Okay, I think it was fair to go as low as 8 people to make a 1-2-3 distinction. 2nd place is 2nd place, but with a small tourney, it does change things a bit...you can argue for 2nd place being great, but in a tourney for 4 people (Erik's original argument, which I believe is valid), then 2nd and 3rd place really aren't as much of an achievement. The idea behind the placements, it appears, is that the tourney should be a certain size. If we wanted to get technical in this (I believe this argument was posted already), then we can have 2nd place ratings in small tourneys (8-12), medium (13-50), and large (51+), for instance. And if there were to be trophies awarded, that the trophies would reflect the size of the tourney. Personally, the trophy is great, and I would like to see some tourney wins in my future. But I do see a fairness to the argument concerning the size of the tourney. If you want to see more 2nd places, then join only tourneys that have 8+ members in them, and you can be assured of greater chances of getting a place.
2nd place finish
I like Ozzie's suggested numbers:
- 2nd place medals would be given for 8 and above.
- 3rd place medals would be given for 12 and above.
As I started all this I should at least say something. 8 people for a 2nd place and 12 for 3rd seems good to me.
As a weaker player I enjoy the small things like seeing things on my stats page, its not much but keeps me going when on a losing streak.This is a hobby for me and as a typical human (at least in some senses) reinforcement is vital and looking at my stats page does that.
What annoyed me at first mostly was that as a paying member I couldn't even create tournaments where I had a chance of winning a placed medal. That's been resolved now so for me the argument is over, and the side issue of what makes a 1-3 placed tournament couldn't keep me interested for nearly a 100 posts.
Queenie - from post 11 the placements listings has started to be discussed as medals. This then turned the common usage of what we were talking about to medals
Ozzie said post 11- If I were the boss:
- I would rename them "medals". Furthermore, I don't post in any thread until i have read every single post in the thread. I'm not sure what you are basing me not reading the posts from. You said early on that getting 3rd in a 4 person tournament is something special. (slight paraphrase you actually said "...to come second out of three/four/ six players whatever is a great achievement" You also go so far as to say that in all sporting events and games there are 1st, 2nd, 3rds and the rest our losers. Combining that with your thoughts of accomplishments the only person who loses in a 4 person tournament is the guy (or lady, ... ladies) that comes last. This makes all kind of sense. If I can show examples of awards for 4th and lower will this change your thoughts on arbitrary importance of 2nd and 3rd? If I can show examples of sporting events and games NOT awarding 2nd and 3rd place will this change your thoughts of the absolute value of 2nd and 3rd? If I continue to post along this line -showing I believe you to be wrong in your assessment that 2nd and 3rd always deserve mentioning and more and more people come in here and agree that 2nd and 3rd are not always deserving- will you get even more bored? And FINALLY, what about the potential for ties for places. For example, in a four man tournament Player X comes first with a perfect score, Player Y comes second beating each other the other two players once and tying once. The other two players only drew against each other. Final scores - X 6, Y 3, 3rd/4th 1.5. Who gets medals? are there any losers? P.S- I realise its not about getting medals - I am using the term medals like ozzie recommended we change the name to in post 11. As to your thoughts on changing the subject - The OP was answered. YOU changed the subject to it not being fair. In one of your posts it sounds almost as if you were accusing eriK of changing the rules just to spite you "Erick that's not fair, I came second in three tourney, and I was really proud of that fact, and you now say those postions are not important enough to be recognized." You should be proud of your personal best whether or not someone deems it important enough to recognize.
- 2nd place medals would be given for 8 and above.
- 3rd place medals would be given for 12 and above.
Well said, exiledcanuck! Personally, I could care less about the whole medal/trophy thing and was rather amused when one showed up the other day from an event I won three months ago. For me, just looking at the cross table and remembering how I did is far more meaningful... I don't need an electronic icon to tell me if I would have won a gold, silver, or bronze -- or if I even deserved it regardless of what the crosstable says!
