i think the idea of teachers vs students on 1 vs 1 is a good one because top class A players are too strong.
but i dont like counting loses vs teachers because it doesnt encourage students playing them.
games one on one it's already advantage enough for the teachers.
the idea of playing the games rated and public is very good as well because the league will gain in popularity and maybe more strong players will join the project.
3k 2010-05-02 11:05
I understand the main idea of this and the last league for me had the problem that the best students didn't play each other so if they don't do that i think that this rules are good :)
5d ( AR ) 2010-05-02 10:05
Hard to measure the exact effect of these rules, but im sure that i want to play the teachers without being simul.
Simultaneous gives the games some artificial flavour that makes it less enjoyable both as a player and as a student. So being able to play 1 on 1 (thing i will ask each time if possible) adds value. +1.
Being forced to play the teachers to win prizes (and being recorded as a loss) increases the chances to get a loss dramatically, which helps dilute the situation of a 100% score (which as shown in the previous month, i had to play many more games to be able to match such a player).
Im not sure if the positive effect (increasing losses) outweights the negative effect (possible disencouragement to play teachers).
These opinions are about the technical details, the big question is if the Goal is reasonable. For sure it is impossible for teachers to get prizes in the A league if there are 3 strong players, beacause the extra % gives students a mega-edge.
The question that precedes that one is if prizes are good at all for teachers, and even if they are good for students :).
the new rules look interesting for stronger players.
people arguing that it's about "not wanting to lose" for the teachers are just short-sighted and childish imho.
5d ( SE ) 2010-05-02 07:05
As a former participant of the leauge I kind of think these new rules are good.
If the top players of the leauge lose at least three of their games against the teacher they will be forced to play more games.
Last month's leauge was kind of ridicolous.
Ali Jabarin got 105% with 17-0 score, Danigabi got 105% with 23-2 score and I got 95% with 13-1 score. Something had to be changed for sure.
As long as the teachers dont play fewer simul against the rest of the members cause they focus on playing with the top member of the A group it might be ok. However, if the teachers claim 1st and 2nd prize in the A leauge all the time, some of the stronger members might drop out from the leauge as well.
Will be interesting to see what efect these new rules will get on the leauge
( NL ) 2010-05-02 06:05
Seems ok to me, now the teacher can play at a higher level because they have more time.
Also since you have to play at least 4 matches against the teachers it is harder to dodge difficult opponents in the group.
4d 2010-05-02 05:05
The fact that you lost almost all of your games says that you are weak, not that the rules have to be changed in this stupid way.
*****shouldnt count against them...haha
2 Dan 2010-05-02 08:05
Yeah I think its a good idea to do it 1 on 1 if you cant win with simultaneous but I dont think the loses should count against them. If danigabi is winning at even then maybe she should be giving alex a handicap?? Also she seems like a really good teacher.
7d ( US ) 2010-05-02 04:05
feels like you just don't want to lose anymore...these rules are ridiculous