Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Tournaments Forum

Tournaments Forum

  1. Standard member najdorfslayer
    The Ever Living
    29 Jul '07 21:55
    I have just entered the Scandinavian Thematic......for the 2nd Tourmanent in a row i entering the groupings seem farcical!

    I am in agroup with a fellow 2000+ playerand two guys above 1500

    Yet there is another group where the highest rated player is less than 1500+

    Another tournament I was in Sprint Split XXXII I was in with a fellow 2000+player and a 1850 playerand the other group had no-one over 1850 in the group.

    Would it be so difficult to set a kind of seeding system so the best players are not getting knocked out in the early rounds as in other spots like Tennis etc!
  2. Standard member irontigran
    Rob Scheider is..
    29 Jul '07 21:58 / 1 edit
    there is, original vs. random....


    a higher rated would benefit from original, and unbanded tournaments..
  3. Standard member irontigran
    Rob Scheider is..
    29 Jul '07 21:58 / 1 edit
    edit: oops double posted..
  4. Standard member irontigran
    Rob Scheider is..
    29 Jul '07 22:17
    on the flipside it gives an underdog a chance, but if you want a certain way then you can request a tournament down to its pairing, size, time, etc...
  5. 29 Jul '07 23:41
    Originally posted by najdorfslayer
    I have just entered the Scandinavian Thematic......for the 2nd Tourmanent in a row i entering the groupings seem farcical!

    I am in agroup with a fellow 2000+ playerand two guys above 1500

    Yet there is another group where the highest rated player is less than 1500+

    Another tournament I was in Sprint Split XXXII I was in with a fellow 2000+playe ...[text shortened]... best players are not getting knocked out in the early rounds as in other spots like Tennis etc!
    Yes, I noticed that too often and would like to see a seeding system put in place as well.

    The irony about the current system is that if you ever make it to the 2nd round and you were in the higher rated group, you have a "better" chance of winning the tournament, though it may not be as challenging.
  6. Standard member GalaxyShield
    Mr. Shield
    30 Jul '07 02:24 / 2 edits
    So? If you're good enough to beat the tough competition in the first round, you'll be good enough to beat whatever comes after it. At least now you have a couple 1500's getting through and getting some good experience against quality players. Where as if you use seeding, no lower players get through and you end up playing more tough games than you are now. I don't see why the 1500's would even keep entering if they have no chance of moving on.

    I'm fine with random pairings. I get tough and weak competition randomly in different tournaments, it's how it goes. If you happen to get a bad draw, tough luck. If you can't beat them you don't deserve the win anyway. I usually end up 3rd or 4th highest rated in the splits I enter, with no real chance of winning (2000+), but I hope for the best.

    Take it as a challenge and get as much experience as you can. Who knows, you might even make it through.

    Edit: Seeding for special tournaments would be interesting (like the annual championship), but on a general scale I like the way the system is. Good variety. If you want more seeded, request an original pairing tourney.

    These are, of course, just my opinions.
  7. Standard member irontigran
    Rob Scheider is..
    30 Jul '07 03:24
    heh, this was what i was thinking the whole time, didnt want to feel the wrath of the chess superchamps

    they dont give 2nd place awards, so losing in the 1st round to the guy who ends up winning the thing would be the same as beating some easier player and losing to him in the finals..
  8. 30 Jul '07 05:10
    I agree with Galaxy shield here...its not always a bad draw, and when it does come out where the better face each other in the first round...who cares???

    keep the system the way it is, if you dont like it, just stop joining
    Random setup tournies...
  9. 30 Jul '07 10:40
    Originally posted by najdorfslayer
    I have just entered the Scandinavian Thematic......for the 2nd Tourmanent in a row i entering the groupings seem farcical!

    I am in agroup with a fellow 2000+ playerand two guys above 1500

    Yet there is another group where the highest rated player is less than 1500+

    Another tournament I was in Sprint Split XXXII I was in with a fellow 2000+playe ...[text shortened]... best players are not getting knocked out in the early rounds as in other spots like Tennis etc!
    Why bother with all the crappy games in the 1st, 2nd etc rounds?

