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

Guys, please stop arguing. There will be no review of the CIS results anyway. As a judge, I might have interfered, but I don't really care about such things – if two players wanted the same result and I gave it to them, that's fine, and I don't care how it happened (whether they flipped a coin, played poker, or played "bottle"). Each person will decide for themselves whether such a victory deserves respect or not; let's leave the moral aspect to the participants. Perhaps that's why there were no traditional celebrations, like tossing the winner in the air or taking champion photos. There's a term called "Pyrrhic victory," and I think this is exactly that case. Regarding the overall tournament format, I, like the organizers and judges of previous tournaments, have racked my brains over the format, but nothing is better than the current system. We need to find a golden mean so that there is a clear winner, the majority of participants don't get eliminated after the first round, and those with one loss still have a chance to compete for first place. Plus, we need to fit everything within a certain timeframe and still have free time for poker and sightseeing around the city. I'm open to any suggestions that meet these conditions. Of course, if there are exactly 16 participants, it's easy to come up with a system; you can do anything, and it will be good. But what do you do when there are 21 or 23 participants? Then you have free slots, mixed pairs, and a lot of hassle. It's funny to hear about double elimination; I'd be happy to see this system in action, for example, at the famous Volga Championship. For those who are too lazy to delve into history, I can remind you of the amazing Moscow M-200 or the last St. Petersburg tournament.