While I am of course very sorry to see such active players go, and I can sympathize with their views, I think that the matchups as they are give great opportunity for us (impersonal) bottom-feeders to improve our chess by playing some very strong opponents.
question - if tournaments were never introduced to this site would they be leaving? If not then they should just ignore the feature.
I don't know the details but it seems like people are throwing their teddy out of the pram because they aren't being listened to. MAybe C&R don't have time. Maybe they don't want to have others making changes to the site for them.
Originally posted by padfoot Youv'e got a point there...
on the other hand, they might not have joined at all if there had been no tournaments!
🙂
Luck was a member well before tournaments were introduced.
I believe that SOME of the tournaments were randomized (I could be wrong). But, shouldn't #1 play the bottom and work from there? There could be top to bottom matches, matches amongst the top players, and those amongst the lowest.
Correct me if I am wrong, if you have a rating like Luck, shouldn't you want to play the "cream" to prove how good you are?
Teddy out of the pram. good one. Kinda like "throwing the baby out with the bath water?"
Originally posted by willatkins Luck was a member well before tournaments were introduced.
I believe that SOME of the tournaments were randomized (I could be wrong). But, shouldn't #1 play the bottom and work from there? There could be top to bottom matches, matches amongst the top players, and those amongst the lowest.
Correct me if I am wrong, if you have a rating like L ...[text shortened]...
Teddy out of the pram. good one. Kinda like "throwing the baby out with the bath water?"
That is correct, I am one of the original Pawn Stars.
Why I wanted random pairing was because the players who were just above the "cut-off" line, for example, if 128 players were in the tournament, the players who were ranked between 65-69 had a very little change to advance since they had to play the 5 strongest players. On the other hand, the players ranked as 60-64 had a very good change of advancing since they were to play the 5 lowest ranked players.
Another point was that the tournaments took long time, there should have been a chart that told for example the the winner of game # 1 would play the winner of game #31 and so on. This would had helped to speed up the games because the second round could have been started as soon as the two games were completed.
In normal correspondence chess a game may last for a year or more. "Long Time" is such a relative term.
I think the tourneys are just fine even though I always get destroyed in the 2nd round (if I get there) it gives me something to strive for. I like a challenge. 😉
Make dual tournaments random!
05 May '03 12:00
Back to Top