EdmundB Posted July 7, 2013 Report Share Posted July 7, 2013 The short version: Setting up 1-round, 4-pair tournaments, which are really team matches. Using the client software. This simplifies the process of running a team game in some ways, I think. Maybe it's just foolish. Having difficulty with the function that restricts the kind of player. Right now, would like to exclude novice / beginner / private (by including wc, exp, adv, int, but they're getting through. beginners are fine people, but in a tournament they can drive people nuts. 1. am I just screwing up by using abbreviations for world class / expert / advanced / intermediate? or am I just missing something. 2. Should I use web for tourney creation to do this? I do like the windows client, but the important thing is to get the job done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1eyedjack Posted July 7, 2013 Report Share Posted July 7, 2013 Can't answer your question - will let others do that - but slightly surprised that you put so much trust in a player's self-assessment of ability that you are looking to the software to provide a solution to bar players who self-assess below the minimum qualification, or even (horror!) self assess as private. Apart from maintaining include/exclude lists of named players whose competence you have had an opportunity to judge on an intelligent basis, I see no way to achieve your goal. If you advertise that only adv+ players are invited, then you are operating on trust that players below that level will not join. But the self-assessment ability ratings operate on no lesser principle of trust. If they are knowingly joining a table at which they are not welcome, they will do so anyway just by changing their profile, temporarily if they wish, to show advanced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdmundB Posted July 7, 2013 Author Report Share Posted July 7, 2013 I'm not really that hung up on the self assessments. Note, I'm not including "stars." :-) Just toying with the software. And there is an external ranking site. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted July 7, 2013 Report Share Posted July 7, 2013 1. am I just screwing up by using abbreviations for world class / expert / advanced / intermediate? or am I just missing something.You should be selecting levels from a predefined list, not by typing words. In the web version it's a bunch of checkboxes that appear when you select "Include players by player level". I don't know what it looks like in the download client. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdmundB Posted July 8, 2013 Author Report Share Posted July 8, 2013 You should be selecting levels from a predefined list, not by typing words. In the web version it's a bunch of checkboxes that appear when you select "Include players by player level". I don't know what it looks like in the download client.thanks. I will use the web. The client has nothing like checkboxes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jillybean Posted July 8, 2013 Report Share Posted July 8, 2013 But remember, BBO users use inverted skill level. WC (no star) = NoviceExpert = BeginnerAdvanced = Intermediateetc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdmundB Posted July 8, 2013 Author Report Share Posted July 8, 2013 But remember, BBO users use inverted skill level. WC (no star) = NoviceExpert = BeginnerAdvanced = Intermediateetc :lol: Star = Free fred might throw us out for this. ;-) Now, seriously, a detailed introduction to the web version might be good, as I couldn't quite find how to set up a tourney there. Or, again, instruction to this aspect of the windows client would be good. details of the web version are on this site, I'm sure, and I'll search for them half-heartedly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr1303 Posted July 8, 2013 Report Share Posted July 8, 2013 As regards the external ranking site, if you mean BBO skill that's already been discussed at length and the conclusion was it was worse than useless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.