Yes, it should be 3 points full stop I agree. The difference between 3 counters = 3 points and 10 points is daft. So you lose in the final of a 15k and still can't get a ranking....
I think it need some tinkering, but there must have been a reason behind the rule - perhaps 2 wc draw each other in a 25K and neither has a ranking - should they be entitled to a ranking?
I think it need some tinkering, but there must have been a reason behind the rule - perhaps 2 wc draw each other in a 25K and neither has a ranking - should they be entitled to a ranking?
Yes, if that actually did happen... but two totally unranked players should not really be getting WCs into the main draw of a 25k tournament, unless they have very high junior rankings, in which case, fair enough.
I think it need some tinkering, but there must have been a reason behind the rule - perhaps 2 wc draw each other in a 25K and neither has a ranking - should they be entitled to a ranking?
Yes, undoubtably something like that could be pointed to but it's simply impossible to avoid having some seemingly undeserving cases by such as the luck of the draw. I'd still say that it is a case of the many over the few, with likely many more anomalies as things stand.
Well the winner of those two would get 5 points, so I would say that should get a ranking. But three first round WC losses in a 25k is three points, and doesn't warrant a ranking (or three WC's probably !). Room for improvement in the system somewhere though.