Posts from Speed and aggression.

Please note that in the 3rd round, players Ihtiandr and VanjaM played against each other and drew. However, before the draw, they both had 2.5 points, along with 3 other players. VanjaM and Ihtiandr cannot play against each other again, as players cannot play against each other twice in the Swiss system.

VanjaM and I played only once, in the 3rd round. Before the game, we both had 2 points, and after the draw, we both had 2.5 points.

VanjaM and I only played once, in the 3rd round. Before the game, we both had 2 points. After the draw, we both had 2.5 points.

I wrote that before, that after 3 rounds, you both have 2.5 points.

I was actually saying that after 3 rounds, you'd both have 2.5.

That's right, we didn't play against him twice.

That's right, we didn't play against him twice.

Well, that's not what I said :D Keep reading...

You seem to have gotten something mixed up.

It’s much simpler: a postponed match is considered a draw until the result is determined, and when selecting an opponent for the next round, this is exactly the number of points taken into account.

Or did all 4 rounds play to the very end?

What led you to that conclusion? I clearly stated that there are two postponed matches from round 4.

I mean, the draw for each new round cannot be done using the Swiss system if there is at least 1 unplayed game in the previous round. I got the impression (possibly false) that the draws for new rounds were done before all pairs in the previous round had played their match.

VanjaM vs LeonidosIk, in the table they have 3 and 2.5 points. This is a postponed game from round 4, but in the table after 4 rounds, VanjaM has 3 points, although he had 2.5 after 3 rounds.

Let me explain the mechanics of postponed matches.
Both players are given 0.5 points (a conditional draw), and the players move on to the next round. The game is marked as postponed.
When it is played, the players are given the REAL result, according to which they move on to the next round.
A postponed match from the previous round must be played before the end of the current round.
For example, two postponed matches from round 3.
The players had 2.5 points each. A postponed match is set, and they are drawn with 3 points for round 4. During round 4, they play the postponed match and the current match.
After the postponed match, they have 3.5 and 2.5 points respectively. One lost.
They play the current match of round 4, and both win.
They end up with 4.5 and 3.5 points respectively, and they go into the draw for round 5 with these REAL points. And it doesn't matter which match the player plays first: the postponed one or the current one. The main thing is that both are played before the end of the current round.
That's why I wrote that technical results will be given for unplayed matches in round 5.
Because it's the penultimate round.
I think after this, you should understand where VanjaM got his 3 points.
And also, postponed matches appeared not because of my whim, but only because I wanted to find a compromise. And they were not set because of the players' laziness, but for personal reasons, as a result of which the player could not play on time.
This is an ABSOLUTELY NORMAL situation in real chess tournaments, so that the draw is not delayed, postponed matches are set.

So, it turns out that he played 1 round, and you already generated 3 without taking this game and these players into account! (I found 2 technical results there, but I didn't find the 3rd)

It turns out that he was removed from the tournament, as were three other players.
Naturally, given the situation, it is clear that it was necessary not to remove from the list of withdrawn players, but to give technical results to those who were affected. Not to set postponed matches, but to set technical results.
But I ALWAYS tried to go to meet the participants.
And if one of them did not agree to a postponed match, then a technical result was set, as, for example, in the match KiNB vs Nolife.
All technical results were set only after long conversations in ICQ.
I did not set any results "on my own".

In general, the post is huge, but the meaning is one: why does VanjaM have 3 points. I hope I explained.
So far, I have only received positive feedback about the tournament in ICQ, and I did not expect to see such outpourings from a leading tournament player.
About your final phrase

In short, put everything in order, and please explain what those murky ponds are in your yard

I can only say one thing.
1) Tone down your commanding tone.
2) I didn't understand the hint about "murky ponds".
Everything is done clearly in accordance with the points scored.
Several players have already written to me in ICQ, and they understand everything perfectly.
And on the forum, HellLighT and Ihtiandr understand everything. :)
Do you suspect me of some kind of manipulation?
I assure you, I have no favorites in the tournament and I treat all participants absolutely "equally".
Are you surprised that you ended up on Gomunguls?
You have the highest number of points, so it's not surprising :)

Gomunguls has been challenging you to a fight for two days now, and you, it turns out, were busy writing an incomprehensible tirade.
There will be NO changes to the draw.
Everything is done absolutely correctly.
So play or you'll get a technical loss :p

I wanted to write a very detailed report about the tournament, but after this post, I no longer have the slightest desire.
Maybe I should have manually created pairs, without using Swiss master 5?
Excuse me. I'm sure there would be even more outrage then.
I repeat, there is no subjectivism in my actions.

