|
|
|
Topic: Suggestion: Making tournaments move a little faster
| |
|
|
Author
| Message |
|---|
|
|
In many cases, a tournament is held up waiting for a small number of games to finish. Often, these games cannot affect the results of a round: for example, if the current scores in the round are A=9, B=6, C=5, D=2 with only one game in progress, there is no result that can stop A being the winner of the group.
So my suggestion is that the next round of a tournament be started as soon as enough games have been played to determine the winners of the groups. A possible objection is that the group winner might still have games in progress (for example, above, the remaining game might be A vs B) so s/he will be playing more simultaneous games than advertised for the tournament. This could be solved easily by waiting until the group winners have been determined and have also finished all their games in the round before starting the next one.
Here's an analysis of my current tournaments (all still at the first-round stage):
AUTO-ADV-352: six games still in progress but only one of these can affect group leadership; none of the other five involves a potential group winner.
AUTO-ADV-341: six games remain but four of these involve the same player who is, therefore, a potential group winner.
AUTO-OPEN-470: two games remain, one involving a potential joint group winner.
The conclusion from this very limited sample is that two of the tournaments could potentially be sped up (perhaps by as much as several weeks) by starting the second round as soon as the one remaining relevant game has been completed. Of course, one should look at more data before drawing any firm conclusions.
|
|
|
Not sure it's really worth it, I'm assuming this would be very complicated to implement. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, it's good, just not easy to do. 
|
|
|
I think my idea should be pretty easy to implement. The winner(s) of the group are known once all the other players are in the position that winning all of their remaining games still wouldn't give them enough points to draw level with the leader's current score. The site could then do whatever it already does to start the next round.
The big question is whether or not the change would make any significant difference. My guess is that, on average, it would save at least a few weeks for every round but I don't know if that makes it worthwhile.
|
|
|
I think it is a worthwhile idea. I like to limit myself to around 12 games at once - two tournaments plus a few others. In one current tournament, I am through to the next round but waiting for it to complete. I have been waiting for over 5 weeks for 2 non-relevant games to complete (down to 1 now), so have been down to only six simultaneous games. But I don't want to start any more tournaments in case I have too many games to handle!
|
|
|
Its a good idea if its easy to implement.It would save a lot of time(on an average 2 weeks is a lot).Only Miguel could tell us about the implementation.
|
|
|
I agree that if the winner has been decided, and has played all their games, we should not let games by other members of the group, which would not affect the outcome of the tournament, delay the winner's advancement to the next round.
|
| 1 2 3 Next |
|
|
|
