Originally posted by SapanRinpoche Reflecting back upon the first round of the 2010 Championship -- I fully enjoyed playing in it. However, the pairing system of "RANDOM," for such an event is an absolute disaster, and the powers that be, managing the pairings ought to go back to the drawing board and work out a better, actually conventional way, of preparing the pairings. There are so ...[text shortened]... a piece of cake! Kindest regards, Sapan Rinpoche - Lyons, Colorado, USA, North America
Its worked fine for the 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and now 2010 championships so why change it?
Its random pairing, everyone knows that when they enter.
Originally posted by SapanRinpoche rant about pairing
In fact to reach round two might be nice for a weaker player (say 1500s) but he will lose nearly to all games there, so the profit of the excersice stays unclear to me.
And not meaning to be offensive: as a 1900 you stand a very slight chance to reach the finals and certainly none in those.
Originally posted by SapanRinpoche Reflecting back upon the first round of the 2010 Championship -- I fully enjoyed playing in it. However, the pairing system of "RANDOM," for such an event is an absolute disaster, and the powers that be, managing the pairings ought to go back to the drawing board and work out a better, actually conventional way, of preparing the pairings. There are so ...[text shortened]... a piece of cake! Kindest regards, Sapan Rinpoche - Lyons, Colorado, USA, North America
I slightly disagree with SapanRipoche.... every player has some skills to be improved, let's give them chance to play tough games. At least some of them can make a try to look for each of these games more carefull and become really hard player to compete...
Originally posted by SapanRinpoche There are so many players at 1600, 1500, etc. moving on in the first round that it makes for an actually RIDICULOUS, ABSURD "RHP CHAMPIONSHIP" tournament.
As a 1600 player I agree with you.
In my group I was the highest rated by some 300 points. To have such an easy group for an average club player like myself doesn't seem right for this sites flagship tourn.
Despite my best efforts to mess it up I've passed through to the next round. Did I deserve it? I don't think so.
Originally posted by peacedog As a 1600 player I agree with you.
In my group I was the highest rated by some 300 points. To have such an easy group for an average club player like myself doesn't seem right for this sites flagship tourn.
Despite my best efforts to mess it up I've passed through to the next round. Did I deserve it? I don't think so.
I started my group when I was 1200p or smth - top seeded had 1700 approx..... despite everything I won it with 1666 points at the moment. Did I worth to play in the second round? I think I did )))
Originally posted by adriano81 I started my group when I was 1200p or smth - top seeded had 1700 approx..... despite everything I won it with 1666 points at the moment. Did I worth to play in the second round? I think I did )))
The point that I, and I guess SapanRinpoche is trying to make is that a 1600 player should only get through by playing well. Not by the luck of the draw. If its gonna be like that, why not skip the chess altogether and pull the tourny winners name out of a hat.
Not sure what you are saying about your rating jump during the tourn. A p1200 grade could mean you play like Karpov... ...or like a carp:-)
I think random pairing is much more interesting, as it gives lower rated players a chance; and therefore encourages them to participate.
It is unfair, if by fair we mean that the better player should win and progress. But why is that "fair"? isn't it fair that everybody has a chance, regardless of their level? and why should a tournament reward the better? why should we be fair?
isn't it much more funny for a tournament to be unfair? actually it is the only interest for a tournament: to be unfair. We all know that we prefer tournaments which humiliate the better, and where the bad triumphs. a tournament is not about knowing who is better, (after all, we already know who is better, just see the rankings) it is about humiliating the one everybody knows to be the best.
Originally posted by peacedog The point that I, and I guess SapanRinpoche is trying to make is that a 1600 player should only get through by playing well. Not by the luck of the draw. If its gonna be like that, why not skip the chess altogether and pull the tourny winners name out of a hat.
Not sure what you are saying about your rating jump during the tourn. A p1200 grade could mean you play like Karpov... ...or like a carp:-)
Why bother with any games for the majority.
Just ask the top 2 to compete, after all surely one of the top 2 should be Champion?
Originally posted by adramforall Why bother with any games for the majority.
Just ask the top 2 to compete, after all surely one of the top 2 should be Champion?
The way it is paired now, it was possible for the top 2 to meet in the first round. Infact the top 8 could of been in the same group. That is just stupid.
It's a bit like Anand and Topalov having a match to earn the right to play me for the World Championship:-)
Originally posted by Macpo I think random pairing is much more interesting, as it gives lower rated players a chance; and therefore encourages them to participate.
It is unfair, if by fair we mean that the better player should win and progress. But why is that "fair"? isn't it fair that everybody has a chance, regardless of their level? and why should a tournament reward the better? ...[text shortened]... ter, just see the rankings) it is about humiliating the one everybody knows to be the best.
We all want the underdog to win a tourn like this. But where is the glory in sneaking past all the big guns just to get knocked out when you do meet them in the later rounds.
If the aim is to have a funny tourn they have gone down the right path. My first round group had a rating av less than a typical u1500 tourn. hahaha hohoho:-)
2010 Championship
09 Apr '10 11:45
Back to Top