In the case of the aforementioned medal, it may look like gold but it only feels like silver. I should have only finished second, but the guy who was beating everyone suddenly disappeared into the ether and forfeited his last five (out of 12) games including one with me. (His profile said he was only 13, so maybe he got grounded for not doing his homework, but who knows? This is cyberspace after all...) I wonder if I can sell it on eBay? 
how much less? 
erik wrote:
we're going to change this so that 1-3 is awarded for tournaments with 8 or more people.
** end of quote **
Three players - first second and third place awarded.
http://www.chess.com/tournament/studdy-buddy-open
Honestly who cares about second place?
alison27 asked: Honestly who cares about second place?
joaoporto wrote: wow !!! im in #43 !!!! (in http://www.chess.com/forum/view/fun-with-chess/most-active-players-at-the-wwwchesscom)
I guess it depends on the size of the pool (among other things)!
we're going to change this so that 1-3 is awarded for tournaments with 8 or more people.
This tournament with a starting date of 2008 09 19 had first, second and third place awarded. Looks like this is the cutoff date as another starting 2008 09 16 had only first recognized.
... Personally, I could care less about the whole medal/trophy thing and was rather amused when ...
sstteevveenn wrote: How much less?
This is (perhaps, the) one idiom where U.S. English is misleading - but I couldn't care less.
I agree with the previous statement that the only absolute is the 1st place finish.
What about looking at things the other way round - in 4 player tourneys the person who finished 2nd was the 3rd worst player. In a 100 person tourney the person who finished 98th was the 3rd worst player. The two don't deserve equal recognition.
But, if I get this right, the original point is that 2nd is 2nd and 3rd is 3rd, no matter what, so if the stats appear on our screens and we've finished 3rd in a tourney but it isn't recognised then the stats are actually wrong, because we DID finish 3rd. So perhaps this needs to be renamed or altered in some way - if the stats still list 1st, 2nd and 3rd placed tournament finishes then they ought to reflect ANY 1st, 2nd and 3rd place finished, otherwise they are inaccurate, but perhaps there should only be a .gif trophy awarded for 1st, 2nd and 3rd at whatever the arbitrary number is (say 81 or more entrants) or for a multi-round tourney. I don't even think that a trophy should be awarded for 1st place finishes in 4 player tourneys or it would devalue the trophy, but the stats should still reflect the 1st place.
The other option would be to put a lower limit on the number of entrants into tournaments and then treat everything the same way with the rating range of the tournament reflected on both the trophy and the stats.
Since the site works in a democratic way, perhaps there should be a series of votes on the subject on the main page?
I finished a lot of times at a 2 or 3 places, and it is not recognizable, yet!
I was cut off of my achievements!
Two months ago we got Erik's promise to award 2 and 3 places from tournaments, less than 13!
It wasn't happened, so far!
I am loosing my interest to play at the site, as we have a fair choices!
I finished a lot of times at a 2 or 2 places, and it is not recognizable, yet!
I was cut off of my achievements!
Two months ago we got Erik's promise to award 2 and 3 places from tournaments, less than 13!
It wasn't happened, so far!
I am loosing my interest to play at the site, as we have a fair choices!
Don't you have 1000+ opponents which would not be happy if you loose your interest??
I would like to recieve a Whatever Achievement Award for everything I do on this site. These new prizes, called WAAs, can be given out for absolutely everything from logging in to correctly spelling the one-letter word "I." Also, anyone successfully making the first move of a game should recieve a WAA. Perhaps one day, even posting in the forum can earn you a WAA. Lord knows, we need more WAAs in these forums. Before long, we will have WAAs all over the site to be enjoyed by all WAA enthusiasts.
There will be a big line to get a 1, 2, or 3 places! Trust me!
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
It's interesting that 2nd place in an 8 person 2->1 tournament (knockout) is not as impressive as 2nd place in an 8 person round-robin tournament.
At least I think so. Maybe this is actually not true, and is the difference between match play and tournament play. Match play rewards the ability to draw at will (possessed by Kramnik), whereas tournament play rewards risk takers such as Topalov.