From: "Dr.Eduard Werner" <edi.werner <at> GMX <dot> DE>
Date: 6 mar 2001
Subject: Re: Why I'm not in the ladder

On Tuesday 06 March 2001 16:29, you wrote:
> The number of cancelled/no
> response/declined games is just too high.
> This hurt the ladder very much. I just don't
> want to keep complaining and mailing the
> coordinator. This ain't just the way I want to
> play correspondence games.

I know :-)

> How can be #5 playing against #20? Isn't
> this against the ladder rules?. #5 can't
> decline games, but from #6 to #10 (?).

No, it's not against the rules:
1) No one forbids you to accept *any* challenge.
2) #20 may have challenged  #5 when he was still
#16, but the other games may simple have finished
more quickly

> The years old matches should be controlled.
> Those long matches usually end cancelled or
> not responsed. I would regulate to send at
> least a mail each 2 months commenting the
> state of the game (moves done). I guess the
> 5 day limit should be amplied if both players
> agree, but not further than, say, 10 days.

Please don't! I *DON'T* want everybody telling me
what's the state of their game (I might be interested
in games that take really a long time to finish.

> If a player doesn't start a single game in a
> year without any sort of justification, he or
> she should fall in the list. I don't know how
> there are players near the top without a
> single played game.

Yes, there are. The idea is even you start a game
at least every 6 months, but this is of course an
arbitrary number to provide a base for discussion.

> I agree Dr.Eduard Werner in freezing the
> actual ladder as the 1st historical one and
> take over all the players to a new one. I
> don't agree with the time limit he proposes
> (45 days-15 moves). Some players couldn't
> have enough time. A mail indicating the
> current status of the game every couple of
> months would do.

It's simply to enable you to divide your time in a more
flexible way. The mode now used (a move in 5 days) is
a bit silly for the opening, but it might be to little
when having several complicated positions and other things
to attend to.

> About handicap games, I think we don't need
> them in the ladder. Let's try with not so
> radical changes and leave this for a possible
> future. If we want to estimate player's
> strength, we don't need to balance games
> between players of different categories.

If, say, a 10q plays a 4d, the game will be uninteresting
for both. The idea is not to enforce handicap play, but
just to enable it. If you don't want it, you don't need to.

> I think that we can extend to 10 the number
> of positions above a player can challenge.
> There are 115 players right now, and as this
> number increases, 5 positions becomes
> obsolete. I would join the list if the rules
> changed for good.

Yes, it's not even used in a strict manner. The idea is
that you get one opponent anyway by some random procedure,
and you have a flag in the ladder saying that you can take
more games. These people you are simply free to challenge,
no matter where they are in the ladder. They might simply be
people you want to play with.

> I would make the following changes too:
> - allow the user to show multiple mail
> addresses to prevent server failures. The
> coordinator should know different addresses
> of the same user to send urgent messages.

Good idea. We already have this problem with some addresses.

> coordinator about an absence. Of course, a
> player can always decline a game against a
> player rated more than 10 positions under
> him or her.
> - don't take into consideration other rankings
> because they are no way verifiable.

It will sort itself out after a few games. Just trust people a little :-)
Shogidojo also let's you declare whatever you think you are and it works fine.

Best

Edi