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

Of all the suggestions, there's a bit of... I thought about the regulations and decided to share. The key points, in my opinion: players should be on equal footing (so that the vagaries of the draw don't affect the chance to compete for the main prize), all those who arrive and want to play can participate in the tournament (a strict selection is clearly not for this tournament; the quorum is barely reached each time), there should be a clear final (not based on points, but a specific game that decides who the champion is and who gets the Cobra medal :)). A little bit of lyrics: we clung to the Swiss system as the only option that allows us to stay within the time limit and "levels out" the uneven number of participants, plus it "sort of gives a chance to compete with 1 loss." In fact, a player who loses in the first round has no chance of winning in our format, given the limited number of rounds; they physically won't be able to catch up in points with those who are undefeated. So, let's not be disingenuous and pretend that our shortened Swiss system gives a chance to win with 1 loss; we haven't played it to the end even once (after the results are fixed, there are always players with 1 loss who could formally still play). We can't physically play a double-elimination tournament, and an Olympic-style tournament with an odd number of players looks bad – some sweat from the first round, while others stroll around during the free slots. The dynamics of the tournaments are such that we consistently gather more than 16, but less than 32 people. The main problem is the uneven number of participants; even if we create a beautiful bracket before the tournament through selection, we are not immune to unforeseen circumstances (Stepa's example is still fresh), which will again make it uneven.
Based on all of the above, I came up with the following: at the start, players are divided into 2 groups, each with an even number of participants. This is achieved by the fact that, in the case of an odd number, a judge plays in the first round (this is the only round in which he can play; I think many will support the point about the judge not participating in the tournament). After the first round, we will most likely have an odd number of players with 1 win; here is the key point: we add to each group the number of contenders for the victory to 8 from those who lost. How to do this is an open question: it is possible to have a re-buy, a draw from a bag, heroic contests, or any other bright idea that comes to someone's mind; it doesn't matter. As a result, we have two groups of 8 people, from which, after 2 rounds, exactly 2 people with the maximum number of wins remain (the game is played according to the Swiss system: only those who have the same number of points can play against each other). These 4 people compete in the final part of the tournament; the semi-final draw is random from a bag, and the final and the match for 3-4th place are played. According to this scheme, a player who loses in the 1st round has a real chance to win the tournament; we clearly fit within 5 days, counting one game per day; we have a specific final game that can be broadcast with the involvement of loud commentators and appropriate hype. That's the idea; what do you think?