3 edits
i like the setup!
with the small bands of only 50 points, almost all opponents will be formidable, yet conquerable.
unfortunately, the small tournament size in the central bands, means that most 1200-1500 players have no chance of entering
i have a suggested improvement for next time though ....
next time: why not make them all minimum 4 players and maximum 120 players, then the busiest central bands will have a very large tournament and the outer bands will only have very small tournaments ... and everyone gets to play.
when they all go green ... then start the lot.
PS oh and let ironman31 into the top band 😉
PPS if the timebank was longer then i would play too.
Originally posted by Aikothanks 🙂
Good idea. And specially for those like flexmore add some long haul banded one's every now and then.
to clarify my preference:
i like long timebank ...and short timeout.
a long holiday or a deep think on a few vital moves, but generally regular play.
i prefer 2/28 or 3/28 or 4/28.
Originally posted by flexmoreGreat idea!!! (Three exclamations is the borderline of sanity, otherwise you would get a few more).
i like the setup!
with the small bands of only 50 points, almost all opponents will be formidable, yet conquerable.
unfortunately, the small tournament size in the central bands, means that most 1200-1500 players have no chance of entering
i have a suggested improvement for next time though ....
next time: why not make them all [b]minimum 4 player ...[text shortened]... oh and let ironman31 into the top band 😉
PPS if the timebank was longer then i would play too.
Sort of like a mega-banded 1400-1450? Would also increase the prestige of winning (and lessen the humiliation of defeat 😳 ).
Originally posted by flexmorethis idea has my vote as well.....
i like the setup!
with the small bands of only 50 points, almost all opponents will be formidable, yet conquerable.
unfortunately, the small tournament size in the central bands, means that most 1200-1500 players have no chance of entering
i have a suggested improvement for next time though ....
next time: why not make them all [b]minimum 4 player ...[text shortened]... oh and let ironman31 into the top band 😉
PPS if the timebank was longer then i would play too.
Originally posted by flexmoreSo what you are really suggesting is that a series of tight-banded tourneys are started similtaneously: people enter the series as opposed to a particular tourney, the players being allocated to the tourney appropriate to their (30-day max) rating when the series starts.
for banded tournies:
if a player's rating exceeds the upper limit of the band they have entered then:
they should be automatically removed from the band they are in and entered into the band above.
There might be the odd band that fails to get its minimum but nothing is perfect and it sounds like a good idea.
Originally posted by Toeyes.
So what you are really suggesting is that a series of tight-banded tourneys are started similtaneously: people enter the series as opposed to a particular tourney, the players being allocated to the tourney appropriate to their (30-day max) rating when the series starts.
There might be the odd band that fails to get its minimum but nothing is perfect and it sounds like a good idea.
1 edit
Originally posted by flexmoreNow that's a good idea!
next time: why not make them all [b]minimum 4 players and maximum 120 players, then the busiest central bands will have a very large tournament and the outer bands will only have very small tournaments ... and everyone gets to play.
[/b]
Everyone (including me 😠) gets to play!