100 - 1 Tournaments

Originally posted by jscar

very deep. of course, you had 2 edits. lol.

Good points. It would be unfair to change the rules now. But i agree
that it would likely get more people in future tournaments, and
increase the enjoyment of the lesser players who would enter anyway.

Either way i am enjoying the tournament so far. And looking forward to
not getting past the first round of the New Year Tournament also
🙂

Enjoy,

Rich

Instead of changing the criteria for who advances to the next round, why don't we simply change
the way players are assigned to their groups? If players were randomly assigned to their groups,
then it is quite possible that a lower rated player might find himself in a group with equal or lesser
quality players. Instead of finding himself stuck behind someone he has little chance of beating,
he might actually have a chance at winning at least one round. Conversely, it might be interesting
to see some of the top players having to battle for their lives right off the bat if they got put in a
group with some other top players. I think randomly assigned groups would add a little excitement,
and obviously a little uncertainty, to the whole tournament process.

Originally posted by rwingett
...why don't we simply change the way players are assigned to
their groups? ...Instead of finding himself stuck behind someone he
has little chance of beating, he might actually have a chance at
winning at least one round. I think randomly assigned groups would
add a little excitement, and obviously a little uncertainty, to the whole
tournament process.

Yes, I agree with Rob. Even if one was drawn in a group of four with
three 1700+ players it's not like that would be the only tournament for
ages and ages (and thus having to wait months for the next
tournament). Plus there would always be the possibility (and
excitement) of finding yourself in a group with a much lower average
rating.

At the moment the group stages are proving to be largely a foregone
conclusion. Creating tournaments for lower rated entrants only, or
drawing the groups randomly would be a way around this.

Great idea 🙂

Mark

I support both ideas.Especially the random grouping may give nice surprises.

Also, not every tournament has to be open to all levels. Why not having a 1400- (just an example) tournament, with a final winner
(unlike the BIT where the winners are then again confronted with the other group winners - which is also interesting of course).

The more variation in the tournaments structure, the more interesting RHP becomes.

Gil.

Originally posted by sintubin
very deep. of course, you had 2 edits. lol.

Glad to see someone appreciates my insight. 😉

I also like the idea of tournaments for the lesser rated
players.Imagine being the King of MAP and 1400-.Rhymester or
Vaknso?It becomes like heavyweight boxing.You can wear three
crowns.

Johan

The ‘banded’ tournaments are not far off now.

Random distribution of players also could be implemented, if that was
preferred over the method I currently use. (By rating) If people feel
strongly about this, I will change it for all future tournaments. (This
would also impact latter rounds of current tournaments too)

-Russ

Someone mentioned since Dave dropped out from tournamnent that
that group would have less points, on the contrary. All players will
start at six points and only have to play four games, loose two and
win two and then all three players can go to the next round with 12
points each!!!!

Sincerely,

Harri / Luck

increasing the group size, and the number of qualifiers can increase
accordingly. for example, a single round-robin with groups of 9 having
the top 3 qualifying for the next round.
tiger

😀
😠
🙁

Originally posted by snl
i think we should be strict in allowing only the group winners to
proceed to the next round. it is the nature of competition that player
get eliminated, whether in the first round or next. modifying the
qualification criteria seems too arbitrary.
respectfully,
S.

🙂
😀
😞

I agree with SNL on competitive integrity. We should be disciplined
enough to adhere to the rules of competition. If one loses, there is
always another chance in another tournament.
Bob
😉

I think the ruleswere not explained in detail prior to starting the
tournament!
I believe that in the groups where there is multiple palers with the
ame points, they should either play again each other to determined
the winner od the group or to use the same principle as in golf, the
point received or the number of hits would be accounted for instead.

It seams to be possible now for some players with two losses to go to
the next round when a palyer with one loss in another group would be
left outside!!

Sincerely,

Harri / Luck

PS: I think there should be the rule of at least rrceiving a minimum
points or just winning the group out directly. It is now possibly to have
three players with 12 points to go to the next round, (actually only ten
points would be required in a special situation), and players with
higher pnts would be left behind despite having a higher point total!!!

This would leave player with 4 wins, 1 draw, and 1 loss to be left
behind, when a player with 2 wins and 4 draws would go to the second
round!

i see group 24 has three player qualifying for the next round with 12 points. conceivably all games in the group could be drawn, and so all four players would proceed to the next round with 6 points!

Originally posted by snl
i see group 24 has three player qualifying for the next round with 12 points. conceivably all games in the group could be drawn, and so all four players would proceed to the next round with 6 points!

To go to the second round should depend on either the amount of points received or only the group winner, in case of same amount of points, they should play each other again until we have a winner.

And what about when the group winner has withdrawn from the tournament (Miss Take) is the second one in points (me) going to get the pass or are all the player eliminated from that group then?

We need to rules posted!!!!!

Harri / Luck

Originally posted by Luck
To go to the second round should depend on either the amount of points received or only the group winner, in case of same amount of points, they should play each other again until we have a winner.

And what about when the group winner has withdrawn from the tournament (Miss Take) is the second one in points (me) going to get the pass or are all the player eliminated from that group then?

We need to rules posted!!!!!

Harri / Luck

I believe Chris and Russ are using rules that adhere to conventional correspondence chess section play, at least in the US. These rules are simple: The winner(s) of the group advances, and the winner(s) is/are the player(s) with the most points. Players with more points who drop out are not considered. Too, should all players draw, causing them to all become tied, thus becoming winners of their group, they ALL advance. This is not likely to occur often, but if such players demonstrate fine drawing skills, they deserve a crack at the next round. There is certainly no harm in permitting them to advance – subsequent rounds will be more difficult, and so, those not quite up to task will be eliminated. It's survival of the chessically educated and experienced (fittest).

I’m not clear if points accumulated from one round is carried to the next, but since there seems to be no rule stated to imply such, I must assume each person starts at zero again at each new round. The United States Correspondence Chess Championship was this way – one simply qualify for the next section by winning or placing second in the preliminary round. Everyone in the finals starts with a clean slate. However, there are some correspondence tournaments were the points are weighted and carried over to subsequent rounds. Typically, these points are weighted in such a way that wins and draws are worth more in later rounds. Personally, I prefer the former, where everyone starts on equal footing in the final or subsequent rounds – after all one had to prevail in the previous round to advance!

The weighted point system, while not used as often, meant all rounds affected each other, and a loss in an early round did not hurt one as much as loss in a later round, where the competition would be even stronger. The group would come out with a wild array of points that would create a clear winner. This system, though, favors the strongest players, as they usually handily win their preliminary section, thus going into the finals with more points to start. Lesser players are not likely to prevail or even create strong competition in later rounds when the points are worth even more. This point system is not best for maintaining good competition – chessplayers, whether strong or not so strong, all need to feel they have an equal chance at the prize.

Again, in the absence of any information to suggest otherwise, one must believe that all winners of sections, tied or not, must advance. I’m sure Russ and Chris will provide us with more details about changes in upcoming tournaments. No changes should be made to ANY ongoing tournament.
🙂