Posts from regular "Sergeant" tournament

The goal of the tournament is to provide additional interest for players who actively and regularly participate in the season...

Format - 3 groups of 6 players each; the top 2 players advance, and another 2 third-place finishers with the best results also advance; then comes the quarterfinals, semifinals, and finals (there will be an additional draw after the quarterfinals). In case of a tie in points within a group, we calculate the Berger coefficient.
(The Berger coefficient of a particular participant is calculated as the sum of all the scores of opponents against whom this participant won, plus half the sum of the scores of opponents against whom this participant drew.)

Schedule - 1 game per week, i.e., regularly... We decided not to keep a schedule by rounds within the group so as not to rigidly bind the players. But there should be 1 game per week. The deadlines for the rounds are in the second post...

Rules - everything is simple and straightforward: by default - SoD, 2sm4d(3), ХВ rules.

Reward - Pit will provide a distinctive badge at the end of the tournament. Please play the tournament until the end; it is quite possible that the games will also count towards the tournament ranking...

Penalties - those who deliberately spoil or delay the pace (1 game per week) will face:
a) I will not include them in my tournaments; I will ask other organizers to support me in this.
b) Their case will be considered (believe me, quickly :)) regarding adding them to the "blacklist" of unscrupulous players. Of course, there may be circumstances; the approach will be individual but objective..

Organizers (that is, on-duty personnel, the last resort) - Loy and RedWhite.

Good luck, warriors!

Cherk Algorithm:
1. Add the player numbers.
2. If the sum is even, the player with the lower number starts the Cherk; if it's odd, the player with the higher number starts.
Example: Wlk and Redwait are playing. Looking at the table below, Wlk has number 2, and Redwait has number 3. The sum is: 2+5=5, 5 is an odd number, so what? Right – "the player with the higher number starts," meaning Redwait.

Reports – we'll write them here, and then we'll add them all to the season results.
Round Deadlines (inclusive):

group stage (dates in YYYYMMDD format):
091113-091122
091123-091129
091130-091206
091207-091213
091214-091220
That is, we will summarize the results of the group stage by December 21.

1/4 Finals (091221-091231):

In the 1/4 finals, the player who is listed first starts the Cherk first (like a bonus for the best result in the group stage). Colors change after each subjective (111 and 113) re-tart.

1 - 8 = A Mizrael - Wlk777 1:0
2 - 7 = B Kash - Gomunquls 0:1
3 - 6 = C ~no1_knows_me~ - temofey 0:0 (technical draw)
4 - 5 = D numOne - Javdet 1:0

1/2 Finals (100101-100110):
A - D Mizrael - numOne 1:0
B - C Gomunquls technical win

Final (100111-100121)
Gomunquls - Mizrael 1:0

winner: Gomunquls

Number	Participant	ICQ	1	2	3	4	5	6	Points	Place
1	Javdet	432146477	X	0	0	1	1	1	3	2
2	Wlk777	442018688	1	X	1	0	0	1	3	3-4
3	redwhait	406484472	1	0	X	0	0	0	1	5-6
4	Kash	2628615	0	1	1	X	0	1	3	3-4
5	~no1_knows_me~	387919246	0	1	1	1	X	1	4	1
6	Lanser	565326962	0	0	0	1	0	X	1	5-6

Number	Participant	ICQ	1	2	3	4	5	6	Points	Place
1	Mizrael	27384379	X	1	1	1	1	1	5	1
2	Cyb	345237396	0	X	0.5	1	0	1	2.5	3
3	loi	589481131	0	0.5	X	0	0	1	1.5	4
4	StickyFingaz	465786677	0	0	1	X	0	0	1	5-6
5	numOne	305035002	0	1	1	1	X	1	4	2
6	Psyche_7	391200071	0	0	0	1	0	X	1	5-6

Number	Participant	ICQ	1	2	3	4	5	6	Points	Place
1	Dubrovin Pavel	482071082	X	0	0	1	0	1	2	3-5
2	Gomunquls	499978341	1	X	1	1	1	1	5	1
3	Hermit	462086086	1	0	X	1	0	0	2	3-5
4	AYMAN	580119347	0	0	0	X	1	1	2	3-5
5	temofey	495195531	1	0	1	0	X	1	3	2
6	misantrop	374991397	0	0	1	0	0	X	1	6

I have a few thoughts on this, which I'll outline.

1. As I understand it, this is being proposed as an alternative to the seasonal format.
Because the seasonal format is spread out over time, not everyone likes the ranking system, there are few shows, little motivation, and so on.
But a "regular" tournament is short-term, it runs constantly, it ends and starts again, the motivation is to win, if you don't succeed, you start again from scratch, etc. It looks pretty good. A tournament ranking was discussed somewhere; you could tie the tournament to it. All that's left is to find someone who needs all this. If Valera takes it on himself, he'll create this sandbox, but he's been lazy lately.

2. The system to use depends on the number of participants. For example, what's the point of using a Swiss system for eight people? A round-robin system is better. Although there will probably be more participants... As an option, you could have a fixed number of participants, say 16, and a double-elimination tournament, a kind of sit-and-go – gather 16 people and go.

3. There's no need to reward the winner with an avatar. If the idea takes off, there will be many such winners, which will again devalue the medals. Well, if the organizer wants to offer a symbolic reward... Someone suggested that I organize a commercial tournament, was it Van? There still needs to be some kind of incentive; we need to think about it.

