyone agree with you And even more worse - with all these differencies, perhaps there is no universal solution which satisfy everyone.

Alex

[neilwenberg]

Some really interesting discussions here. Conjecture on points of our wonderful and quite complex game are very interesting. However, I will always remain devoted to playing in the lowest class that I can possibly talk the tournament director into letting me play in. Your Class "C" or "D" player!!!!!! Neil H. Wenberg (Old people usually have strange ideas on just about everything, I find this extremely true as I advance in age)

[JohnAcker]

I also don't like an idea - if someone gets into Master Division, after winning Major or getting a good rating - this player can continue to stay here to the rest of his/her life. This make me really sick.

That is rank elitism-- we already have invitation-only events for the top masters, so why should slightly weaker players be banned from playing the top competition at regular events? Your disdain for the average player is palpable.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

John,

yes, you absolutely right - Master Division is Division #1 and elite Division - very true statement. Everyone who is there and get there must be honor and proud of this. Playing in Master Division is high privelege, not rights and obligation. Noone should have patent to stay here to the rest of life !

And what does it mean "slightly weaker" ? 1 rating point below 1950, 2 points, 22 points, 222 points ... this is exceptions which I propose to avoid. Or every time we have to looki "personally" - player "A" is close here, lets move bareer 5 points below !!!

Everyone must be given chance and we should have a good rotation. Checkers is sport with fighting, restrictions and knock-out structure.

It is absolutely normal competition/rotation process in other sports: going up-down base on performance. If you did well this year - play in Masters, if not - improve and wait for another year.

Noone gets younger and I know that some day it will affect me as well ... hope this happened later

If we think Master Division is not elite - then I rest my case and completely don't understand - what we are talking about.

am

[Dennis Cayton]

Greetings To All:

Please correct me if I am wrong about the following:

I am relying solely upon memory, or whatever little memory I have left.

In the year 1986, a young gentleman from overseas traveled to the United States to play in his first ever ACF National Tournament, held in Tupelo, Mississippi.

He was unknown to American players.

Therefore, to the best of my memory, he had not yet earned a ranking.

Yet, he was permitted to enter and play in the Masters Division.

As it turned out, he made a very strong showing.

That player was Mr. Ron King.

In my opinion, it would have been a shame to deny Ron King the opportunity to play in the Masters Division of that tournament, on the sole basis of the fact that he was, to the best of my memory, an unranked player.

Please accept my apologies if I am wrong about any of the historical details I have cited above.

Best Wishes,

Dennis Cayton

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Dennis,

exceptions are exceptions. Also let me remind you that Marion Tinsley had exhibition on Barados before 1986 (am I mistaking with dates ?) and played with Barbdos players including Ron. Tinsley gave him references.

I don't have any problem with such case and we can include this in rules.

Each case must be observe personally to make decision.

I also played 10 years later in Master Division of my 1st National 1996 and Don Lafferty referee allowed me to do this.

So ... rule is rule, exception is exception. We can even make "ACF Reserve" (or wild card) in Master Division, where 1-2 players can be nominated.

Or maybe you think that everyone is "potential Ron King" ?That would be a little bit over-ambitious assumption

Alex

[Chexhero]

Alex, I don't think your way would work unless ACF made some changes and here is why. You said top 12 or 16 players right? Lets just make it 16. Well I am not sure how players accurately "qualify" for masters without the ratings, but according to the rating list and the top 16, some big names would be left out of masters. These players include Larry Keen, John Webster, Laverty, West, Teal Stanley (just tied Webster in NC State), Ryan Pronk, Harvey Kelley. All of those guys I mentioned belong in the masters and WANT to play in the masters. Any of those guys would annihilate the majors. I don't think a major player would be pleased to know they have any of those guys in their division, because it is not where they belong and it would make both parties unhappy. Again, the ratings ensure fair competition. They are more accurate than you think. The only way effective way to fulfill on your desire of having the super masters division would be if ACF added another division. Perhaps some thing in between majors or masters. The problem is, we don't normally get enough attendance to have 3 divisions let alone 4. So yea, it may be neat to have a supreme elite of players playing each other in one class, I just don't think it would work giving the facts I present.

[Irma Sierra]

Alex Oh:
I also don't like an idea - if someone gets into Master Division, after winning Major or getting a good rating - this player can continue to stay here to the rest of his/her life. This make me really sick.

You want to be sick only playing with the very good ones? You dont want to get to play to a lower player because rating or because is bored?..

[nboatman]

Hey everyone.

