homeforumsrankingsprofilesahpavideosblogstips
rulesnewsphotosdownloadslinkscontact us
username
password
new user registration
forgot password?
air hockey chat forums
Forums Home | Log in for Private Messages | Search | View New Posts (Mark All Read) | User List
Forums Home / Tournaments and Challenges / 2011 IAHC Seed List ( View Older Thread | View Newer Thread)

First | 1 | 2 | Last
travis - 12 Jul 2011
Total Posts: 530
I have updated AHW's page showing the calculated USAA seeds:

http://airhockeyworld.com/usaaseeds.asp

If you see any discrepencies, let me know here and I'll take a look at it. Please keep the posts in this thread on the topic of the accuracy of the USAA seed list calculations.

Travis Luscombe
AirHockeyWorld.com Webmaster
http://twitter.com/air_hockey
 
travis - 12 Jul 2011
Total Posts: 530
If you want to see the USAA rankings going in to the Vegas event, go here:

http://airhockeyworld.com/rankingsnapshot.asp

And then choose "USAA World Rankings", "6/3/2011".


Travis Luscombe
AirHockeyWorld.com Webmaster
http://twitter.com/air_hockey
 
ajflanagan - 06 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 509
I don't understand the purpose of the calculated seed list posted on AHW if it is not the actual seed list that is used to seed a tournament. I also do not agree at all with the seeding method being used for the 2011 International Championship... whether it is the system that has been employed in years past or not. It is clear that I'm not alone in feeling it is inaccurate and unfair. The use of completely subjective classifications such as "ultra pro", "pro", "expert", etc makes absolutely no sense and is completely unfair.

How a player can jump almost 10 spots in the "calculated" seed list vs the actual tournament seed because someone decided he's an "ultra pro" is completely beyond comprehension.

What is the actual, real world difference between a master, an ultra pro and a pro? Is an ultra pro someone who has finished top ten once, twice, three times? Within the last year, two years, ten years? Is there a definition somewhere? I believe the USAA definition of a "master" is someone currently ranked in the top 10. I remember that being discussed and voted on in a meeting. Other than the term "master" I don't believe there are actual USAA recognized definitions of the all the other classifications. I could be wrong.

So... hear me out.

Tim Weissman finishes 8 in a field of 100+ players one year ago. He misses the Vegas tournament of 50 or so players. So his seed drops 3.5. Ok... fine.

Travis Luscombe finishes 14 in a field of 100+ players one year ago. He misses the Vegas tournament of 50 or so players. So his seed drops 3.5. Ok... fine.

Due to challenge matches, Travis' rank dropped to 17. So his seed should be 20.5... right? Wrong. Someone decided he should be called an "ultra pro" so he gets moved to the bottom of the "ultra pros" with a seed of 12.

On the other hand. The legendary Tim Weissman... Master Elite by any and all definitions of Air Hockey... doesn't get seeded at the bottom of the masters and has a seed of 11 in this tournament? Wait... he's seeded below Joe Cain? How many times has Joe finished Master? How many times has Tim finished Master?

I'm confused.

Either use the calculated seed list and figure out a better solution for anomolies like Don or Nizzi challenging way below their level or move to the rating system completely. It's only fair.

At least acknowledge that there is a clear delineation between Master Elite players like Danny, Ehab, Tim, Billy, Davis, Jose, Brian etc... and true Ultra Pro players who dabble in the top 10 on occasion. If you're going to bump Travis up that many spots because he's an Ultra Pro, then you should bump Tim up too because he's a Master.

Obviously I'm venting. Nobody is going to do anything to change the system over night. But the system is wack. Instead of sitting around for 2 hours discussing the validity of having a string attached to a mallet...

I digress.

Seriously though. Don't build a system to kinda sorta function only in todays environment. Build a system that will stand the test of time and growth.

Good luck to everyone tomorrow!

