How about no more tiebreakers in groups or in final-round of tournaments?
For example if two people have 26 points. The winner of those two would be the one who had 1 win and a tie or beating that opponent twice. If they both went one win against each other then the tiebreaker could be who won most games as black in that tournament. And if they were tied how about who finished all their games the fastest. And if they both finished against each other last then it would go down to who finished against other opponents the fastest.
Other tie breakers could be least moves and most points in piece count as example for group sizes of 2, 3, or 4.
31 Mar 14
Originally posted by RBHILLwhat is your point here?
How about no more tiebreakers in groups or in final-round of tournaments?
For example if two people have 26 points. The winner of those two would be the one who had 1 win and a tie or beating that opponent twice. If they both went one win against each other then the tiebreaker could be who won most games as black in that tournament. And if they were tied h ...[text shortened]... rs could be least moves and most points in piece count as example for group sizes of 2, 3, or 4.
I like to battle it out to the end.
31 Mar 14
Originally posted by PonderableSo your telling me if you played in a tournament with say 20 other players and you tied for first say at 112 points against someone and you had beat them in both games and say if that was set at 21 days and took you 3 years to play you would want to do another round of 3 years to play that opponent? What if he then beats you in one game and you draw the other then you would lose. Or if you went one and one then you would do another round of 3 years and so on. It could take you 9-15 years to win possibly.
what is your point here?
I like to battle it out to the end.
31 Mar 14
Originally posted by RBHILLWell I am relatively new to the site...and I like fats games but I have a running siege game, which took three years, I have a forced mate and he is taking his two weeks for each move. So what it is his decision.
So your telling me if you played in a tournament with say 20 other players and you tied for first say at 112 points against someone and you had beat them in both games and say if that was set at 21 days and took you 3 years to play you would want to do another round of 3 years to play that opponent? What if he then beats you in one game and you draw the other ...[text shortened]... n you would do another round of 3 years and so on. It could take you 9-15 years to win possibly.
If you begin to establich new criteria. Should they coun t only for the win? Or should each drawn group treated that way. And what if the criteria bring no decision?
31 Mar 14
Originally posted by PonderableIf you look at the post i did say groups.
Well I am relatively new to the site...and I like fats games but I have a running siege game, which took three years, I have a forced mate and he is taking his two weeks for each move. So what it is his decision.
If you begin to establich new criteria. Should they coun t only for the win? Or should each drawn group treated that way. And what if the criteria bring no decision?
there are 6 different tiebreakers that i posted. one is who finishes the games fastest so that one tiebreaker right there would work.
31 Mar 14
Originally posted by RBHILLI imagine that I would not be in a hurry to finish much of anything if I was the type of person who actually played games at 21 days/move. Talk about turtle-like slowness! 😴
So your telling me if you played in a tournament with say 20 other players and you tied for first say at 112 points against someone and you had beat them in both games and say if that was set at 21 days and took you 3 years to play you would want to do another round of 3 years to play that opponent? What if he then beats you in one game and you draw the other ...[text shortened]... n you would do another round of 3 years and so on. It could take you 9-15 years to win possibly.
22 Apr 14
Originally posted by RBHILLAll of the suggested criteria have no relevance to the chessprowess of a person:
How about no more tiebreakers in groups or in final-round of tournaments?
For example if two people have 26 points. The winner of those two would be the one who had 1 win and a tie or beating that opponent twice. If they both went one win against each other then the tiebreaker could be who won most games as black in that tournament. And if they were tied h ...[text shortened]... rs could be least moves and most points in piece count as example for group sizes of 2, 3, or 4.
* winning more games with black is the one resmbling chess playing at most. But one consequence would be that people chose openings playing white with lowest rsik: expect a lot of draws with that rule.
* Ending the game fastest: This has mainly to do with lifestyle and geography. Imagine two player sitting in the same timezoen adn two in opposing timezones. Given the same individual timing, the guys in the same time zone are bound to finish earlier. And that has nothing to do with what they want...
* Piece count as what, number of figures? value (which counting table?)
The aim of chess is checkmate not checkmating with as many figures n the board as possible or to obtain as much figure value as possible or anything else in that line.
* A competing site defines "primary games" randomly to avoid tiebreaks. I feel that very near to luck. Could I enjoy to have won a tournament because I won the right game of two against my opponent?
23 Apr 14
Originally posted by PonderableMay be a tiebreaker could be done by least number of moves in games.
All of the suggested criteria have no relevance to the chessprowess of a person:
* winning more games with black is the one resmbling chess playing at most. But one consequence would be that people chose openings playing white with lowest rsik: expect a lot of draws with that rule.
* Ending the game fastest: This has mainly to do with lifestyle and ...[text shortened]... Could I enjoy to have won a tournament because I won the right game of two against my opponent?
24 Apr 14
Originally posted by RBHILLLet's not screw up all the tournaments based on the sins of a few.
So your telling me if you played in a tournament with say 20 other players and you tied for first say at 112 points against someone and you had beat them in both games and say if that was set at 21 days and took you 3 years to play you would want to do another round of 3 years to play that opponent? What if he then beats you in one game and you draw the other ...[text shortened]... n you would do another round of 3 years and so on. It could take you 9-15 years to win possibly.
I don't play 21-day move tournaments so I don't know how they'd feel about this. But please, for the love of God, don't make the rest of the tournaments use these stupid tiebreakers just because they might be useful for 21-day move tournaments.
20 Jun 14
Originally posted by SuzianneThey are not even useful in 21-days torunaments. The point is to play with timings one is comfortable with.
Let's not screw up all the tournaments based on the sins of a few.
I don't play 21-day move tournaments so I don't know how they'd feel about this. But please, for the love of God, don't make the rest of the tournaments use these stupid tiebreakers just because they might be useful for 21-day move tournaments.
I would suggest to have an automatic four week forum ban for each person whining about the opponents taking their time.
20 Jun 14
Originally posted by RBHILLI went several rounds with someone before I lost, it was a blast. I think
How about no more tiebreakers in groups or in final-round of tournaments?
For example if two people have 26 points. The winner of those two would be the one who had 1 win and a tie or beating that opponent twice. If they both went one win against each other then the tiebreaker could be who won most games as black in that tournament. And if they were tied h ...[text shortened]... rs could be least moves and most points in piece count as example for group sizes of 2, 3, or 4.
we went four extra rounds before I had a lost and a draw.
Kelly
21 Jun 14
Originally posted by PonderableUltimately, at the end of the day, I agree with you. Don't like the time restrictions, then don't play tourneys with those time limits. Yes, that is why I don't play 21-day tourneys. It's also why I don't play 1-day tourneys.
They are not even useful in 21-days torunaments. The point is to play with timings one is comfortable with.
I would suggest to have an automatic four week forum ban for each person whining about the opponents taking their time.
Similarly, I don't think tie-breaker rounds are a bad thing.
And yes, people whining about opponents taking all the time allotted to them should have their own circle of Hell reserved for them.