Posts from "Rookie-2009" Auto-translated

Why 3 months? One game takes a week. So, for the games in the group stage, it's 5 weeks, which is a month and a week. For the playoffs, it will take a maximum of a month. In total, that's 2 months, give or take. And if the participants don't drag things out, it will be even faster.

How did you calculate 3 months?

Avern, we should definitely wait for two more players. Then there will be 4 even groups of 6 people, which, in my opinion, will be convenient for everyone, including the organizers:)

Yeah, or wait until a couple of players drop out.
Let me explain my thought in more detail:
we can already do the draw, knowing that it will result in 4 groups, two with 6 players and two with 5, with 6 vacant spots until Sunday. Anyway, two of the strongest will emerge from each, so the small difference in groups doesn't matter much for the novice tournament. But the players will already start getting to know each other, arranging meeting times and even playing.

Just put them in a group with Blacpoint.
I just don't envy those who end up in that group.

I agree to be put in a group with Blacpoint; playing against a strong opponent is more valuable than winning against an equal one.
PS The weather is getting worse.

Statistics show that a week per game is too short. Because of scheduling conflicts and other issues, 5 games in a group will likely take about two months.

Statistics show that a week per game is too short. Because of time discrepancies and so on. 5 games in a group will definitely take about 2 months.

I think a week per game is quite enough; I usually manage to do it. I think we should immediately teach newcomers to be organized, and some of the "veterans" too. Several hours for a tournament game per week can always be found, and if there is an extreme lack of time, then there is no point in signing up for tournaments. IMHO ;)

You know, if you really want to, you can play 5-6 games in just 2 weeks(!) (I myself managed to play 4 games in 2 weeks).
But there are different reasons for a lack of time, and unfortunately, often it's just laziness to find that time...

I agree with Wlk777 regarding "if there's a severe lack of time, then there's no point in signing up for tournaments."

P.S., Wlk777, is "cc" a style?:)

Therefore, when playing as Dungeon, if you go second, maintain parity:

I still play however I want))) because it's annoying when only Tower and Dungeon remain:smile05:

Added 18 minutes later

You need to teach newcomers to follow the rules from the start; you can always find a few hours for a tournament game during the week, and if there's an extreme lack of time, then don't sign up for tournaments. IMHO ;)

I understand everything, but I want to inform the organizers that I have a temporary 'extreme' lack of time; I have state exams:smile11:, so I want to tell the organizers that I will be able to play no earlier than the second half of June... sorry if that causes any problems, but please don't remove me from the tournament:smile12:

I'll join! 229205948

Revan/450-155-053 :o

I'll try it too. 392 513 504 Entomb

Of course, comrade Kash will throw a rotten tomato at me (and possibly with good reason), because he rejected this idea (maybe he didn't fully understand the concept, and I'm not entirely sure how it would play out either...), but I'll express my thought, the idea itself (!), for discussion.
The point is this: a LOSER-WINNER final.
As I understand it, let's say 16 people made it through (let's say 8, the idea doesn't change) from all the groups. 1 game - and they're immediately eliminated, which isn't very good. So, let's give those who were eliminated in the first round a second chance - to play again. This will create 2 subgroups: 1 - those who won 1 game (the lucky ones, hereinafter - "winners"), 2 - those who lost it (the unlucky ones, hereinafter - "losers"). Winners play against winners, losers play against losers. That is, out of 16 people, there are 8 losers and 8 winners. Out of 8 winners, 4 will remain (are they eliminated then? - I'm not sure, I think so), out of 8 losers, 4 will remain (those who are given a chance to play again, up to 2 losses... and 4 of them will lose and be eliminated after the 2nd game). Then 4-2, 4-2.
Semi-finals: a winner's semi-final and a loser's semi-final... and then the winner-loser final (although in reality, he's not really a loser, because he won all the matches except for 1), and a match for 3rd place - the same.
P.S.: I apologize for the abundance of not-so-Russian words "winner" and "loser" and their derivatives; they may be a bit jarring, but I think the point is clear.
P.S.2: yes, this will make the tournament a bit longer (but not by much, since the games in the 2 subgroups will be played in the same week)...
However, I think it will be much more interesting for both novice players (because that's what it's for, in the end) and for the organizers.
Sincerely, gen.