Andrew Flanagan
 
goran - 06 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 428
I agree with Andrew, but this is the way it has been done so you cant fault the tornament for seeding this way. Classifications as we use them now is subjective. Using the rating system will eliminated subjectivity problems. You can argue you "should" be rated ahead of someone, but you either are or you aren't. If you support the rating system, play rated sets and games.
 
jasonstevens - 06 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 176
I'd also like the say the tournament was seeded as it has always been done so I would say to bring it up in the USAA meeting as that's the way to change it........not by posting on the forum.
 
ajflanagan - 07 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 509
Jason, in all fairness, the forums are here to invoke discussion. I am honestly interested in hearing an opposing point of view. There's nothing wrong with a healthy debate or discussion, is there? Someone explain to me how the examples I stated are a fair and accurate way to seed a tournament.

Call it lobbying... and I am definitely lobbying for change. I have been for a few years now. When enough players are educated, then the topic can be brought up at a USAA meeting and an intelligent decision can be made. Without educating the player base, here on the forums and through fact to face discussion, we will never have a leg to stand on... because this is the way it has always been done. That doesn't make it right.
 
jasonstevens - 07 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 176
ajflanagan said:
Jason, in all fairness, the forums are here to invoke discussion. I am honestly interested in hearing an opposing point of view. There's nothing wrong with a healthy debate or discussion, is there? Someone explain to me how the examples I stated are a fair and accurate way to seed a tournament.

Call it lobbying... and I am definitely lobbying for change. I have been for a few years now. When enough players are educated, then the topic can be brought up at a USAA meeting and an intelligent decision can be made. Without educating the player base, here on the forums and through fact to face discussion, we will never have a leg to stand on... because this is the way it has always been done. That doesn't make it right.



sigh......

I never said discussion wasn't "allowed". What I said is if you want to CHANGE the rules to bring them up in the USAA meeting. I see people discuss things on the forum but don't see those people come to the USAA meeting to do anything about it. Andrew, take the time to come to the USAA meeting to make change, the ball is in your court.
 
carolina phil - 07 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 1084
I think Andrew's main point is whether our traditiona method was actually followed, or if the use of categories (master, ultra pro, pro, etc.) was used in a somewhat novel way to somewhat neuter the traditional rankings/seeding process. Second, I think he is concerned that the use of such categories needs to be part of the pre-tourney seeding discussion and declaration because it directly impacts every participant in the tournament.

Phil
 
carolina phil - 07 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 1084

The use of categories has been secondary to the use of rankings; in order to solve eggregious abnormalaties; not to "correct" earned rankings.

A ratings system that is based on a collection of subjective criteria is not somehow a "more" objective method. Because the steps involed in calculating the rating are ususally based on a hodge podge of ingredients that two or three people like the taste of; not a number of steps that are external to their own biases and opinions.

Phil



goran said:
I agree with Andrew, but this is the way it has been done so you cant fault the tornament for seeding this way. Classifications as we use them now is subjective. Using the rating system will eliminated subjectivity problems. You can argue you "should" be rated ahead of someone, but you either are or you aren't. If you support the rating system, play rated sets and games.


 
Q - 07 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 497
carolina phil said:

A ratings system that is based on a collection of subjective criteria is not somehow a "more" objective method. Because the steps involed in calculating the rating are ususally based on a hodge podge of ingredients that two or three people like the taste of; not a number of steps that are external to their own biases and opinions.


May I ask what part of the rating system you feel is "hodge podge" and why you believe that only 2 or 3 people like the taste of those ingredients? I would like to start a discussion on this matter for those unaware of how the rating system works and to address and answer any concerns of any player curious about the system.
 
ajflanagan - 08 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 509
Phil, the ratings system is the furthest thing from a "hodge podge" of anything and to imply such is a huge shot to the incredible minds that have worked together to continually perfect the system.

In fact, the ratings system is a highly accurate system of measuring the relative skill level of a huge number of players. By the system's very nature, it is constantly perfecting itself and to be more and more accurate. The more data it has, the better it becomes.

Using the ratings system is beyond any doubt, the simplest and fairest way to seed a tournament. There is no subjectivity. No doubt. No questions. No move ups or "performance boosts". The math speaks for itself and each player knows walking in the door, where they stand.

To imply that only 2 or 3 people subscribe to this method means you are turning a blind eye to the players you currently preside over as USAA president. I certainly don't want to speak for anyone or make any false implications, but I have personally spoken to many players who see the value and potential of a rating system. I could make a list, but I'd rather hear from some of those players on here. The problem is, most players just want to play. They don't want to get involved with all the political BS. They don't have the desire to stir the pot. It's up to the few who are interested in being a part of the inner workings to make decisions and changes for the good of the entire player base and the future of the sport.

