PROPOSAL: Separate Tournament Ratings

thats not fair, 30 days is too long, I gained 400 in 30 days because I went all out with the tactics trainer [Then lost it all when I lost my internet 2 months ago :( ]

Obviously your rating will climb if you're doing intense training but eventually you'll plateau and find it harder to improve beyond that level. That's probably the rating you should be entering tournaments at.

I'm pretty sure there's a good compromise approach for handling that kind of situation but it's eluding me for the time being.

I used to enter tournaments and get smack'd around good by equal and lower rated opponents, all the time..  now that I have the chance why not return the favor!?  The first tournament I entered is open..  My first pairing is with a 2100.  Play is always sharper in tournaments I'm not saying I'm going to go out and look for a low rated tournament but is there really a huge difference between a 1350 and a 1600?  

Oh yeah, and the 1388 is also smacking around an FM in our group rated 2232 after 21 moves, but has meanwhile dropped close to 100 points in his rating since the tournament started.  Although I guess this maybe has more to do with cheating than with sandbagging per se.

I am kinda glad that even at my best I am only in the 16-1700 range as I don't think cheating is much a factor at this level.  although I know it happens by how many folks get booted every hour.  I'd like to think the only thing that seperates a 2000 from a 1500 isnt cheating.  All I was saying is that because I timed out on a block of games my rating is lower then it should be, Is it really the case that I should not enter a tournament until my Rating is improved from regular play?  thoughts??

Yes. If the ratings are accurate (i.e. no sandbaggers either side) then a 250 point difference gives the stronger player just over an 80% chance of winning.

In the rating ranges used in official c.c tournaments, the worst case is a 200 point difference for a 75% advantage to the stronger player. But the typical difference is likely to be around 100 points for a 65% advantage to the stronger player.

In short, it's the difference between games being challenging and games being overwhelming.

Thats my attitude too. I dont care. I dont see why anyone would care.

Sandbaggers exist in the real world for the big money tournaments. Sandbagging here is, well, stupid.

I think so. I timed out on a block of games and can't get into tournaments until my timeout rate falls below 10%. I think that's a fair requirement because tournaments are boring if everyone times out. It's a measure to prevent players from committing to games they can't honour. But it also has a slight effect on sandbagging by making it a little more fiddly than starting lots of games and waiting to lose.

If c.c did start tracking tournament games separately then losing rating through losses/timeouts in regular play wouldn't affect your rating for tournament play. Your problem would be solved, I think.

same, and like I said, damn internet was lost for 2 weeks

I don't know,, in official tournaments I would totally see your point.  But on here higher rated players are more then likely to play speculative and make quicker moves against lower rated players.  My case is not at all unique people time out for myriad reasons.  I'm pretty sure you can set the tournaments to a setting requirement of under 2 hours/move average.  That would eliminate people who had the unfortunate circumstance of timing out until they could get their move speed up.  That would cut out alot of the sandbagging appearing players..  I've chatted with alot of people like myself who at one point just couldn't keep up the games and so their rating took a big dip.  

Another thing is I often hear is lower rated players complain they can't get strong players to play them.  I came across a chance to do a simul against strong player, and really cool guy and I jumped at it.  The last time I played him I learned a huge weakness in the Pirc.   Seeing how proven skill plays against my openings and judgement is just good value.  I like winning it gives the game perspective but learning is good too.  

I'd quite like it if c.c Open Seeks let me specify a rating range but also choose to not show me the exact rating of my opponent. If both sides decide not to reveal their rating before the game then it would encourage consistency from both players.

But speculative play has it's place too so I wouldn't want that as a rule rather an option.

A truely  idea, I'd likely select that option myself.  I've played alot of games on here cc and a few times against players way above me in rating I could tell were moving almost too aggressively.  Catch them on it and all of sudden they get chatty and start explaining there moves.  I'll tell you one thing, ever see a much higher rated player all of sudden get real talkative and you know you did something right, lol.  As a rule most players are respectful, at least I'd like to think.  I just meant that if you are playing a system or trappish idea you aren't familiar with you aren't going to play unfamiliar against someone your already expecting a fight from.  Not me anyway..  back to what you are saying about sandbagging I resisted the urge to join a lower rated tournament I know I hate it when i sign up specifically for a rating range and then the play is anything but..  There are just alot of reason's why someone's rating can be misrepresented is all, some people have a prolonged upswing with their rating before a plateu is reached, or even if you play 25 + CC games at a time and tend to win in groups and lose in groups it can cause rating swings.