In principle, this post is more for the participants of the tournament, we have already talked with you in ICQ.
I am not going to discuss this topic anymore.
I am scared by the size of your posts :)

If there are any more questions, please feel free to contact me in ICQ.

03.04.2012 theShevanesian(red, dungeon, Bron) def dom2(blue, necropolis, Tant) 137 Speed1 (m-u)
I was glad for the same faction, there's quite a bit of money at the respawn - but I still didn't find any external dwellings on all three of "my" resps:( In the end, I placed 12345 in the citadel in both castles, and took both computers on the first. On 121 I take clues for 8 wyverns and run to the treasure zone; there are two more hives there, and I hit a block of an horde of upgraded monks. The opponent didn't seem to be planning to go to the treasure zone yet, so I allowed myself to spend two days upgrading earth magic to advanced and unlearning resurrection from Alamar. After that, the monks can be fought without losses; I take the Pandora's box they were guarding (got 12 efreet sultans), on 127 I grab the devil external dwelling and build both portals. On 132 I go into the Dragon Utopia - they give trash, but in the warrior's grave I get a breastplate for spell power. The opponent finally breaks through his ГО, but I've already eaten everything there - I run to him and finish it on 137. A stronger army and an advantage in stats decide it. Thanks for the game!

03.04.2012 theShevanesian (red, Dungeon, Bronze) def dom2 (blue, Necropolis, Tant) 137 Speed1 (m-u)

We should have had a rematch, thanks for the game.

I tried the speed1-m template, and I liked it. Thanks to the author.

I played the speed1-m template, I liked it, thanks to the author.

I don't want to offend or upset anyone... but it's better to write this to PlayHeroes in ICQ... and there's no need to just clutter up the thread.

04.04.2012 R55Max (red, random, Rampart, Melodia, Shakti) def Gomunguls (blue, random, Tower, Halon, Tyraxor) speed1 m-u, 126.

The spawns gave the opponent dungeon and stronghold, too bad there are no caches, blue got swamp and conflux. At my spawns I have 1 mini Griffin Conservatory and Dwarf Cottage, decent gold, artifact +4 attack, +3 defense, took an empty box on 115 and a couple of rings for +1 health, found peppers at the end of the week, that's probably it. ГО – 20+ Cyclops Kings.

The opponent got a good roll too – plenty of gold, mage and cap cache, Boots of Speed, 3 conservatories, a hive, 2 pandora's boxes, and a fire cache on conflux. ГО – 50+ Royal Griffins and about the same number of Barbarian Hounds.

In short, on 122 I reach Tyraxor who ran out into the center on 121 and he's out of mana in the FB, but there are 5 angels, 58 steel golems, and about 250 caps plus chaff, while I have 40 grand elves, 6 unicorns, 8 wyverns, 1 angel, 15 dwarves, 60 centaurs. We had a good fight there, followed by a retreat, then continuous battles of heroes. 2-4 heroes were lost on the move, bought back, and sent into battle again, exchange of capitals, but Shakti with logistics and peppers has the advantage in purse and stats, moves faster, just wouldn't attack him in the castle, blue's position isn't great. Vitaly didn't drag it into the 3rd week, he conceded.
Thanks for the interesting game.




To Gaudin:
There are generally accepted rules for playing in a Swiss system, and you can explain your personal mechanics to Wikipedia http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Швейцарская_система, where nothing is said about such draws. That mechanic is simply fundamentally incorrect, and you're hiding behind someone else's backs (no offense) instead of delving into the essence and understanding why you can't play a Swiss tournament that way, and then you start getting offended instead of having a normal constructive dialogue laying out all the arguments of the dispute.

I already explained to you in AS that I projected the tournament results and their drawing EXCLUSIVELY from what I read in a fairly reliable encyclopedia, but for some reason you start to insinuate that I supposedly don't understand the rules. So if you had described these additions in the tournament rules or explained them before the tournament started, there would have been no misunderstandings at all, but since it was not specified and no one was warned (you needed to notify everyone on the forum with a post) about it, contradictions with the standard, natural, and normal understanding of the Swiss system are quite reasonable, when NO DRAW is conducted before the end of the last game of the round.


For some reason you're leaning towards the idea that I'm either pressuring you with something unclear, or again accusing you of some deliberate collusion, LOL. :smile52:

That's not the case. Simply by voting against it, I initially understood the complexity of all the undercurrents of this system, and they have now surfaced.