The bottom line is, the seeding of this tournament was not fair or accurate. I'm not a statistical guy. I can't tell you why the system failed... but it did. Now it's our job to recognize that and fix it. It won't help to wait until the board meeting before the next Nationals. It needs to be discussed and fixed now.

 
KLunos - 08 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 16
I think to be viewed as a more professional legitimate sport to the outsider or media we need the rating system. These obvious seeding 'mistakes' in national tournies aren't noticed by the average player, and of course not by the casual sports journalist, but they're glaring and real. As long as we get just local and small time news media in, we're safe. But a legit company like ESPN, which we really need?
How important is it to iron out the kinks in our imperfect seeding?
I dunno, how do other sports seed their players?

Kevlyn Lunos,
Austin, Texas
2011 Pro-C Runner-up
 
carolina phil - 09 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 1084
Thanks for the critiques of my post by Andrew and Q. Let me shoot back from this player's perspective.

I was responding primarily to the posts that characterized the current seeding system as subjective. I agreed the use of player classifications adds a subjective element to the current seeding system. I advised that the use of classifications must be judiciously applied so as not to devalue earned rankings.

But then, in a follow up post, I claimed that the rating system is also subjective. Let me explain to you why this is the truth.

It seems to me that some believe it is not subjective because it uses statistical data to designate a seed for players, as if the use of numbers somehow is not subjective.

This is a serious error. Because the selection of which numbers to use for the statistical study is a subjective process of selection. Selection by its nature is subjective, not objective.

Who can deny that there are many factors that potentially could be ingredients in the mix that leads to a Mitic rating number? Surely, if 100 players contributed their own opinions and ideas to the production, there would be many other ingredients selected by these people. This would increase the number of factors that were originally subjectively selected by a small number of ah players.

Does this mean the Mitic rating system is good or bad? No, I am not here discussing the issue of VALUE. I am nailing down the undisputable fact that it has a underlying foundation that is subjective to the core.

In recent months, five or so additional people have been added to form a Mitic committee of about seven who will add/subtract/tweak that system with their own ideas of what numerical values should be attached to the many aspects of ah competition. Some will say matches should count X amount; others will opine that national tournies should count Y amount; others will say 1 game should count Z amount; others will then compromise and agree that the final formula will be X - 1 + Y - Z, etc. etc. ad infinitum.

See? The final formula for a ratings system creates a rating number that may be used objectively, but that very number arises from a collection of subjective decisions made by a small group of people in a context of discussion and compromises.

It is a socially constructed reality. It is clearly subjective.

Phil

If you choose to reply, please focus on my main point, which I copy and paste here:

The final formula for a ratings system creates a number than can be used objectively, but that number arises from a collection of subjective decisions made by a small group of people in a context of discussion and compromises.

It is a socially constructed reality. It is clearly subjective.





 
goran - 09 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 428
Its no more subjective then saying games are played to 7, or challenge matches are best 3 of 5 or 4 of 7. Once the numbers to use are decided, everyone plays by the same rules which forms an accurate rating system.
 
Darth_Wafu - 09 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 117
carolina phil said:
The final formula for a ratings system creates a number than can be used objectively, but that number arises from a collection of subjective decisions made by a small group of people in a context of discussion and compromises.

It is a socially constructed reality. It is clearly subjective.


I agree with the letter of what you have written here. However, what it implies is misleading. The implication is that because there is subjectivity in using the rating system for seeding, as there is in using our current system, the current system is just as good. However, the basis of the ranking system we are building is the ELO system that has been tried and tested true in countless applications. Reaching the level of 2000 ELO in anything generally means you have reached a very high level performance relative to your peers in that activity. It is something very easy to relate with for people who are active in gaming communities. For this reason alone, using an ELO based system for our seeding would give at least the image of more legitimacy in the public eye. And though our image is not the only thing we should consider, it does have value and should not be ignored.

This is not to say that our image in the public eye should over-ride the values the majority of players in the Air-Hockey community have held throughout the game's history, particularly since we have not yet(hopefully) been very much noticed by the public eye. It is in this vein that we are adding the subjectivity you mention to the base ELO system. In an attempt to maintain the great importance we place on both major tournaments and challenge matches, while still adding the fantastic accuracy that an ELO system brings to the table.

