Keep all types of tournament open

Why do not maintain tournaments of all type always open and, as they fill up, simply start them and open new ones of the same type? Why do people need to keep asking for this and that tournament?

Originally posted by Metacomedian
Why do not maintain tournaments of all type always open and, as they fill up, simply start them and open new ones of the same type? Why do people need to keep asking for this and that tournament?

Not all types of tournament, but we could do with some standardised ones. Great idea!

Suggestions for a permanent list? If we can establish that, I'll get some scripts together to make sure, as a minimum, they are always available.

My suggestions: others may have different ideas of course.
Two series, Quartets and Octets.
Not duels or threesomes. Small groups can result in several rounds, often involving players who are no longer on the site or who have moved a long way in the ratings.
Quartets (6 games) and octets (14 games) provide a shorter duration and a more level playing field.
Two series, Open and Banded.
Banding in 50s, to provide a reasonable variety of opponents, and a bottom group of 0-1050 or even 0-1000. The presently used limits of 1150 or higher just mean that it's too difficult for beginning players to win a game.
Two sets of time controls, standard 3/7 and some shorter version, possibly 1/0 or timebank-only.

Originally posted by Kewpie
My suggestions: others may have different ideas of course.
Two series, Quartets and Octets.
[i]Not duels or threesomes. Small groups can result in several rounds, often involving players who are no longer on the site or who have moved a long way in the ratings.
Quartets (6 games) and octets (14 games) provide a shorter duration and a more level playing f ...[text shortened]... Two sets of time controls, standard 3/7 and some shorter version, possibly 1/0 or timebank-only.

I would vote for duels and threesomes. I would also agree to quartets if I knew that another would be available at the conclusion of the current one. Anything larger makes for too many concurrent games.

I would also ask for narrower bands. I've been in the 1750+ band for a long time, and would prefer not to play 2300+-rated players all the time. 50 may be too narrow though.

Finally, I would like to mention that we need to do something about sandbaggers. I try to avoid tournaments where players are rated 200-300 points below the floor. What good is a 1700-1800 band if a player is actually rated in the 1900s? At the very least, if I beat such a person, it should count as a win against that person's TER, not their current deflated rating.

I'm just wrapping up the Android dev, but I will make this the next TODO.