I normally avoid talking about my QC work on this blog, mainly because this is not the forum for official discussions or press releases. However, there are times when internal discussions are of a less 'classified; nature, and are of sufficient interest to share.
At the moment a discussion concerning the 'farming' of rating points from events (blitz and rapid mainly) is ongoing. As part of this, I've proposed a definition of 'farming'
It is when a player does the following
(1) Plays a minimum of 5 games in an event
(2) Plays 66% of opponents who are rated 400 points below them
(3) Scores 100% against these opponents
(4) and does not lose any games against the remaining players (wins or draws are OK)
Forfeit wins, byes and default losses do not count
Does this make sense, or is there a better definition?
3 comments:
This definition might severely discourage players such as Igor Bjelobrk or Australian GMs from playing any small weekenders, where they are invited as a big drawcard. The same would apply in much of Asia - places with a big pool of low rated youngsters who would get fewer chances to test themselves against the country's strong players.
I had a similar thought to the first comment. This scenario is quite likely in quite a few large field rapid events, where there is a large difference in the ratings between the top couple of players, the rest of the field, and a large tail at the bottom
This was my comment
Post a Comment