FAQ. P.S. — Tournament History

No ratings yet — be the first to rate!

Multiple choice Public votes Closed 2013-07-11

This poll is closed.

Great tournament, it was interesting.

45% 18 votes

The Tournaments mode is good, but it doesn’t suit Overlord & Battlefield.

40% 16 votes

It’s just another tournament; it’s playable.

2.5% 1 vote

I didn’t enjoy the Tournaments, but it was fun.

5% 2 votes

It’s good that there is a new OFB system every year.

12.5% 5 votes

The OFB and FB systems require a stable set of rules.

30% 12 votes

Doesn't matter. I'm ready to play whatever is offered.

0% 0 votes

Statistics

Registered: 4/29/2007 10:30 AM UTC

Posts: 11,704

6/20/2013 4:04 PM UTC #16

Auto-translated

The issue with templates is easily resolved. Simultaneously with the recording, a poll is opened with a large selection of templates, and people vote. The 7 best templates, based on the poll results, are randomly distributed across the rounds. Everyone is satisfied and happy.

Statistics

Registered: 11/23/2007 1:34 PM UTC

Posts: 1,257

6/20/2013 6:45 PM UTC #17

Auto-translated

The Swiss system is the most optimal option for a large number of participants, especially when it is necessary to eliminate not just three winners, but more. The second point is a consequence of the first – the draw for the next round could only be done after the completion of the round in this version of the Swiss system, which is self-evident. And... now I will mercilessly criticize :) (otherwise, how else – after all, I didn't make it further) :smile01:
There are many different Swiss systems. Which specific version was chosen by the organizer, and what tournament considerations were behind it, is unclear. Why were exactly 7 rounds chosen? After all, if we proceed from the formula for such tournaments

The minimum number of rounds is calculated using the formula: log2 N + log2(k-1), where N is the number of participants, and k is the number of prize-winning places

with N=80, k=7, we get 6.3219+2.5849 = 8.9068
That is, for a more or less fair selection of 7 people, at least 9 rounds should have been played, and as it is, it's like a selection of those who came to "refuel" first. By the way, then there would be an opportunity to correlate the points not earned in random-anarchic matches.
There were no real surprises, as all the templates had been played in other tournaments. And, in fact, in such a tournament, it makes sense to gather under one banner all the more or less popular templates: L, XL, anarchy, blitz, fixed, and indeed some surprising "out of the bag" (or even an unplayed one, or with extremely unusual conditions).
There are other options for Swiss systems. There could even be one where players choose their opponents themselves. The plus is flexible deadlines, the minus is the same deadlines (they can be extended by individual players). There is also the MacMahon system (I haven't studied it in detail, but it exists). You can also fight against draws by awarding 3 points for a win and 1 for a draw – this is very stimulating for players in long tournaments. And it is very bad when a player wins, takes points from someone, and then skips games. In multi-round tournaments, this disrupts the system (in knockout tournaments, this does not affect anything). In this case, you can impose a penalty on the Buchholz score, for example, or cancel the points in the end.
And one more thing. In the last rounds, the standings could have been published more often, and intermediate comments could have been made, so that there would be some intrigue in sight. But as it was, it ended rather weakly and boringly :smile13:

Statistics

Registered: 3/14/2009 12:50 PM UTC

Posts: 3,318

6/21/2013 9:54 AM UTC #18

Auto-translated

rebellious is right, I was thinking the same thing. 7 rounds for 80 participants is too little. The extremely tight results prove this – it shouldn't be the case that eight participants are competing for the last 7th place with 5 out of 7 points. And all sorts of draws – the judging was frustrating; if I had participated, I think it would have been the opposite. :)
Also, on the panic-balance, control magic should be banned! It's frustrating to lose because of these flaws.
But overall, thanks to Kostya for his efforts – it was fun, and at times, with unexpected strategies, I even enjoyed it!)

Statistics

Registered: 3/18/2008 7:49 PM UTC

Posts: 3,172

6/21/2013 10:06 AM UTC #19

Auto-translated

1. Swiss system is more of a disadvantage against double elimination. In essence, I don't see any differences between them, except for the incentive. In both, you automatically drop out after 2 losses, but in the Swiss system, there's the problem of "dead souls." And it's much more comfortable to play when you know that you have a little more influence than Buchholz.

