In general, it would seem that being a tournament winner in general is more in line with your mode of thought, it being merely a momentary and fun event, but the Title of the Tournament, World Blitz Championship, removes any hesitation about wanting to find The blitz champion ... the Blitz Champion.
I think in the end that a 44 round Swiss would entail facing most of the Top 30, as would everyone else in the Top 30.
I don't know.. a championship brings together players to play a championship. Doesn't imply there must be one champion, two or more in the end.
I made the point earlier, that for reasons of modesty it would be a fair move to have chess tournaments end with two winners by default. I continued that playing it out until error and ingenuity meet and a winner emerges is a fair and modest move too: not trying to pretend we could ever or should play perfect and draw, rather highlight human error is cool and allows learning and winning.
A 4-day Swiss would be good in a computer championship. For humans, it is not easy to fight at the same level of motivation once they drop out of contention for the prizes. A short Swiss includes dice rolls, but it allows players to shine who could not prove it and prove it over and over again. That brings forth their best! And makes them test the truly best the most. And over the course of 5 or 8 years, the dice rolls do not prevent probability to show which players are the best over time. Could there be prizes all the way down to the last place, and to the last round of a, say, 3-day-Swiss, money for every half point to keep motivation aglow? Do we want that? Maybe. Or maybe a few dice rolls are cooler and sweeter
Let me think about some formula that would guarantee everybody some money while also guaranteeing greater awards to the winners.
I understood nothing what u said
Yes