The new Lobby Master qualification rules suggest capping the number of Masters to 120. Is this a viable thing to do? And if so, on what basis will it make sense to adjust this number?

By Stefan stefancr on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 10:19 am:

I don't like the idea that masters could be "struck off" the tantrix master roll to limit the masters to 100. The master status is a status that you claim for reaching a certain skill level and as such, you should not be forced to give it up. If there is really a need to employ some kind of elitist rank that only 100 people can posess, perhaps a "Grand Master" rank could be extended to the online play? There really is no point to just removing people. I know I'm heavily biased here. My rank is currently below 800, and I am sure that I would be the first active player to be removed should this proposal be implemented, but I would hope that other masters would similarly support the system remaining the way it is.

By Sirpi on Saturday, July 12, 2003 - 08:05 pm:

Sorry Stefan first, but my opinion is different than yours...

I think that something needs to be changed with the current master system.
There is no week without new masters appearing and and sometimes I think that
reaching 950 and filling the test is too easy to deserve master status FOREVER.
But don't misunderstand, I don't wanna harm ANY master, this is a general
observation.

So one possibility is to demote some of the inactive players, and if it's not
enough, then some of the weakest ones, too in order to keep master's number
below 100. But demoted players would get a chance to become master once more
after a fixed period if they reach 950 again. I whisper that this possibility
frightens me a bit, so let's see another...

Another possibility is some harder constraints for the players who wanna become
masters. I know (at least one) example when a player kept playing with a lower
ranked friend, and stole his points. If the friend went below 600, then he
played robot2 for a half an hour and then they continued playing. The higher
ranked is a master now, and I'm not sure he really deserved it. And please don't
ask who is this master, I don't wanna tell it. Or I know masters who can't count
tiles. Strange...
Btw, the main point is some harder constraints, if someone wanna keep his status
forever. For example to become master you have to win at least 30 games against
at least 15 different masters, or so. This would be a good filter, I think.

Sorry for this long tale, but I wanted to tell you my thoughts about this
question (this text also contains opinions of other masters, whom I talked
about the problem).

By Puddleglum on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 02:42 pm:

I think the master status should be based entirely on tournament performance over a set number of tournaments - this would be similar to the seeding lists. This would eliminate the possibility of people becoming masters by just playing the robot or by other means.

It would also be useful to limit the number of masters using this system to 100/120.

By humber on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 05:53 pm:

Personally, I don't think that the number of masters should be limited:

It is likely that the number of players would increase over time. Such an increase would bring along an increase of the number of "good" players.
A lot of these players would meet the classification criteria as suggested by Britta now. These criteria only state that the number of players should be limited, but do not suggest what happens if more players meet these criteria.
If the number of "good" players increase over time, this implies that the selection criteria for masters would have to become stricter over time to be able to restrict the number of players to a certain limit.We should tackle this carefully so that we do not end up with criteria that necessarily have to be changed after some time again.

In my opinion, master status should reflect a pre-defined, "stable" level of ability, which cannot be the case when the number of masters is limited.
If one would still be wishing to restrict the number of masters, an alternative option would be to base the limitation upon the number of active players; a certain percentage of them can become masters if they meet additional criteria. However, both an absolute and a relative limitation would bring along that master status reflects the top xxx players and does not reflect to a certain ability as such.

In conclusion, I believe that the number of masters should not be limited to an absolute or relative number. Limiting the number of masters redefines the meaning of master status; master status will become a synonym for the top xxx players,and doesn't necessarily reflect a certain level of ability. Stricter classification criteria could be a way to deal with that issue, and also limit the number of players that may qualify. Perhaps we should discuss the meaning of master status and the idea behind it first before we can make a sound decision.

By shunter on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 05:59 am:

I believe that the number of masters should be capped, but not in the ways that it has been proposed to do so.

The proposed method of capping the number of masters is master rankings, but, as Rick has pointed out on another part of this forum, not all games are played with the care and concentration that is possibly required to win games. I know this because I am in the bottom 15 in the Master Rankings but am in the top 50 in the world in Tournament Rankings, when I play to my full concentration and ability.

I do think that the new qualifications for becoming an LM (950 lobby, 1800 ELO) are much better as they require a more thorough understanding of the game and being able to play well under pressure. But I feel this has come too late, and some players have already slipped through the net...

By Anonymous on Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 03:02 am:

The idea that puddlegumm said about only having people with good tournament elo isnt a good idea, when i started i played in euro and lost in pre lims but now i feel i am a good player but with lack of tourny experience i dont feel its right i shouldnt have hte option of being a master.

The only other point i have is if you have 120 masters and there is a new master coming through who is better than most of the alreayd masters, how do they get to become a master if there is already 120 active masters playing reguarly

By Anonymous on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 07:57 am:

I disagree with tournament performance affecting whether a player should be a master or not. Tantrix is not a "profession", ie we all have to earn our living in other ways. Due to this I haven't entered any tournaments because I simply haven't got time for the huge amount of committment that's required for a tournament over a relatively short period of time. This doesn't mean I'm a bad player however or that I'm inactive, I frequently play an odd game or two when I've got a few spare minutes. Should people with other committments be discriminated against? I think not.