I haven't read through all of the post re the tourni, so forgive me if I
am overlapping. I did read the post about the groupings of the
different categories and the inherrant problem of the crowded lower
rated group(s)
Perhaps instead of grouping in direct correspondence to 100's ratings,
we should wait to see who/how many join. Then we can create
3,4,5,6, or however many groups w/ the same amount of people in
each group. We can call it groups a,b,e etc....
this way, everyone has to win the same number of games to become
champion of their group. As it stands, it would be harder for anyone
in the 1200 group to become champion than it would in the 17 and
1800 group.
If there is an odd number, then the top ranked players in each group
could get a bye.
It would be nice to say you're the champion of the "1400's" for
example, but I think this way is more practical...I'll settle for being
champion of "group c".🙂
What are you thinking for the rating bands Dave ? - Could we do it in
increments of 50 rather than 100, or is that getting too difficult to
organise ? - Or - could the rating bands be decided when we know
exactly who is going to enter, that way, if the bands were smaller as
the rating gets lower, all the groups could have the same number of
players.
Nick
Trust me Freak...if i could possibly make that an option I would.
I think all that spend over 6 months here should pay the small
pittance that these guys ask.
But this a KO tourney...and if someone decides to hop in and then
leaves...he is gone and the other person advances...simple as that.
This will be as fair as I can do according to FIDE rules.
Dave
Who is a proud Pawn Star...and wishes more would be the same