First, I'd like to say that I like the idea of promoting division winners the next time they play in the same event. I think this helps deal with the fact that different events attract fields of different strength, and therefore the same rating cutoff might not be appropriate for every event. I think it also helps get the ratings of newcomers and quickly improving players to where they ought to be more quickly than not promoting them to the next division. But I agree with Alex that it shouldn't be a lifetime promotion; I think it should just be for the event that the person won and just for one year. After that, if the player's rating hasn't risen to the appropriate level, he should be dropped back down. Perhaps we should also adjust this for nationals. We could try promoting the winner of 3-move nationals to the next division for the next 3-move nationals, and the winner of GAYP nationals in the next GAYP nationals.

By the way, what is the ratings formula we're now using? What is the expected outcome for players that are separated by x rating points?

-Nick Boatman

[waynegober]

With current numbers this whole discussion may not mean anything.

However, I understand Alex's point of view on this (please don't take this as an attack on the ratings system, I am quite happy with it and those doing it).

What if...... after each National we had a system where top finishers in Major Tournaments were the only ones that could play Master at National.
Majors and minors could be worked out but I only want to address the Master division for now.

Alabama, NC, Tenn., Illinois, Ohio, Dist8 (wishful and selfish thinking), and perhaps others would be qualifying tournaments. I know Tenn and ACF relationship but that could be healed up. Top two from each qualifying tourn. eligible for Masters. Top two excepting those that were possibly already qualified at another tournament. If Dr. Webster wins em all, then number 2 and 3 after he wins his first one.

Would probably need a tournament out west also, but would make all tournaments stronger.

I feel is should be a real privalege to play Masters. If you can't get to one of those or more to qualify then tuff. Proof on the battlefield is what I like.

Also should be honor to be one of the qualifying tournaments, so they would have to require ACF membership to enter and collect $15.00 per entrant to be donated to the Master division of the ACF National.

Honor the top players or continue to watch checkers die. I felt this way 30 years ago when I first started and was at best a weak minor.

Best regards,
Wayne

[nboatman]

Wayne,

I do think there's something really fun about what you suggest; it sets up a sort of "regular season" building up to nationals. However, it doesn't accommodate international players who sometimes play in nationals and certainly need to play in the masters division, though they probably will not play in any other ACF events (e.g. Ron King, Jack Francis, etc?). We do not want to prevent such strong players from attending nationals.

Even if we make some sort of exception for very strong international players, I worry that your proposal will get us a weaker masters division than we would otherwise have. For instance, weaker players from weaker parts of the country would qualify to play in the masters division, while stronger players from other places might not qualify for the masters division.

-Nick Boatman

[JohnAcker]

I like Wayne's idea of rewarding state/district tournament performance, but I'd rather see it done with a system of norms than as a series of qualifying tournaments. Tournament divisions with a high enough average rating (perhaps dropping the lowest rating before averaging) could generate progress toward National Master, Grandmaster, and International Master norms, as could winning a district tournament. This would allow us to assess non-US tournament performance, which as Nick points out wouldn't otherwise be counted. Of course, to make any qualifying system meaningful we'd need to impose a strict limit on the size of a the Nationals Masters division, and we'd also need to figure out some way to handle relatively inactive players who would normally qualify for the Masters on merit.

[Chexhero]

Nick, you make a good point about new players who may need some time to get their rating up if they are a great player. This is why deep down I want to use the ratings to group players, but also make exceptions to those that have very impressive tournament showings. The problem I have with only using tournament success in grouping players is that not all tournaments consist of players with similar playing strengths. Wayne's plan of using the top two winners in each qualifying tournament is flawed because some playing fields are more difficult than others. The ratings however, are scientific and reliable Nick. It is an elo system that is being used, which was apparently made by a true genius. Before we had the David Butler system, which was a lot different from this one. If you have questions about how the ratings are actually calculated and the math involved, you should speak to Eric Strange as he knows more than me, I only put the numbers in, the system does the math. You can usually find him on kurnik on his 420 sn. But anyway, it is good to have you in this discussion Nick and Wayne and I respect your opinions. Btw Nick, you are only a few points off from the 2000 mark. This was one of the reasons I want a 1950 master clip and not 2000. There is no way a player at your caliber of play should be playing in the majors and is a big reason why I don't agree with Alex on having a extremely tight master division. There are just to many good players out there.

[Dennis Cayton]

Players in Master Division must be rotated, maybe up to 50% every year.
Alex

Hi Alex!

Does this mean, that for a future ACF National Tournament, you would be willing to rotate yourself out of the Masters Division and maybe give the Minors Division a try?

If so, what a splendid idea!

If I happen to attend that tournament, that is where you will find me.

After all, I'm just an average Minors class player.

This also means we may get the opportunity to play each other.

This would truly be a profound and memorable experience in my life.

Unfortunately, it also means I may have to settle for a drawn match.


Best Wishes,

Dennis Cayton