Post-tournament analysis and discussion of the CIS Tournament Regulations.

Regarding strict time limits – if there had been strict time limits at the CIS 2010-2013 tournaments, about 20-30% of the games would have ended in technical losses. And it wasn't always the players' fault; there were also objective circumstances. Therefore, I made the time limits flexible, based on the current state of the tournament. Because determining the champion based on the criterion of "who doesn't get a technical loss in 4 rounds" seems wrong to me; the fate of the title should be decided in the game. An exception to this principle can only be made for players who deliberately act arrogantly and violate the schedule without a valid reason. The double-elimination format is good because one loss doesn't lead to the loss of a chance for the title. It's bad because it takes a long time to complete. The issue of a non-round number of players is solved by using a flexible bracket – a Swiss system until 2 losses (as in most of my online tournaments), which also saves about 1 round. It is also possible to reduce the time allotted for a game. For example, by removing templates for the most drawn-out games (XL+U and Mini-Nosta) in some rounds. For example, in Odessa-13, after mass delays on XL+U in the 1st round, I reduced the list of templates to Jebus, Diamond, and h3dm1 in the 2nd round, specifically to catch up with the tournament's time frame, and in subsequent rounds, I allowed players to choose from the full list only for those pairs that were scheduled to play. It is also possible to shorten the timer (it seems too long to me now), set a maximum time for the game (with a mandatory final game upon reaching that time), or perhaps in certain rounds (or for certain latecomers) set a special game mode – M-200 or a blitz game on HotA. In other words, there are plenty of methods available; what is needed is the political will to implement them.