Speed and aggression.

04.04.2012 R55Max (red, random, Rampart, Melodia, Shakti) def Gomunguls (blue, random, Tower, Halon, Tyraxor) speed1 m-u, 126.

The spawns gave the opponent dungeon and stronghold, too bad there are no caches, blue got swamp and conflux. At my spawns I have 1 mini Griffin Conservatory and Dwarf Cottage, decent gold, artifact +4 attack, +3 defense, took an empty box on 115 and a couple of rings for +1 health, found peppers at the end of the week, that's probably it. ГО – 20+ Cyclops Kings.

The opponent got a good roll too – plenty of gold, mage and cap cache, Boots of Speed, 3 conservatories, a hive, 2 pandora's boxes, and a fire cache on conflux. ГО – 50+ Royal Griffins and about the same number of Barbarian Hounds.

In short, on 122 I reach Tyraxor who ran out into the center on 121 and he's out of mana in the FB, but there are 5 angels, 58 steel golems, and about 250 caps plus chaff, while I have 40 grand elves, 6 unicorns, 8 wyverns, 1 angel, 15 dwarves, 60 centaurs. We had a good fight there, followed by a retreat, then continuous battles of heroes. 2-4 heroes were lost on the move, bought back, and sent into battle again, exchange of capitals, but Shakti with logistics and peppers has the advantage in purse and stats, moves faster, just wouldn't attack him in the castle, blue's position isn't great. Vitaly didn't drag it into the 3rd week, he conceded.
Thanks for the interesting game.




To Gaudin:
There are generally accepted rules for playing in a Swiss system, and you can explain your personal mechanics to Wikipedia http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Швейцарская_система, where nothing is said about such draws. That mechanic is simply fundamentally incorrect, and you're hiding behind someone else's backs (no offense) instead of delving into the essence and understanding why you can't play a Swiss tournament that way, and then you start getting offended instead of having a normal constructive dialogue laying out all the arguments of the dispute.

I already explained to you in AS that I projected the tournament results and their drawing EXCLUSIVELY from what I read in a fairly reliable encyclopedia, but for some reason you start to insinuate that I supposedly don't understand the rules. So if you had described these additions in the tournament rules or explained them before the tournament started, there would have been no misunderstandings at all, but since it was not specified and no one was warned (you needed to notify everyone on the forum with a post) about it, contradictions with the standard, natural, and normal understanding of the Swiss system are quite reasonable, when NO DRAW is conducted before the end of the last game of the round.


For some reason you're leaning towards the idea that I'm either pressuring you with something unclear, or again accusing you of some deliberate collusion, LOL. :smile52:

That's not the case. Simply by voting against it, I initially understood the complexity of all the undercurrents of this system, and they have now surfaced.

It surprises me that you don't see the difference between what I'm saying and what you're saying. The difference is obvious.

There are also several double elimination systems; if it's written that we're playing double, then we should play by that system, and not by its variants (which also exist in a special program), and there's no excuse like "there's such a button in the program, so it can be used."

All I'm trying to do is explain the downside of this particular nuance, and I didn't invent it; it came from quite intelligent people with vast experience. Here is an excerpt:

In Swiss-system tournaments, artificial (collusive) draws are possible and, in some cases, desirable for players. The ground for them is created when players of roughly equal skill meet, each in a position in the tournament table that satisfies them. In this case, it is disadvantageous for the players to play for a win, because in an intense game the probability of losing is higher, meaning a significant loss of points. Such a situation provokes opponents into an explicit or "tacit" agreement: start the game, play easily without escalation, and agree to a draw on the 20th-30th move, regardless of the current position. As a result, both players get half a point, preserving their positions without unnecessary risk, usually hoping to get points in games against weaker opponents. Naturally, collusive draws are undesirable: they negatively affect the quality of the game, reduce interest in the tournament, and, consequently, the attractiveness of tournaments for sponsors.

So such draws, when they give points to players who haven't even played, even temporarily affect the formation of groups during randomization for the next round, which is why it's incorrect. In a Swiss system, one can simply sit out and advance through weaker players while the stronger ones move ahead by playing earlier. Moreover, I didn't accuse you of doing this, but it's simply wrong. This is the Swiss truth I wanted to convey.

P.S. I don't want you to take it all to heart, just read the text and understand what's what and what's hidden there:D