Forums

I need some help and suggestions in regard to starting a tournament.

I really enjoy tournaments, but they have two inherent problems:

They take too long.
Player drop out like swatted flies.

My idea of addressing the first problem (take too long) is to only play scenarios of modest length (nothing over 18 turns).

This almost always means smaller maps, a modest number of forces and a reasonable expectation that a player can complete a move at one sitting.

Now here is my possibly unique idea for assuring that the tournment doesn't linger beyond a strict limit of two-months per turn:

If a game goes beyond the limit, it will be adjudicated. This happens all the time in chess tournaments. Too keep the games flowing, if a chess games goes beyond the time limit set for it's completion, a panel of judges study the game and determine (given reasonable play) how the game would end. Like our games, the result could be a win for either side or a draw.

These potential adjudications would be performed by a 3 judge panel of non-tournament participants with a demonstrated knowledge of the game. A 5 judge panel might be better, but I'd settle for three. A 3 judge panel with an alternate is also worthy of consideration.

A week before the end of a games time frame, each participant would be notified that unless they report a game result within 7 days, their game(s) will be submitted for adjudication. The judges would then have 5-7 days to make their decision and that result would be final.

The judges can confer if they wish or simply make that decision on their own.

Of course, before any tournament could begin, I would need at least 3 volunteer judges!

This would obviously keep the tournament moving along and playerss not having to wait week or even months for their next pairing.

Dropping out: There are a number of reasons besided life-commitments that modivate a player to drop out.

One of them is getting the crap kicked out of them early because of the scoring system and then having no interest in continuing the contest. I would hope that no one with this potential attitude would join the tournament, but one never knows?

There is an embalance in some tournaments if one randomly draws the matchups. I would suggest a two division tournament wherein the better players are placed in one division and would contest against themselves, while the lower rated players would be in a second division and contest against themselves.

A final round would be played wherein the top rated player in one division played the top rated player in the other division on down the line.

If the scoring was based upon those points awarded by the Blitz for game performance, I believe that there would be many participants still in contention late into the tournament.

Since my intention is to provide "mirrored" games between the two divisions and the scoring system as mentioned above, I would select balanced scenarios as reported on the Blitz site.

I'm sure there are things that I haven't considered and welcome advise from all.

I also would like to see if I have any judge volunteers since I believe they will play a significant factor in the tournament; either as adjudicators or a hanging sword :happy:

I am also interested in finding players that might be interested in such a tournament.

The proposed beginning of this tournament would be Oct. 15 of this year. Anyone interested in joining as a judge or participant should contact me. I will provide a two week notice and require confirmation from you before the tournament begins.

You can contact me directly: [email protected]

Thank you,

Pat

Pat,

I would love to be an Umpire !

Thanx

Toni

Pat,

I like your ideas for a new tourney!

I would join up!

rob

Hi Pat,

I only see two minor flaws. Often, at least in my experience, it's the fault of one player, not both, that a round isn't finished or is gruelingly slow. Therefore, if it went before the judges I would recommend players save their emails or a procedure put in place to follow turn play. If proven one player was inherently slow an additional penalty should be added. Just a thought. It's never happened to me in any of the tourny's I've been in.

The other isn't really a flaw, more of a consideration and that is I, for one, have always liked playing the stronger players. Only way to learn and it's what makes the tournaments challenging. I think a scoring modifier might be an idea worth looking at, rather than segregating players into two groups.

Regardless, any idea for a tournament is a good idea in my book and I'll play with the rules as is or modified.

Dave

Thank you Toni, Dave and Smedley for your interest. You are going on my list of participants and umpires.

Thank you Dave for your insight. The thoughts about one player holding up a game did occur to me, but after I had posted. I agree that saving emails is an excellent idea.

Also, player should use a unique password for this tournament because it may need to be given to the judges if it comes to that.

I certainly do not disagree with your observation in regard to matchups. The idea was to give some of the lower rated players the illusion that they were still in the hunt.

My goal is to provide a tounament that will move along quickly (as tournaments go) and maintain the interest of all concerned.

The cream eventually rises to the top of the mixture, but I'd like to see that happen in the final rounds.

Perhaps a different scoring system might work?

Something like 5 points for a major victory, 4 for a minor, 3 for a draw, 2 for a minor defeat and 1 for a major defeat. If nothing else, it has the illusion of being close. It also has the advantage of scoring each game equally as opposed to getting 32 points for a major victory in one scenario and then 24 points for a major in another scenario.

Any more suggestions are encouraged.

Pat

Addendum:

I suggest that anyone interested in being a judge, might want to contact me directly.

I have no intention of publishing the names of those that become judges.

Pat