If I remember correctly, a similar system was already implemented and caused many ambiguous situations, let's not repeat those mistakes...

Analyzing controversial situations:
1. Since there are 2 organizers (Kesh and Kostyan), as well as a judging panel in my person, we will resolve controversial situations together...
a) if a controversial situation arises during a tournament game, you can immediately write to the aforementioned guys in ICQ (those who are online, and believe me, someone will be)...
b) I ask you to remain calm and not give in to emotions, because we have a competition, not a bazaar...

2. Technical defeats or technical wins will be awarded only with the unanimous decision of all 3 judges...
a) in case of disagreement, we will involve, so to speak, an expert in such matters...

3. Also, before the start of the tournament, we can agree on some points:
1. Templates...
2. Time limit...
3. Time, when each person can play...

I am waiting for corrections and criticism!!

After reading post #88 several times, I still don't understand what it's about. I dare to suggest that you meant after the group stage, there would be another one? Where subsequently the winner of one group competes for the championship with the winner of the second? In any case, this is irrelevant. Let's read the first message:

During the tournament, the rules, format, and regulations will not change.

If my memory serves me right, a similar system was already implemented and caused a lot of ambiguous situations. Let's not repeat those mistakes...
I'm looking forward to feedback and criticism!

I don't quite understand how such a simple scheme could cause any ambiguity or controversial situations...
After all, everything is crystal clear.

Let's say there are 32 people. Let's assume that 16 people advance from the groups. The first group stage, which we've been discussing, is already a knockout stage. We're only talking about giving a second chance to those 8 players who lose their first game in the first group stage (i.e., they can compete and even reach the final).

What gen described is called a "double elimination" (or rather, the closest analogue). It supposedly offers greater fairness in terms of the balance of power. But it also significantly prolongs the tournament.
Frankly, I don't see a problem with some players being eliminated earlier and others later. First, if you keep adding extra rounds "just for fun" every time, the tournament will go on forever. Second, no one prevents players from playing for fun or for rating later, outside the tournament, if the result is important.

Good morning, everyone.
...
Option 2: We play the same Olympic-style tournament, but instead of the four losers immediately being eliminated, they play their own "mini-Olympic tournament" in parallel.
8 => 4 => 2 => 1
8 => 4 => 2 => 1
The winners play in the final, totaling +1 week.
Pros: This might be more interesting (more fun).
Cons: It takes a week longer; and personally, I don't quite understand the point of the first game, whether you win or lose – you still move on.
...

I don't really understand the diagrams, but based on the description, it should look different. Maybe something like this:

Round 1: 8 games, resulting in 8 winners (hereafter "W") and 8 losers ("L").
Round 2: 8 games, with 4 in each group of W and L, resulting in 4WW, 4WL, 4LW, and 4LL (these are now eliminated).
Round 3: 6 games, WL and LW play against each other, the losers are eliminated, and WW also play against each other. As a result, we get 6 players with one loss (hereafter "L") and 2 with no losses ("W").
Round 4: 4 games, 3 pairs of L play against each other, the losers are eliminated, and the winners go to the losers' semi-final. W play against each other, the winner goes to the main final, and the loser goes to the losers' semi-final, where there are thus 4 players, each with one loss in the tournament.
Round 5: Losers' semi-final, 2 elimination games, the winners go to the losers' final.
Round 6: Losers' final, 1 elimination game, the winner goes to the main final.
Round 7: Main final.

I think if you draw a diagram, it will look much simpler.

The advantage is that there is a chance to correct one mistake, either your own or the generator's, that led to a loss (there is no such chance for a player who reaches the final without a loss, but their path to the final is shorter; in addition, the final can be played to 2 wins).
The disadvantage is 7 rounds instead of 4 in a regular Olympic-style tournament; the super-winner of round 2 sits around waiting for an opponent.