2. Regarding the timeframe, it's 900 times.

3. Full P.) The format is cool, but for any other cool tournament, just not for the Fischer Random Chess Championship. It took 3 years to move away from CMs and learn to create templates... And here, it's 3 steps back...

Даже если вас съели - у вас два выхода:smile19:

Зима 2011-12.

In reply to rebellious

Statistics

Registered: 4/29/2007 10:30 AM UTC

Posts: 11,704

6/21/2013 3:09 PM UTC #20

Auto-translated

rebellious

Why were exactly 7 rounds chosen? After all, if we proceed from the formula for such tournaments...

I knew from the beginning that 9 rounds were needed, but I deliberately made it 7, because firstly, we don't have an extra month, and secondly, people wouldn't last 9 rounds. Looking at the reports, it is clear that there are fewer and fewer of them; people are simply losing interest in the tournament. Maybe I'm wrong, but I made that decision.

Added 3 minutes ago

KobRa_RR

and all sorts of draws and awards are annoying,

Well, I'm sorry, but I couldn't find any other way to make people play.

KobRa_RR

Also, control magic should be banned in the panic balance! It's frustrating to lose due to shortcomings.

Well, that's actually debatable. Some people would ban necromancy on these templates as well.

By the way, if anyone has any ideas regarding OFB-8, please share them.

In reply to Dirty_Player

Statistics

Registered: 11/23/2007 1:34 PM UTC

Posts: 1,257

6/21/2013 3:50 PM UTC #21

Auto-translated

Dirty_Player

I knew from the beginning that 9 rounds were needed, but I deliberately made it 7, because firstly, we don't have an extra month, and secondly, people wouldn't last through 9 rounds. Looking at the reports, it's clear that there are fewer and fewer participants; people are simply losing interest in the tournament. I may be wrong, but I made that decision.

When you say "us," who are you referring to? Where does this come from? And why "month"? The rounds lasted a week each, and it was quite active. People lose interest due to the lack of tournament prospects, and this part naturally drops out. Other tournaments stretch for half a year or more, and after each round, half the people leave, but here, just two extra weeks are already a problem. In addition, you need to consider the time of year on the calendar...

Statistics

Registered: 4/28/2012 1:30 PM UTC

Posts: 3,670

6/21/2013 4:06 PM UTC #22

Auto-translated

1) Swiss system – doesn't matter, it even has a certain appeal! 2) Strict deadlines, and as a result, awarding of unfinished matches. This is normal when the deadlines are justified. 3) Surprises in each round in the form of templates and rules. Generally, it's bad. 4) Calculation of results – I don't accept either accountants or draws; in my opinion, the tournament should have been strictly limited to an even number of players, and there should be a win or a loss. I immediately said that giving draws was a waste of time, etc.

лето 2012.

Statistics

Registered: 11/11/2009 7:59 PM UTC

Posts: 2,985

6/21/2013 4:31 PM UTC #23

Auto-translated

You could simply reduce the number of qualifying spots in the selection process, which would also reduce the number of rounds. And for Fortress, you could organize more tournaments, with the winners receiving the remaining tickets. However, you would need to find a way to resolve any conflicts.

Statistics

Registered: 12/23/2011 8:08 AM UTC

Posts: 2,462

6/21/2013 7:27 PM UTC #24

Auto-translated

It should be noted that if we remove those who voted for "Excellent tournament, it was interesting" and who also participated in the round, we will be left with those who benefit from chaos and instability in the selection of templates and rules for the game. I think this speaks for itself. All the points are clear, but I would like to add something about strict deadlines and the awarding of results... simply 5 out of 5. I haven't seen such excellent performance in any tournament in the last 2 years, largely thanks to the judges' review of the games and the understanding that they won't wait for you... I think it should be implemented everywhere (at least until the final stages of the tournaments). We're tired of all sorts of latecomers... some of them are chronically late.

