02 Jan 05
Rather than random, why not make it a seeded tournament.
It will kind of lose its value somewhat if Ironman31, David Tebb, et al get randomly drawn together in the first round. Sure, the the eventual winner has to be able to beat everyone, but the stronger the final group, the more prestigeous the Title.
Is it just my imagination, but does this random thing seems to have a perchant for lumping the top rated players together, or what? In the Magni Grouped tournament, from 48 player, 3 of the top 5 players were in my group of 4. Statistically the odds of that seem pretty remote, but its not the first time I've noticed it.
03 Jan 05
Originally posted by GatecrasherPersonally I kinda like the randomization aspect. Is it fluky? Yes. Is it unfair? Yes. Is it fun? Hell yes. With the randomization, with a little luck, weaker players sometimes get the chance to advance to round 2 and face off some of the best RHP players. This gives them very good tournament and chess experience they could probably otherwise never get, and makes them better players, it also makes them feel confident and like they have accomplised something by going into a round 2 pool with RHP legends.
Rather than random, why not make it a seeded tournament.
It will kind of lose its value somewhat if Ironman31, David Tebb, et al get randomly drawn together in the first round. Sure, the the eventual winner has to be able to beat everyone, but the stronger the final group, the more prestigeous the Title.
Is it just my imagination, but does this ...[text shortened]... Statistically the odds of that seem pretty remote, but its not the first time I've noticed it.
03 Jan 05
Originally posted by mateuloseAs much as my better sense tells me not to, I'm going to agree with Mat here. You can never have a perfect system, and if you seed it, none of the lower rated players would have any type of chance at all. Making it to round 2 feels good, even if you do lose. And I'm not saying that everyone should go to round 2, but making it random gives a chance to everyone.
Personally I kinda like the randomization aspect. Is it fluky? Yes. Is it unfair? Yes. Is it fun? Hell yes. With the randomization, with a little luck, weaker players sometimes get the chance to advance to round 2 and face off some of the best RHP players. This gives them very good tournament and chess experience they could probably otherwise never get, an ...[text shortened]... onfident and like they have accomplised something by going into a round 2 pool with RHP legends.
-Tim
03 Jan 05
Originally posted by flexmoreBah, even with randomization, chances are the semi-final will be nothing but 2000 plus raters anyways?! I mean, there's like 50 of them this tournament, and I'm sure some may get knocked off early by bad seeding, but do the math, chances are you won't be able to see some 1600 rating moron like myself in the semi-final unless he avoids one of those 50 2000 raters each round, and that ain't happening, and if he does beat a lone 2000 rater in his round, then doesn't he deserve the upset title/advancement anyways, why lump him with more 2000 raters in a pool? Come on, give the average players some HOPE in the tourney, make it interesting/surprising, shake things up A LITTLE.
to make sure we finish in 2005 we want a result in the third round.
this is more likely if it has only very strong players.
so i support seeded (original) format.
and of course gatecrasher makes it to the second round! 😉 (but will definitely not make round three🙁 )
03 Jan 05
6 edits
Originally posted by mateuloseMr Mat Eulose you are rated 1591, in the seeded format you would face a lone 1750+ player above you (it may be ironman of course)
Bah, even with randomization, chances are the semi-final will be nothing but 2000 plus raters anyways?! I mean, there's like 50 of them this tournament, and I'm sure some may get knocked off early by bad seeding, but do the math, chance ...[text shortened]... tourney, make it interesting/surprising, shake things up A LITTLE.
if you can cause an upset with that player, and hold your other games well ... then yes ... you would probably get to the second round ... and change your name to Mr Mat Euwin.
the seedings in the next round are required to make sure the final is not just a 2000+ round ... it will be exclusively 2150+.
if "kasparov" and "kramnik" face each other a draw is quite likely in the games between them ..... they require the toughest opposition from the other opponents for a real distinction to be made ... otherwise they will both win all their other games easily ... and the final result could be just the result of a single mouseslip.
this tournament is about finding the best of the best.
03 Jan 05
Originally posted by mateuloseThat's why there are banded tournaments.
Bah, even with randomization, chances are the semi-final will be nothing but 2000 plus raters anyways?! I mean, there's like 50 of them this tournament, and I'm sure some may get knocked off early by bad seeding, but do the math, chances are you won't be able to see some 1600 rating moron like myself in the semi-final unless he avoids one of those 50 20 ...[text shortened]... rage players some HOPE in the tourney, make it interesting/surprising, shake things up A LITTLE.
Generally, I don't have a problem with randomized groupings. It does make for interesting tournaments.
But this one is special. I'd like to see the best possible field in the final group. (Sadly, I'm certain NOT to be there!)
It may well be interesting/surprising without having to make it unfair.
I doubt there is more than a handful of players who have a realistic chance of winning the title, but for everyone else there is the compensation of giving it your best possible shot, and maybe surprising yourself to the upside.
Taking part is more important than winning. But for those who also enjoy observing great chess, having the best on the site shoot it out in the final group will be far more exciting than watching a whole pile of one-sided games, due to poor grouping in the earlier rounds.