Only you could input such twaddle. There is no wooden spoon in any sporting sporting even for last place so why try to introduce here????
2nd place finish
Sort:
So, then, should chess.com retroactively award first place trophies to every player on the site for every game won, and second place trophies for every game lost? Technically, each game with a winner and loser has a first place and a second place, does it not? Should draws have co-first place trophies?
The reason there is a cutoff is because of simple probability. The larger your sample size, the more likely your results are to even out. Pick out four random players from chess.com; then do it again, and again, and find the average rating of each group. The average will fluctuate wildly, from over 1800 to below 900 at times. Now, if you repeatedly pick out 64 from the same random group, you will be much more likely to find yourself near a standard average rating, with a few top players and a few bottom players.
The bottom line is, finishing second or third in a large group of players simply means more than finishing second or third in a small group. It's far less dependent on whether you're lucky enough to be matched up with weak opponents (or, conversely, unlucky enough to be stuck with strong ones), and more dependent on how you actually measure up as a player when compared to the player base as a whole.
Another load of twaddle, you are getting away from the point. No one talking about every game we are talking about tournament games only, and No one is talking about working out average of the group tourney are not run on that premis. We are mearly talking, (read the whole forum to understand) about 1st/2nd & 3rd places in a tourney.
Every game is a two-person tournament, in a sense, isn't it?
Either you didn't understand the rest of my post, or you just don't want to understand it because it refutes your personal opinion. I'll give you some time to look it over again and decide which of the two it is.
Queenie said -"Well Dawkins Rottweller we have done our best, but is our best good enough?"
In response - No, you only came second. ;)
I think the best solution to this problem would have to be - the medal button.
Anytime any user (I just realised my font keeps changing size) feels the deserve a medal they can hit one of two medal generator buttons - One will be the quick medal button : generates a generic medal of achievement, the other will take you to a medal creation wizard interface where you can input the details for what the medal is all about. That way everyone can have all the medals that they feel they deserve, which seems pretty fair.
The weak (not the best word choice sorry) always seem to moan about what is or isn't fair. All in some vain attempt to be treated better/differently than others seemed to think was reasonable at the time. Talk of fair is emotional blackmail to get what you want not what you deserve.
Erik has already modified it to be for groups of 8 or more, which is quite reasonable. I guess the confusion some people who read this thread might have is that, really, you're arguing that you want to see 2nd and 3rd place trophies awarded for even a group of 4, and that you seem quite passionate/vehement about it - citing issues of fairness. When you say "We are mearly talking, (read the whole forum to understand) about 1st/2nd & 3rd places in a tourney." you actually mean "We are merely talking about 1st/2nd & 3rd place trophies in a 4 person tournament."
Earlier in the thread you pointed out that you finished second in a tournament. Whether or not you get a trophy doesn't change this. You did finish second. I'm happy that it gave you a sense of personal accomplishment. Whether or not you recieve a little .gif animation for having done so shouldn't affect this.
The truth of the matter is that these "trophies" only have value proportionate to their rarity, as it is with anything. Reflaxion is not getting away from the point, nor making twaddle when he writes, "The bottom line is, finishing second or third in a large group of players simply means more than finishing second or third in a small group."
I find the intensity with which you're giving the argument disproportionate to the potential gain - you're arguing with the passion with which one might decry human rights abuses over recieving a .gif confirmation of you having won a few chess games in a 4 man tourney, and moreover, appeasing you by making that change seemingly cheapens the value of this .gif for people who might have recieved 2nd place in a 100 person tournament.
I'm sympathetic, of course, this cause clearly means something to you for you to have chosen to wave it's proverbial banner - perhaps what we're missing is why it is of such importance to you.
Okay a not so harsh version of my last post.
Instead of having medals have a % finish chart.
IE # of top 5% finishes
# of top 10% finishes
# of top 20% finishes
# of tournaments entered
average # of players in tournaments.
Perhaps a link option so you can click on their top 5% finish and see how many people were in the tournament etc.
but again where do you draw the line... the more data chess.com harvests the more resources are used in harvesting rather meaningless data and the less resources being used to improve this great site.
But ho hum, I'm just a grouch
How do you answer such a load of emm........., people like you should before you attempt to enter the fray, read what the forum is all about. After all you end up looking a bit stupid, (sorry not the best choice of words). This has nothing to do with medals, tell me where have you seen the word medals appear, emmmm................. looking, ya....... well have you found it. No I thought not. Go back and read all of the forum before you comment again. and don't be sarcastic, or accuse us of using emotional blackmail, or of being weak, until you understand what you are talking about.
Wow, this is a classic forum...I like it. Queenie will be mad no matter what...If you fought that vehemenently over this, I would love to play you a game of chess - it would be a dogfight for sure! :-) I guess since Erik changed it, things are better now...