It surprises me that you don't see the difference between what I'm saying and what you're saying. The difference is obvious.

There are also several double elimination systems; if it's written that we're playing double, then we should play by that system, and not by its variants (which also exist in a special program), and there's no excuse like "there's such a button in the program, so it can be used."

All I'm trying to do is explain the downside of this particular nuance, and I didn't invent it; it came from quite intelligent people with vast experience. Here is an excerpt:

In Swiss-system tournaments, artificial (collusive) draws are possible and, in some cases, desirable for players. The ground for them is created when players of roughly equal skill meet, each in a position in the tournament table that satisfies them. In this case, it is disadvantageous for the players to play for a win, because in an intense game the probability of losing is higher, meaning a significant loss of points. Such a situation provokes opponents into an explicit or "tacit" agreement: start the game, play easily without escalation, and agree to a draw on the 20th-30th move, regardless of the current position. As a result, both players get half a point, preserving their positions without unnecessary risk, usually hoping to get points in games against weaker opponents. Naturally, collusive draws are undesirable: they negatively affect the quality of the game, reduce interest in the tournament, and, consequently, the attractiveness of tournaments for sponsors.

So such draws, when they give points to players who haven't even played, even temporarily affect the formation of groups during randomization for the next round, which is why it's incorrect. In a Swiss system, one can simply sit out and advance through weaker players while the stronger ones move ahead by playing earlier. Moreover, I didn't accuse you of doing this, but it's simply wrong. This is the Swiss truth I wanted to convey.

P.S. I don't want you to take it all to heart, just read the text and understand what's what and what's hidden there:D

I don't want to offend anyone... but it's better to write this in a private message to PlayHeroes... and there's no need to just clutter up the thread.

Thank you for your opinion, it's a valuable comment.

I also agree with R55Max's position, which is why I didn't agree to postpone the match with Nolife. Because with postponed games, both players get weaker opponents in the next round, while still having 0.5-1 potential points. Therefore, all games in the Swiss system should end within the allotted time.
P.S. Nevertheless, kudos to the organizer for taking on the task of running the tournament despite his limited experience! The most important thing is that we all enjoy the games, regardless of the final ranking!

To R55Max
I won't respond point by point here. I have absolutely no desire to engage in a "constructive dialogue" with you.
I was perfectly aware of all these pros and cons without your help. I'm not completely stupid; I graduated from university with honors.
You, on the other hand, seem to be just writing your own lengthy posts without reading what's being written in response, and you're reveling in your own verbosity.
I don't want to repeat what I've already written, and I don't have the time.
In short, here's the gist.
Delayed matches were only done to accommodate opponents. I always played my matches on time, and it was easy for me to give technical defeats to those who didn't play.
Instead, I wasted hours negotiating in ICQ, tracking down all interested parties, and finding out why they couldn't play on time. I explained what delayed matches were. I didn't know I also had to report to you. Others didn't seem to have any questions.
Now, of course, I bitterly regret it.
Your quote from ICQ, written offline

so be a king in your own world, and you can ignore the others (those who don't speak the way you like)

made me laugh a lot. What kind of king, when I was trying to please everyone? The phrase is meaningless, without any constructiveness on your part, and it only shows a desire to insult the other person.
I don't know what moral satisfaction this victory, achieved through squabbles and scandals, will bring you.
Even with delayed matches, the top three winners are clearly defined.
And this is clearly visible in the tournament table.
If you've been searching the internet, you've probably come across this phrase:
"Just win all your matches, and then no matter how clever the system is, it won't take your victory away."
Okay, I won't argue anymore.
I don't want to argue anymore. I was warned by knowledgeable people that a scandal in the final of the tournament was inevitable, as in any tournament. I didn't believe it, I was naive.
I am bitterly disappointed and my only desire is for this tournament to end as soon as possible, to post the results, and to leave.
In the month of this tournament, I've seen things I haven't seen in my entire life. Although I've run many tournaments in Diablo.
The willingness to stir up a scandal for a few points, the dismissive attitude towards opponents by avoiding playing. And without any explanation – they just disappear silently.
The most interesting thing is that the most pleasant people and opponents are at the bottom of the tournament table. For them, human interaction through the game comes first. Victory is secondary. And they play to the end, and don't leave when they lose their chances of winning, like some "fathers."
I was preparing a grand speech about the results of the tournament, but I won't do it anymore.
There will now be only four posts from me in this thread. Two reports about the games, the draw for round 6, and the final results.