Nick Geoffroy

 
ajflanagan - 09 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 509
A reasonable hypothetical scenario...

Imagine you are a player in another region, state or country... not associated at all with Brian, Travis, Rosen, Goran or the very few other people who have a reasonable understanding of the current seeding system. One day, you decide you would like to throw your hat into the promotional ring and host a National level event. We all agree that there is no problem with this so far, right?

Through your stellar understanding of marketing and promotion, you manage to attract around 150 players from all over the World to your event. The day of the event comes and you have 150 players ready and waiting to wage war on the table, however, you have absolutely no clue how to seed the chart. What's worse, you are not personally familiar with most of the players at your event so you have no basis for classifying them as pros, ultra pros or anything else. What do you do?

The point of the rating system is that it would provide 100% CONSISTANCY to the seedings. A tournament chart could be seeded at a moment's notice. A tournament chart could be seeded by anyone... anywhere... anytime and it would be seeded EXACTLY the same no matter who did it.

Phil, just one question... do feel like you could confidently and fairly seed a chart by yourself using the current seeding method??
 
goran - 09 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 428
ajflanagan said:
A reasonable hypothetical scenario...

Imagine you are a player in another region, state or country... not associated at all with Brian, Travis, Rosen, Goran or the very few other people who have a reasonable understanding of the current seeding system. One day, you decide you would like to throw your hat into the promotional ring and host a National level event. We all agree that there is no problem with this so far, right?

Through your stellar understanding of marketing and promotion, you manage to attract around 150 players from all over the World to your event. The day of the event comes and you have 150 players ready and waiting to wage war on the table, however, you have absolutely no clue how to seed the chart. What's worse, you are not personally familiar with most of the players at your event so you have no basis for classifying them as pros, ultra pros or anything else. What do you do?

The point of the rating system is that it would provide 100% CONSISTANCY to the seedings. A tournament chart could be seeded at a moment's notice. A tournament chart could be seeded by anyone... anywhere... anytime and it would be seeded EXACTLY the same no matter who did it.

Phil, just one question... do feel like you could confidently and fairly seed a chart by yourself using the current seeding method??


Like
 
fupersly - 10 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 231
ajflanagan said:

Phil, just one question... do feel like you could confidently and fairly seed a chart by yourself using the current seeding method??


And on that note, could someone please post the entire language of the current seeding procedure that was used at this tournament? I know Brian got the formula from Owen many years ago, but I don't think it exists anywhere online for anyone else to analyze.

Also, I think the biggest problem with what happened at this tournament was that people disagreed with the seeding list as it appeared on the website right before the tournament, which was supposed to be the way things were going to look when the tournament started - or at least that's what I (and probably many others) understood its purpose to be. The fact that it did change in some relatively significant ways prior to the tournament starting seems to have invalidated its creation and left open questions about how to handle pre-seeding future tournaments.
 
travis - 10 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 530
FYI - the calculated seed list on the website is NOT the end-product of the USAA seeding procedure. It was just built to save time in determining what players' current seed value is, whether it be directly via current rank or from previous rankings + penalties. Previously, that all had to be painstakingly done by hand and by memory.

A draft of the USAA seeding procedure is in the works, but it isn't official or finished yet.

Travis Luscombe
AirHockeyWorld.com Webmaster
http://twitter.com/air_hockey
 
fupersly - 11 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 231
travis said:
FYI - the calculated seed list on the website is NOT the end-product of the USAA seeding procedure. It was just built to save time in determining what players' current seed value is, whether it be directly via current rank or from previous rankings + penalties. Previously, that all had to be painstakingly done by hand and by memory.


And I salute your efforts on that. I just think people expected that to be the way the tournament would be seeded, so that's where at least some of the confusion came from (at least for me).

travis said:
A draft of the USAA seeding procedure is in the works, but it isn't official or finished yet.


Not to shoot the messenger here, but I know for a fact that Brian has had this language in his possession for many years now, and it's been plenty official enough for us to keep using it in major events since he had it passed down to him from Owen. I'd just like to see whatever the current language is so we can all work together on improving it.
 
travis - 11 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 530
fupersly said:
Not to shoot the messenger here, but I know for a fact that Brian has had this language in his possession for many years now, and it's been plenty official enough for us to keep using it in major events since he had it passed down to him from Owen. I'd just like to see whatever the current language is so we can all work together on improving it.