Sorry, this had nothing to do with what you wanted to accomplish, but I am amazed at when you find someone didn't talk the way you wanted them to talk, or say what you felt was appropriate, you turned around with rude comments. I guess that you are right, and everyone else is wrong. Since you state, I don't care what anyone of you else thinks - that includes Erik. So before you decide to make statements, consider others have thoughts that don't work on the same train of thought as yours, and maybe you could back off a bit from being so arrogant over a tiny distinction. You might get more positive feedback that way, instead of slapping people in the face with comments like that.
No, hang on, now I am typing like you are typing. Let's see it this way - why not post a simple suggestion, and then debate without telling people you don't care about what they think. I see it from both sides of the fence - 2nd place is 2nd place, but 2nd place out of 10 is not the same as 2nd place out of 100. BUT, telling people their ideas are useless won't gain much compassion. Unless, you really don't care about compassion maybe? :-)
So there...now you can chew at me, if you like...
digital medals, useless statistics, the speed limit on the m5 - its all about the same to me. Sorry if I confused medals with a statistic my mistake.
You compared an open tournament of 4 people on chess.com (any random 4 people) with a tournament of the top 4 gms (maybe not top 4 but very high ranked players) AND THEN tried to say that the random player that placed 2nd in the OPEN tournament on chess.com has some how accomplished as much as the gm who placed 2nd in his 4 man tournament. That is rich. The differences between a 4 man open and a 4 man qualifiers tournament are HUGE (actually even BIGGER) I could go in to the details but to be honest I just cant be bothered.
Its been fun though. Cheers for the chuckles.
So Birdbrain you agree, 2nd place is second place. 3rd place is 3rd place after that we have the losers. 2nd out of 100 is better than 2nd out of say four, yes I agree, but 2nd is second......Yes? So why when we come to Chess, why is 2nd not second unless we played with over 8 opponents. (it was 13 previously). Forget about medals, percentage's, we were not talking about that. We who had never played in a tourney before were asking, why we did not get our places recognized? That was all, but then all the cocky ones come along and start getting shirty with me and you don't expect me to react? Come on.........
It comes down to semantics (like just about every arguement)
you say that 1st, 2nd and 3rd are places and everyone else are losers. What is this based on? the Current olympic medal system? Why doesn't 4th thru to 8th get a mention as well? Where is the line drawn and why?
Furthermore, I think you will find that in very small player pools 3rd and 4th are rarely mentioned, 2nd is mentioned only if it was close.
1st is the only place that has absolute value, all others are completly relative
"2nd place is second place"
I disagree. Not all 2nd places are the same. I think that's what a few people have been trying to say. For example, consider a 5->1 tournament that starts with 5 groups of 5 and goes 2 rounds. Then to finish second you have to finish first in a group of 5 and second in a group of 5. Compare that to a tournament of just 5 poeple. In the second case, finishing 2nd means just finishing second in a group of 5 without the qualification process of first finishing 1st in a group of 5. So 2nd place in the 25 person tournament and 2nd place in the 5 person tournament are not the same.
When you say "second place is second place" it sounds like a truism, but that's only because you leave out important information. Try writing it like "second place in a 5 person tournament is the same as second place in a 25 person tournament".
Armed with the information that some second place finishes are more valuable than others, it's not unreasonable to make a policy that rewards some second place finishes more than others.
Your boring me now, we are not talking about 4th thru 8th (yawn), we are not talking very small pools, and all this is based on every sporting tournament no matter what the sport unless there are only two ore three in the game. Can I ask why are you arguing with me over this? Tell me cause, when I was in New zealand and we went to the race's, the horse I bet on came third, cause guess what, he was behind the first one, and the one who came after the first one came second.......
What is your point? I could say similar if I bet on a horse that came 4th. 4th in a big race is much more important than 3rd in a small race. Now you mention racing, I believe it is quite common to recognise 4th place in big races. I'm pretty sure they do so in the national.
Also, what is this "twaddle" about every sporting tournament. I dont recall hearing about anyone being awarded 2nd and 3rd place prizes in the 6 nations and they have prizes for just about everything else in that tournament. England gets one just for beating Scotland! Also, the wooden spoon is mentioned all the time in that tournament, and many others. Sure they don't get presented with a physical wooden spoon, but nor would they here on chess.com 
Oh please............................
Queenie, you yourself draw arbitrary lines, e.g. third is important, fourth is not. So you understand the idea that lines must be drawn to separate the value of different performances.
In fact, you are talking about very small pools. Small is a relative term. A pool of 8 is small compared to a pool of 100.
This is not so much an argument as it is a discussion about why the rules are the way they are. There is both reason/logic to the rules as well as some arbitrariness. The people responding to your posts are simply trying to clarify these rules.
Loomis, if that's what they are doing, they should be neither sarcastic, or rude. They are just trying to score points, when if they read the whole forum, not started by me I may add they would see it was about people who could not understand why their place in the tourney they played in, was not in their stats, that's all, but these guys came charging in ..... changing the subject ...... injecting things that were not even in the first guys question, and getting uppity about it. I never started the argument. You know me by now Loomis, do I ever start an argument.
Is there a wooden spoon for finishing last in a tourney? If not I think there really should be. But then... do you get a wooden spoon if last place is 3rd...