4. I don't like the current format. I would suggest different templates for future tournaments

If such a Grand Prix is planned, the format should be a single-elimination tournament, best-of-one. And without extending the round time. If you can't play, you forfeit and wait for the next Grand Prix.

And without extending the tour deadlines. If you can't play, you lose by default and wait for the next Grand Prix.

Of course. Strict deadlines for each tour and a specific date (week) for the final. People need to be taught to be punctual.

There doesn't seem to be much of a hook in this idea yet. Maybe award the winner once a month – it's realistic to play 4-5 games a month if there are many participants. We could create 2 (3) conferences, for example, based on regions. Anyway, we need to think about it. If I'm accepted, I'll give it a try.

That's an interesting idea: holding one tournament per month and awarding a medal to the best player at the end of the year. But since not everyone can play year-round (due to work, vacation, exams, etc.), perhaps the best player could be determined based on the results of 10 months, with the two worst results being deducted from the 12 months played. However, I think this tournament needs a little something extra to attract players. If it's accepted, I'll participate, but there aren't many tournaments, and I don't have the right mindset for a full season right now.

We could determine something like a "champion of the month" in this way. That is, a tournament lasting 4-5 rounds, and at the end of the month, the results are summarized.

I like the idea of determining the winner at the end of the year, as 4-5 games per month may not clearly identify the winner. Therefore, we can start the "Regular Tournament" in January 2010, with the winner determined at the end of the year.

You can determine the winner once a year, but at the same time, award the yellow jersey to the leader once a month, as in cycling races. Award a bonus for defeating the leader.

I had this idea about regular Tournaments a year ago.

On the 1st of each month, a new Tournament starts, and registration for the next one begins. 12 Tournaments a year. Players who haven't finished previous Tournaments or received technical wins are not eligible for the next one.

Rules - single-elimination bracket. One game.

It's best to alternate the Templates. For example, the Averna Tournament - Sergeant's Balance (December 09). This could be the first in such a series. January - on CM, February - Panic...

One person can't handle everything alone. The Hosts can also alternate - Averna, Loi, Sem, Spirit... There are many active players, so it won't be difficult to coordinate.

Deadlines need to be realistic. Valera, remember your experience hosting Tournaments. Have you ever not extended the deadline, or extended it...? Based on surveys and Tournament experience, 2 weeks per game is better. Games tend to get delayed, and one weekend might not be enough. It's not a problem if 2-3 such Tournaments run in parallel. But the deadlines must be clearly defined after the draw.
If the deadline is 1 week, only those who play a lot and regularly, and are not tied to other Tournaments, will be able to participate. That is, determining the best will again be only among the most active - as in the season.

Prizes can be similar to "Best for Castle" - a userbar for a signature - "Best Player on Balance - Winter 2010." It can be displayed for 3-6 months.

We can organize our own rating based on these Tournaments. I will calculate the Tournament rating when I have some time; it can then be included in the overall rating.

If things go well, we can ask the Creator to create a sub-section for this.

Preliminary list of the "sergeant corps":

1. Javdet 432146477
2. DubrovinPoll 482071082
3. Loi 589481131
4. NumOne 305035002
5. Redwhait 406484472
6 Kash 2628615
7 ~No1_knows_me~ 387919246
8 Wlk777 442018688
I suggest waiting for more people (at least until 8 people) until these weekend, on Saturday we will decide on the roster, I will draw lots, and then we'll start?

In the next Tournaments, those who did not finish the previous Tournaments and received technical defeats will not participate.

I'm in favor.

Based on the survey and tournament experience, it is better to have a 2-week break between games.

What do you think about this? Won't it take too long? Maybe then one game every 10 days?

The rules are: single-elimination tournament. One game.

I'm actually leaning towards a round-robin format, but it depends on what the people say...

On the 1st of each month, the next tournament starts, and registration for the next one begins.

In the future, why not? And let this one be the starting one, number 0...

Deadlines should be realistic. Valera, remember your experience running tournaments. Have you ever not extended the deadline, and then extended it...? Based on surveys and tournament experience, 2 weeks per game is better. After all, games tend to be delayed, and one weekend might not be enough.

2 weeks is for regular tournaments. But here, the focus is on speed from the beginning. And the tournament is for those who play a lot - not just on weekends.

It's not a big deal if 2-3 such tournaments run in parallel.

It ruins the whole idea...

Based on surveys and tournament experience, it's better to have the game last for 2 weeks.

Experience shows that there's no difference between 1 and 2 weeks; those who want to play will manage, while others won't even have enough time in a month. There could be at least two reasons for this: 1. lack of free time, 2. lack of initiative. In both cases, it would be the optimal solution to simply skip it and not bother either themselves, the organizers, or the participants. You'll have a chance to compete in the next tournament.
In general, as practice shows, if there's a desire, even an "unreachable" LeBron can be pulled out of a parallel reality and play the necessary games. But if there's no desire, then debts accumulate for months. This is especially evident in the pairs of our masters.

In short, I'm in favor of 1 game per week.

The rules are: single-elimination match. One game.

I agree.

Valera, sign me up. I'm in for one game a week and the Olympics. 8 people is too few, let's get 16, we don't seem to have a shortage of people. That way, there will be 4 rounds in the Olympics.