Right, but I don't have the language Brian had for many years in my possession. A couple of weeks ago, Phil asked me and Goran to come up with a written version of the procedure that we could use for a baseline. I decided to take it on (in my free time) with Goran's help, because we both have a good familiarity of the process. We've done that, but I thought it would be good to run it by Brian BEFORE we sent it to everyone, so as to not waste everyone's time. Since Brian is no longer a bit preoccupied with running a 100-person tournament, we can now do that.

Travis Luscombe
AirHockeyWorld.com Webmaster
http://twitter.com/air_hockey
 
fupersly - 11 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 231
travis said:
Right, but I don't have the language Brian had for many years in my possession.


Got it. Hopefully Brian can post the original somewhere here so we have the original baseline to compare to, as well.
 
Mike C - 12 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 459
I will look forward to seeing the seeding list answers Brian points out. As relates to seeding a tournament ALL factors need to be taken into consideration whether it's performance in the last tournament, level of play, rating. The more information that you can use the better and yes the SEEDING is subjective.

Andrew, you throw out the perfection of the Rating system. The system is very good and should be used, but it is far from perfect because the air hockey community is not using it the way it is designed. The rating system also needs to make adjustments to capture as many games as possible at weeklies, practice sessions, tournaments, etc

If Vic Green would have entered this tournament and we based the seeding heavily on the rating system, he would have started close to 100th seed. Go find Vic on the rating list. Start from the bottom, as he is rated very close to the bottom (like 610ish). We know Vic and he has been around air hockey for at least 10 years. He's a tough lefty player and hits the puck hard. I've seen pictures of him in the 2002 Texas Open with Fern. He is classified as a level 4 and he used to play weeklies and challenge matches regularly in the past couple of years, yet his rating is at the bottom. What's up with that!

Another example is Nikki Froelich, our SRO waitress who has played in 1 tournament and has no interest in the game. Until recently her rating was higher than Colin Cummings or Nicky Flanigan. My opinion is that the rating system should be used and developed, but it should not be the ultimate factor to consider in seeding a tournament.

 
goran - 12 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 428

Players like Nikki Froelich would be at the bottom of all the players with established ratings since her rating is not established. Vic Green is not a level 4. Why does everyone think they're a pro? Way too many 4's. Once again if ratings WERE used to seed tournaments, players WOULD use the system as it was intended. Right now the average "pro" from Houston plays 1 tournament every 2 years. Thats why the "pros" from Chicago dominate the "pro" field.
 
goran - 12 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 428
Another suggestion if we choose not to use the obviously better rating system to seed the tourneys and are stuck in our traditional ways, If you miss 1 tournament, you take your last ranking -3.5. If you miss multiple tournaments, you are placed at the bottom of your classification. Classifications should be clear cut and not subjective. For example Ultra pro should have finished top 16 in 2 out of past 3 tourneys. pro top 32 2 out of past 3 tourneys. expert top 64 2 out of past 3 tournaments.
 
Mike C - 12 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 459
I should have said that Vic 'was' playing as a level 4 years ago, but conversely he should not be in the 600's.

I'm not arguing what Vic's rating should be, I'm giving one of many examples that could be made 'right now' that the ratings are not the only measurement to be used for seedings.

I'll let the more established Houston pros like Syed and August argue with you regarding Chicago v Houston pro dominance.
 
fractalzoom - 12 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 201
I think you bring up a good point regarding Vic, Mike. I think we can get a better idea of why he's rated so lowly if we look at his record. It's great that we have these records to see what the math is doing.

If we look at Vic's last 10 sets - they all happened at least a year ago. One thing that jumps out at me is that he forfeited his spin-off. This has been pretty disastrous for his rating. Other than that, he bested Albert's two young kids and Mike Keller - which was his very first tournament.

Looking deeper - his highest tournament finish was in the 1020 Houston open, where he finished 24th out of 33 contestants. These are not stellar performances. Beyond the forfeitures last year, he hasn't done enough to earn Mitic points. I'm sure Vic could win back many of these points by playing more.. and playing more sets that he can win, but he's been inactive for about a year as far as Mitic ratings go.

