Originally posted by flexmoreThere's much truth in that. I'm awash with games. I have 74 tournament games, and only 3 of them are first round games. Recently, I've been dumped with several new rounds of tournaments that I'd long forgotten about. Just as you think you're making progress getting the game load down... Wham! Another one strikes.
i think that russ has started 527 tournaments in the last year and that many people are just too busy ...
Still, if you're going to play just one tournament over the coming year, this is the one to play. It has an edge to it that all the other tournaments lack.
Originally posted by cludiI agree it would be nice to see as many top players as possible in the championship as possible. In the top ten there are only 2 players (Memen and David Tebb) who have moved more than 600 moves in the last month.
I would say the site has become slightly more popular than when I started out 1½ years ago. And I'm sure we'll have at least 400 participating in the 2006 championship. I'm just wondering why no top 10 player are signed up yet...
Maybe the top ten players are in the top ten because they consider every move very carefully. They therefore cannot cope with many games and an initial group size of 9 is frightening.
I'm surprised Mr Tebb has not yet entered, however he does have an extra responsibilty this year.
I agree with Gatecrasher; The gameload may be (too) high
at times but still the top 10 players should feel some kind of responsibility to play the event of the year.
Yes, flexmore, Quirine is of course to be counted as a top 10 player
but I was referring to the current top 10...
I have the greatest respect for Quirine and his game and would have no problem seeing him running away with the championship again, but I think it's sad if none of the top dogs tries to stop him from winnning back to back championships...
Originally posted by Loose ScrewI fully agree. In the first place I do not like to play more than 10 simultaneous games, so 2x8 or more is out of the question for me. Secondly, I think one should pick their fight: in a grand, open tourney like this I would never stand a chance winning it. I prefer to pick smaller tourneys, duels or tourneys with max groups of 4
Maybe it's because people are in a lot of tournaments all ready!
Some tournaments have 2x19=38 games. A couple of clan-games, sieges, personal friend games and you have a lot of games to play.
If you have all of these I can imagine that you don't want to have another 2x8=16 games. And let's not forget that most people have no change in winning, then it ...[text shortened]... ve it more change if it has different catagories. 0-1000, 1001-1100, or something like that.
- Joined
- 21 Aug 03
- Moves
- 655696
Originally posted by sevenstarI think you are all just chicken...
I fully agree. In the first place I do not like to play more than 10 simultaneous games, so 2x8 or more is out of the question for me. Secondly, I think one should pick their fight: in a grand, open tourney like this I would never stand a chance winning it. I prefer to pick smaller tourneys, duels or tourneys with max groups of 4
:-)
My own personal reasons for not playing in the 2006 Champs are twofold:
Firstly, I have a lot of games on the go already.
Secondly (and more importantly), the experience of last year has taught me I don't like games with no timebank.
I want quality in the games I play, therefore I have decided I won't play anything at a faster rate than 3/7.
Originally posted by Northern LadYou surely meant "Secondly (and more importantly), the experience of last year has taught me I don't like games with no timeout."
My own personal reasons for not playing in the 2006 Champs are twofold:
Firstly, I have a lot of games on the go already.
Secondly (and more importantly), the experience of last year has taught me I don't like games with no timebank.
I want quality in the games I play, therefore I have decided I won't play anything at a faster rate than 3/7.