FAQ. P.S.

The Swiss system is the most optimal option for a large number of participants, especially when it is necessary to eliminate not just three winners, but more. The second point is a consequence of the first – the draw for the next round could only be done after the completion of the round in this version of the Swiss system, which is self-evident. And... now I will mercilessly criticize :) (otherwise, how else – after all, I didn't make it further) :smile01:
There are many different Swiss systems. Which specific version was chosen by the organizer, and what tournament considerations were behind it, is unclear. Why were exactly 7 rounds chosen? After all, if we proceed from the formula for such tournaments

The minimum number of rounds is calculated using the formula: log2 N + log2(k-1), where N is the number of participants, and k is the number of prize-winning places

with N=80, k=7, we get 6.3219+2.5849 = 8.9068
That is, for a more or less fair selection of 7 people, at least 9 rounds should have been played, and as it is, it's like a selection of those who came to "refuel" first. By the way, then there would be an opportunity to correlate the points not earned in random-anarchic matches.
There were no real surprises, as all the templates had been played in other tournaments. And, in fact, in such a tournament, it makes sense to gather under one banner all the more or less popular templates: L, XL, anarchy, blitz, fixed, and indeed some surprising "out of the bag" (or even an unplayed one, or with extremely unusual conditions).
There are other options for Swiss systems. There could even be one where players choose their opponents themselves. The plus is flexible deadlines, the minus is the same deadlines (they can be extended by individual players). There is also the MacMahon system (I haven't studied it in detail, but it exists). You can also fight against draws by awarding 3 points for a win and 1 for a draw – this is very stimulating for players in long tournaments. And it is very bad when a player wins, takes points from someone, and then skips games. In multi-round tournaments, this disrupts the system (in knockout tournaments, this does not affect anything). In this case, you can impose a penalty on the Buchholz score, for example, or cancel the points in the end.
And one more thing. In the last rounds, the standings could have been published more often, and intermediate comments could have been made, so that there would be some intrigue in sight. But as it was, it ended rather weakly and boringly :smile13: