rony1990 wrote:
I like it. It's a good intermediate between live and current online.
Welcome to the Tournaments Discussion Forum
Sort:
rony1990 wrote:
how?
In 72 hours (3days) you must complete 50 moves. Who will fail to submit 50 moves within 72 hours s/he will lose his/her game.
Interesting but not likley. Player that made 50 moves will stall and that way his opponent will not be able to make 50 moves in time.
but then if my opponent isn't moving, we both lose?
Defacto wrote:
rony1990 wrote:
how?
In 72 hours (3days) you must complete 50 moves. Who will fail to submit 50 moves within 72 hours s/he will lose his/her game.
Interesting but not likley. Player that made 50 moves will stall and that way his opponent will not be able to make 50 moves in time.
well, no. as soon as one plays move 50, the other is allowed move 50
I explained it wrong:
Player can wait till last minute to make his move.Then his opponent got only 1 minute to make move.....get it...
yeah, and you'd get people who just want to ruin it for others who don't even move their first move until 1 min
Not exactly needs to be 50 moves. It may be 40 moves or may be 60 moves. It is same as normal 1move/3day. But instead of 1move/3days 50moves/3days. You know the result of 1move/3days. The same format will be for 50moves/3days.
You mean you have 72 hours to make yours 50 moves and your opponent got his 72 hours to make 50 moves....then it vould be more like live chess
....then it would be more like live chess
YES. I THINK IT WILL SHORTEN A GAME TIME.
But then it wouldnt be correspondence chess and games couldnt be rated as "standard chess" games.
is there a penalty from withdrawing in a tournament here which has not yet started? Will you be unable to join another tournament in a certain period before being allowed to join tournaments again? thank you.
no penalty for withdrawing during registration!
BlackNight_13 wrote:
no penalty for withdrawing during registration!
Thank you for the info.
artfizz wrote:
rootbeersloat wrote:
I do not understand the tournament format system. What does 6(2)->1 or 2(1)->1 mean? Thanks in advance!
Erik wrote (in post #76):
the first number is how many people are in a group. the second number is how many games they play at once per person (either 1, or 2). the third is how many people advance to the next round.
Thanks for explaining 6(2)->1 or 2(1)->1 to the rest of us!
I reckon it would make more sense if the tournament results table listed in order of Fewest losses rather than Most points. The current approach misleadingly puts faster players at the top of the leaderboard. e.g.
1400 Club – conventional order
|
|
Losses |
Score |
Tie Break |
|
1. artfizz(1487) |
4 |
6.5 |
16.75 |
|
2. EnochianVoice(1485) |
1 |
5.5 |
19.25 |
|
3. Pawncrusher8(1494) |
1 |
4 |
15.5 |
|
5. jthomas2b(1384) |
7 |
4 |
13.5 |
|
4. learningchess87(1441) |
1 |
4 |
14 |
|
7. Wahltimore(1509) |
4 |
3 |
12.5 |
|
6. honeyeater(1410) |
5 |
3 |
14 |
|
8. Merlin-Pendragon(1498) |
9 |
3 |
11 |
|
9. JDudar(1550) |
1 |
2 |
7 |
|
10. folkmar(1433) |
1 |
2 |
7 |
|
11. extesy (1493) |
2 |
1 |
3 |
|
12. davidsmeaton(1460) |
1 |
0 |
0 |
Order by Fewest Losses
|
|
Losses |
Score |
Tie Break |
|
2. EnochianVoice(1485) |
1 |
5.5 |
19.25 |
|
3. Pawncrusher8(1494) |
1 |
4 |
15.5 |
|
4. learningchess87(1441) |
1 |
4 |
14 |
|
9. JDudar(1550) |
1 |
2 |
7 |
|
10. folkmar(1433) |
1 |
2 |
7 |
|
12. davidsmeaton(1460) |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
11. extesy (1493) |
2 |
1 |
3 |
|
1. artfizz(1487) |
4 |
6.5 |
16.75 |
|
7. Wahltimore(1509) |
4 |
3 |
12.5 |
|
6. honeyeater(1410) |
5 |
3 |
14 |
|
5. jthomas2b(1384) |
7 |
4 |
13.5 |
|
8. Merlin-Pendragon(1498) |
9 |
3 |
11 |
an' your idea would put the slower players at the top, Art 
Winning percentage of games completed might strike a balance between fast and slow players. In the end, whoever is reading the standings just has to put some effort in.
smileative wrote: an' your idea would put the slower players at the top, Art 
Not necessarily, but it would put the players with the remaining best chance of winning at the top.
Loomis wrote: Winning percentage of games completed might strike a balance between fast and slow players. In the end, whoever is reading the standings just has to put some effort in.
by winning percentage
|
|
Played |
Lost |
Win ratio |
Win% |
Score |
Tie Break |
|
2. EnochianVoice(1485) |
6 |
1 |
5.5/6 |
92 |
5.5 |
19.25 |
|
3. Pawncrusher8(1494) |
5 |
1 |
4/5 |
80 |
4 |
15.5 |
|
4. learningchess87(1441) |
5 |
1 |
4/5 |
80 |
4 |
14 |
|
9. JDudar(1550) |
3 |
1 |
2/3 |
66 |
2 |
7 |
|
10. folkmar(1433) |
3 |
1 |
2/3 |
66 |
2 |
7 |
|
1. artfizz(1487) |
11 |
4 |
6.5/11 |
59 |
6.5 |
16.75 |
|
7. Wahltimore(1509) |
7 |
4 |
3/7 |
43 |
3 |
12.5 |
|
6. honeyeater(1410) |
8 |
5 |
3/8 |
37.5 |
3 |
14 |
|
5. jthomas2b(1384) |
11 |
7 |
4/11 |
36 |
4 |
13.5 |
|
11. extesy (1493) |
3 |
2 |
1/3 |
33 |
1 |
3 |
|
8. Merlin-Pendragon(1498) |
12 |
9 |
3/12 |
25 |
3 |
11 |
|
12. davidsmeaton(1460) |
1 |
1 |
0/1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
That looks reasonable too.
Maine United States