    Just let the two highest rated players play each other to decide who wins the tournaments.

  10. Standard member LekZ
    Why am I here?
    30 Jul '07 12:11
    Although I see the point of allowing the underdog a chance, I agree with najdorfslayer and Sicilian Smaug on this.

    It seems possible Tournament 2369 : A duel(64 entrants), with the highest rated player playing the 32nd rated player.

    Some more examples of IMO terrible seeding:
    Tournament 2076
    Tournament 2158
    Tournament 2010 (round 2) - rating 1 and 2 are in one group, rating 3 and 4 in another...
  11. Standard member najdorfslayer
    The Ever Living
    30 Jul '07 16:02
    Well I can see the pro's of random pairings but the lower rated players have the banded tourney's......

    All I can say is if you were Roger Federer how would you feel if you drew Rafael Nadal in the 1st Round!
  12. Standard member irontigran
    Rob Scheider is..
    30 Jul '07 17:17
    Originally posted by najdorfslayer
    Well I can see the pro's of random pairings but the lower rated players have the banded tourney's......

    All I can say is if you were Roger Federer how would you feel if you drew Rafael Nadal in the 1st Round!
    but that would show its fair, anything could happen....

    i think in the old ufc tournaments they would try to put people on the other side a rig them...
  13. Standard member GalaxyShield
    Mr. Shield
    30 Jul '07 18:06
    Originally posted by najdorfslayer
    Well I can see the pro's of random pairings but the lower rated players have the banded tourney's......

    All I can say is if you were Roger Federer how would you feel if you drew Rafael Nadal in the 1st Round!
    So why not just eliminate all the lower rated players and keep the randoms to 1700+? Wouldn't that make it easier for everyone including the admins? It's essentially the same thing you're suggesting since all the higher rateds would probably end up bunched in the last couple of rounds anyway. There's essentially no point in have lower rated players in them except for them having fun and learning from guys like you and Smaug.

    If I were Roger Federer, I would rather play him in the first round than the last round. Instead of having to anticipate the final and worry about how Nadal is doing, I would know straight off. And if I beat him, it's pretty smooth sailing all the way to the championship. So it's basically the same reasoning to keep it the way it is here: Knowing where you stand right from the get-go.

    I'm not saying all seeding is bad, in fact it would be helpful in tournaments like the Championship (that's where the top players really should play each other in the last round or 2nd to last, and people like should fight to get through). We don't have many big tournaments like that though, so using seeding is a little impractical if you use it all the time.
  14. Standard member Asthereal
    Dark Matter
    30 Jul '07 19:18
    I really agree with galaxyshield here. The seeding is nice for important tournaments but here we have only several and in most of the tourneys we ahve good guys competing for the first place in the end anyway so the seeding would only discourage lesser gods from participating, and that's the least we want to accomplish, right?

    What is kind of weird is that in one of my spilt tourneys I'm with all the supposedly "bad" players and in the other group we have 4 1800 guys. In my group there's this guy of 1300 who was some time ago a 1950 player (help!! I need help!!!) so he'll probably kill us all off and then reach the winners group. I must admit that for split it would be preferable to have the better players divided over the two groups but for the rest I think random is fine unless we're talking about an important tourney, like the Championship, or a tourney where you can actually win something (yes I know it's rare but they do exist!).

    So, go Galaxy, go! You've got my support!
  15. 30 Jul '07 23:59
    I think what the random seating allows is for groups to have players of somewhat even strength fighting it out...Group 1 has three players of all somewhat even strength near 1800 fighting for number 1...while in group two three 1600 players battle it out for the top in the group...and I know it happens alot where this happens, i play in a ton of tourneys too. Just having one 1900 rated player in each group destroying the competition, with no one to harm him in his way to the second round kind off seems foolish...stick with the random system, and hopefully you get a good set up. Ive seen worse, ive seen Everyday once rated 2300 get a group of eight where his next opponent was 1400...it just happens...you just hope your on the good end