|
|
|
Topic: Special Tournament
| |
|
|
Author
| Message |
|---|
|
|
Hi all,
I have a new idea for tournaments.
it is a new kind of tournament created by me.
the idea is :
1.tournament of 27 players in 9 groups
(3 players in each group,Round Robin Double)
2.the first player of each group will advance to the second round.
3.this round will have 9 players in 3 groups.
(3 players in each group,Round Robin Double)
4.the first player of each group will advance to the final.
5.the final will be just one group of 3 players
(Round Robin Double)
I hope it will work here on this awesome site.
best regards,
HAZOP.
|
|
|
How will you handle ties in round 1 and 2?
Why is groups of 3 better than groups of 4?
|
|
|
>>About the first question :
rules of tie break are available for round 1 & 2 !
Tournament Directors must choose to use an additional tie-break method (use the Neustadtl score) which factors in the strength of the opponents. If two players have the same score and the same Tie Break score, both will advance.
Below is an example of how the tie breaking system works:
Group-----1------2------3------Pts------Tie Break
1. A-------X----0 1-----1 1-----3-------4.5
2. B------0 1----X------0 0.5---1.5-----3.75
3. C------0 0---0.5 1----X------1.5-----2.25
A player's tiebreak score is calculated by adding the sum of the player's points they have defeated to half the sum of the player's points they have drawn against.
"A" won one game against "B" and two games against "C". So "A" gets 1x1.5 points from "B" and 2 x 1.5 points from "C", which sums up to 4.5 tiebreak points.
"B" won one game against "A" and drew one game against "C". So "B" gets 1x3.0 points from "A" and 0.5x1.5 points from "C", which sums up to 3.75 tiebreak points.
"C" won one game and drew one game against "B". So "C" gets 1.5x1.5 points from "B", which sums up to 2.25 tiebreak points.
>>About the second question,I think 3 players in 1 group will have more chances to stay in the tournament and will have more interetsing games for each opponent...I like the 4 players tournament and I have no problems with it but people are looking for a good rating,if someone of 1300 rating is in group of 4 players up on 1800 rating,what chances for him to win ?(onl by time out)... (he will lose all his games) and then he will close his account and start a new one (the psychology of chess rating) but in 3 players group losing against 2 players is more accepted than losing against 3 or 4 players in the same groupe !
I am not calling to replace groups of 4 by groups of 3,it's just a new offer ...I am sure people will like it...you can make a vote for it if you want!
Better to have a new experiances than never !
I hope my poor english will be undersood !
thanks for replying,
best regards,
HAZOP.
|
|
|
HAZOP wrote:
rules of tie break are available for round 1 & 2 !
Tournament Directors must choose to use an additional tie-break method (use the Neustadtl score) which factors in the strength of the opponents. |
Tie-breaks don't work well in small group sizes. A small group means both that ties are likely and that there is little information available to break the tie. For example, in the situation you describe, Neustadtl scores are equivalent to just looking at the games between the tied players. If A and B are tied for first place then either they tied their own games and both beat C, in which case they have the same Neustadtl score, or one of them won the games between them, in which case that player has the higher Neustadtl score, too.
The "Elite" tournaments here on QA have groups of three so it would be a good idea to look at those and see how often groups are tied.
Dave.
|
|
|
I prefer our present method of advancing everyone tied for first to the next round.
I disagree with a tie break after the final round. I prefer adding a round(s) until the tie is broken in a playoff.
|
|
|
tie break is working in groups of 3 m friend,I found it on an other site and it is working !
the situation that Dave has described represent 3%
and it won't be realised in every tournament !
it was just a suggestion I understand your disagree
|
| 1 2 Next |
|
|
|
