Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Site Ideas Forum

Site Ideas Forum

  1. Standard member flexmore
    Quack Quack Quack !
    02 Dec '05 09:37 / 4 edits
    how should it be?

    Should it be the same as the 2005 championship? Tournament 414

    i think there are a few minor improvements ...

    give everyone a little extra time ... make it 62 day timebank (it finished 1 month early this year)

    make it a sticky thread

    start it on january 1st ...

    and make the group size slightly smaller ... say group size 10.

    so ...

    max 950 players, groupsize 10, zero timeout, 62 timebank, three rounds.

    and get entries started VERY SOON!
  2. 02 Dec '05 16:58
    Rec'd.

    Would like to see this up and running soon, like the ideas you have there. If it is started ASAP then it will give people almost a month to enter.
  3. 03 Dec '05 01:22
    Originally posted by flexmore
    how should it be?

    Should it be the same as the 2005 championship? Tournament 414

    i think there are a few minor improvements ...

    give everyone a little extra time ... make it 62 day timebank (it finished 1 month early this year)

    make it a sticky thread

    start it on january 1st ...

    and make the group size slightly smaller ... say group size 1 ...[text shortened]... ze 10, zero timeout, 62 timebank, three rounds.


    and get entries started VERY SOON![/b]
    I would much prefer a more conventional time setting for the 2006 Championship, such as a 3 day time-out and 14 day timebank. Hopefully, the tournament would still finish within a year, but it wouldn't matter that much if it over-ran a little.

    The reason why I don't like the massive 60 day timebank is that some players abuse it. I had an opponent who stopped moving for about a month against me, despite moving regularly against all his other opponents. By the time he resumed playing, I had lost all interest in the game. It's bad enough waiting for a week in a normal tournament game, but a month is ridiculous. Then there are the people who never resign - they just let their timebanks run out...

    However I agree with Flexmore that the groups should be smaller. There were too many games in the first round, but usually only one person qualifying for the second round. With smaller groups, far more people would have a chance of qualifying for the later rounds, making the tournament more interesting for everyone.
  4. Standard member jay D
    Jay D
    03 Dec '05 01:54
    Originally posted by David Tebb
    I would much prefer a more conventional time setting for the 2006 Championship, such as a 3 day time-out and 14 day timebank. Hopefully, the tournament would still finish within a year, but it wouldn't matter that much if it over-ran a little.

    The reason why I don't like the massive 60 day timebank is that some players abuse it. I had an opponent who ...[text shortened]... chance of qualifying for the later rounds, making the tournament more interesting for everyone.
    i know what you mean about waiting, but guess thats the thing with varying timeout/timebank..

    but do think it should be finished in the year otherwise it might lose its speciality, as when 2007 starts, 2006 wouldnt have finished..

    not sure what the mathematical calc is to know what the absolute time is, but im sure someone does...
  5. Standard member zakkwylder
    Mouth for war
    03 Dec '05 02:47
    Originally posted by flexmore
    how should it be?

    Should it be the same as the 2005 championship? Tournament 414

    i think there are a few minor improvements ...

    give everyone a little extra time ... make it 62 day timebank (it finished 1 month early this year)

    make it a sticky thread

    start it on january 1st ...

    and make the group size slightly smaller ... say group size 1 ...[text shortened]... ze 10, zero timeout, 62 timebank, three rounds.


    and get entries started VERY SOON![/b]
    I think we should have 4 bands of championship tournaments. Say
  6. Standard member flexmore
    Quack Quack Quack !
    03 Dec '05 08:13 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by David Tebb
    I would much prefer a more conventional time setting for the 2006 Championship, such as a 3 day time-out and 14 day timebank. Hopefully, the tournament would still finish within a year, but it wouldn't matter that much if it over-ran a little.
    i do not believe it would finish in a year ...

    it must finish in the year ... a 3 day tournament can last almost forever ... 80 moves, 3 days per move ... 240 days just for one player in one game (in a huge tournament the worst case scenario is relevant)

    please leave it as zero timeout .. and just be patient as the rest of us lose our games to you and your peers.
  7. Standard member Aiko
    Nearing 200000...!
    03 Dec '05 11:54
    I think a tournament for 2006 should run in that year, not all through 2007, that's a bit silly. I agree with Flexmore there should be a limit on the time to make sure it finishes on time before the 2007 tournament starts. We don't want the annual big championship tournaments crossing eachother, do we?
  8. 03 Dec '05 13:05
    Yes the '06 championship would be better to finish inside '06.

    And I don't think making it banded is a good idea. The purpose is to find the anual RHP champion, which can't happen in a banded tournament.

    Was there one in '04? Who won it?
  9. 04 Dec '05 20:51
    Why don't we call it "The fast movers champingnon chips"?
    I'm online once a day usually-so I am one of the faster movers of the site. Tebb for example often answers my moves instantly. Even if I would manage to keep up for about 65 moves, *dreams on* I'd get timed out.
    The real correspondence world champion chips take years and overlap, but are still called "Correspondece Chess World Chamionship 2003" or similar.
    Nonetheless the final group consisted of 4 really good players(Congrats to all 4, especiallyss to Otto), but I'd say 1 reason Akizy didn't play was the 0 day timeout!
    So do we want a fast Champion or a real Champion?
    If we keep discussing this will never be kicked off.
  10. Standard member flexmore
    Quack Quack Quack !
    07 Dec '05 11:03
    bump
  11. Standard member flexmore
    Quack Quack Quack !
    10 Dec '05 00:51
    Originally posted by flexmore
    how should it be?

    Should it be the same as the 2005 championship? Tournament 414

    i think there are a few minor improvements ...

    give everyone a little extra time ... make it 62 day timebank (it finished 1 month early this year)

    make it a sticky thread

    start it on january 1st ...

    and make the group size slightly smaller ... say group size 1 ...[text shortened]... ze 10, zero timeout, 62 timebank, three rounds.


    and get entries started VERY SOON![/b]
    bump -diddly ump
  12. Standard member flexmore
    Quack Quack Quack !
    13 Dec '05 10:09
    Originally posted by flexmore
    bump -diddly ump
  13. 19 Dec '05 01:57
    hey mate there no good having a Chamionship if u need then stupid subscribe to join
  14. Standard member XanthosNZ
    Cancerous Bus Crash
    19 Dec '05 02:50
    Originally posted by ChoasPoowoo
    hey mate there no good having a Chamionship if u need then stupid subscribe to join
    hey stupid ur stupid.