Standardizing ACF Tournament Rules

[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

[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

[Eric Strange]

I think there should be some sort of official documentation on what the official rules are on division pairing, and multiple other topics. I believe the rules should be geared towards handling large amounts of players, 100 give or take. A large tournament is really the only reason you would need to use ratings or anything else.

I think that the way tournaments are handled currently are fine. Most tournaments do not have enough players to worry about what everyone's rating is, what their tournament performance at other tournaments indicate, or anything else complicated. The checkers community is small enough that we know who belongs in masters division and who doesn't. From there it should be at the tournament officials discretion and responsibility to make sure people are not sandbagging or playing up(just because they want to), and everyone is playing at their proper levels, regardless of ratings or anything else.

I heard some very good ideas in these posts, keep them coming

[Chexhero]

Using the ratings may not make a difference in grouping most players, but I think the bigger point is that it does give the ACF some more professionalism and set rules in grouping players and it makes them more meaningful and can attract more players. Well, this whole post has been about division pairings and how we would set that up, best methods to use. There is a whole lot more that contribute to players not coming to tournaments that should be discussed. Time per games? Players per division? And what things should tournament organizers be allowed choose and what not.