I don't think this is a case where the Mitic rating system fails, it may highlight our own biases based on how we think a player plays. We do tend to round people up that we consider threats, or based on how long a player has been active.

I'm positive there will be a good reason why any player has the amount of points they currently have. Perhaps a better example would be Eric Rood (an IL player). He's lowly rated because he hasn't won many sets since Q started getting good. If he had more players around his skill level (or traveled and played people around his Mitic level), his Mitic points would shoot up.
 
goran - 12 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 428
Mike C said:
I should have said that Vic 'was' playing as a level 4 years ago, but conversely he should not be in the 600's.

I'm not arguing what Vic's rating should be, I'm giving one of many examples that could be made 'right now' that the ratings are not the only measurement to be used for seedings.

I'll let the more established Houston pros like Syed and August argue with you regarding Chicago v Houston pro dominance.


Vic is a solid expert and is under rated because his only recorded matches were loses to pros and other experts with a few wins against beginners. If Vic cared about his seed, he would play and record his matches. I beat Syed and August last time I played them and Q just dominated their bracket. Besides I don't consider Syed and August Houston Pros, More like Houston Ultra Pros. You can add Travis to that list too.

 
TheAirHockeyGuy - 12 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 472
fractalzoom said:
I think you bring up a good point regarding Vic, Mike. I think we can get a better idea of why he's rated so lowly if we look at his record. It's great that we have these records to see what the math is doing.

If we look at Vic's last 10 sets - they all happened at least a year ago. One thing that jumps out at me is that he forfeited his spin-off. This has been pretty disastrous for his rating. Other than that, he bested Albert's two young kids and Mike Keller - which was his very first tournament.

Looking deeper - his highest tournament finish was in the 1020 Houston open, where he finished 24th out of 33 contestants. These are not stellar performances. Beyond the forfeitures last year, he hasn't done enough to earn Mitic points. I'm sure Vic could win back many of these points by playing more.. and playing more sets that he can win, but he's been inactive for about a year as far as Mitic ratings go.

I don't think this is a case where the Mitic rating system fails, it may highlight our own biases based on how we think a player plays. We do tend to round people up that we consider threats, or based on how long a player has been active.

I'm positive there will be a good reason why any player has the amount of points they currently have. Perhaps a better example would be Eric Rood (an IL player). He's lowly rated because he hasn't won many sets since Q started getting good. If he had more players around his skill level (or traveled and played people around his Mitic level), his Mitic points would shoot up.



My understanding was that a forfeit in a tournament does not count against your rating?


Chris Lee
Co-Founder, CEO
Air Hockey Players Association (AHPA)
 
fractalzoom - 12 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 201
TheAirHockeyGuy said:
fractalzoom said:
I think you bring up a good point regarding Vic, Mike. I think we can get a better idea of why he's rated so lowly if we look at his record. It's great that we have these records to see what the math is doing.

If we look at Vic's last 10 sets - they all happened at least a year ago. One thing that jumps out at me is that he forfeited his spin-off. This has been pretty disastrous for his rating. Other than that, he bested Albert's two young kids and Mike Keller - which was his very first tournament.

Looking deeper - his highest tournament finish was in the 1020 Houston open, where he finished 24th out of 33 contestants. These are not stellar performances. Beyond the forfeitures last year, he hasn't done enough to earn Mitic points. I'm sure Vic could win back many of these points by playing more.. and playing more sets that he can win, but he's been inactive for about a year as far as Mitic ratings go.

I don't think this is a case where the Mitic rating system fails, it may highlight our own biases based on how we think a player plays. We do tend to round people up that we consider threats, or based on how long a player has been active.

I'm positive there will be a good reason why any player has the amount of points they currently have. Perhaps a better example would be Eric Rood (an IL player). He's lowly rated because he hasn't won many sets since Q started getting good. If he had more players around his skill level (or traveled and played people around his Mitic level), his Mitic points would shoot up.



My understanding was that a forfeit in a tournament does not count against your rating?


...it's quite possible I'm mistaken when it comes to this.

 

First | 1 | 2 | Last

Forums Home / Tournaments and Challenges / 2011 IAHC Seed List