Statistics

Registered: 11/25/2007 3:52 PM UTC

Posts: 1,499

6/21/2013 8:50 PM UTC #25

Auto-translated

I'm waiting for a new "wlk777" to win, just like in the first season. Damn, this is already the umpteenth FB, and I still can't call it the most prestigious, the most interesting, the most-most tournament of HvM. I hoped that since Dirty took over, the situation would change, but on the contrary, things have gone completely downhill. In FB-7, the weakest selection of participants in the entire history of the final battles: out of 10 participants, only 4 are top players, and 2 of them are from the previous FB. What a mess (c).

In reply to StickyFingaz

Statistics

Registered: 11/27/2007 1:22 PM UTC

Posts: 5,092

6/21/2013 9:22 PM UTC #26

Auto-translated

StickyFingaz

Out of 10 participants, only 4 are top players.

Who is the 4th one? :confused:

In reply to Wicc

Statistics

Registered: 10/16/2007 6:22 AM UTC

Posts: 3,358

6/21/2013 9:35 PM UTC #27

Auto-translated

Wicc

Who is number 4? :confused:

Looks like Wicc likes to troll :D

Сейчас балуюсь этим https://vcmi.eu/download/
За то что нейтралы не бегают за единичкой, для меня это уже стоит того

Statistics

Registered: 11/25/2007 3:52 PM UTC

Posts: 1,499

6/21/2013 9:58 PM UTC #28

Auto-translated

well, of course, this is just my opinion. someone might say that all 10 are the strongest at the moment, and someone might add that it was the innovative rules that allowed us to identify the best of the best :yao:

Statistics

Registered: 6/7/2007 3:41 AM UTC

Posts: 1,523

6/22/2013 3:09 AM UTC #29

Auto-translated

the balance of power in the hero rankings has changed significantly over the past 2 years due to regular tournaments and streams; only Alex has consistently maintained his TOP1 position, while everyone else has shifted and moved around considerably, so the current lineup is quite accurate; you're wrong to criticize it.

"Это нам идеально подходит!" [Новосибирск, 2013]
"Красавчик! Если только не читер.." [Киев, 2014]
"Это Вам не шутки - нажрался Dust в маршрутке" [Новокузнецк, 2015]
Сам ты фиш (с) :D

Statistics

Registered: 8/31/2010 9:39 AM UTC

Posts: 1,932

6/22/2013 5:36 AM UTC #30

Auto-translated

In other words, you believe that FIDE uses an unfair system in chess tournaments at all levels?

And if we consider the opposite, is it the fairest of all possible systems? It's just that this system was first applied in a chess tournament in Zurich, and it got its name there, so it stuck.

I don't remember seeing any Olympic sports using the Swiss system to determine the winner. In tennis, they could easily hold tournaments using the Swiss system (there are many players), but they don't.

Its pros and cons are well described on Wikipedia; what one considers more important is another matter. In this case, I think the knockout system wins because there aren't too many players, and until the very last defeat, everything depends only on your own games, regardless of how other pairs play.

Added after 1 hour 51 minutes

Message from HeLlight:
haven't seen such excellent performance in any tournament for 2 years

Strict deadlines were introduced earlier at the start of the playoffs here, and the performance became perfect. Here also shows excellent performance :)

largely due to judging game disputes and understanding that you won't be waited for... I think it should be implemented everywhere (at least before the final stages of tournaments); I'm tired of all sorts of latecomers... some people have this chronically.

When I introduced strict deadlines in the "One for All and All for One" tournament, I received a lot of dissatisfaction and misunderstanding about this both in private messages and otherwise. It is pleasant to observe (judging by the responses in the survey) that most now assess the advantages and see their necessity in tournaments after a short time.

МУДРЫЙ - не обязательно старый, ОПЫТНЫЙ - не обязательно мудрый... обладатель и того и другого всегда должен помнить слова НАПОЛЕОНА БОНАПАРТА: Война состоит из непредусмотренных событий; В каждом большом деле всегда приходится какую-то часть оставить на долю :smile33: СЛУЧАЯ...