How about putting WINNER in red alongside the tournament and, say, FINALS in red? then we can gloat a bit.
Also, how avbout telling us all when someone has won a tournament (again, might boost your Brain Knight + membership).

Having the tournaments a 2 game match (one of each color) would be a great improvment (for most of the games) - possible have it the choice of whoever makes the tournament.

Heck - I have recently joined 3 spider stack4 tournaments where I play the same higher ranked player. In all 3 games, I'm stuck with the color black (which usually has a disadvantage) - so unless I get lucky - all three of those tournaments will be out of my reach... :-(

But it is planned - so that will be good! :-)

sundance: I will fix it.
rabbitoid: Yes, it is planned. Later.

Fencer: to resolve the problem of unfairness due to color, why not make tournament games 2-game matches, instead of simple games? this way nothing else needs to be changed.
or maybe permit the tournament organizer to pick the game format as well as the timespan?

Fencer: Why is "Spider Line4 Fast Weekend Tournament" still listed as a "running tournament", even though it is completed?
Should I, as the one who started the tournament, have done something after it was completed?

thanx

1) Sure. I will improve the messages.
2) Your Spider Line4 tournament contains only one section. The second round is available only if two or more sections were created.

first when we get notification when a round in one of our tourneys is complete...can it tell us (when applicable) that a second round is ready? or 3rd etc...i was erasing these msgs and didnt know i needed to start some second rounds...second question in my first tourney the eddie sfast one with all the games i limited it to only 8 players each game...in one game in there the spiderline 4 there is a 3 way tie for first place...one player asked me to start the second round but nothing comes up for me to start a second round..was that because i limited the amount who played?..

only 2 spots remain open... hurry and claim your spot today b4 its too late... lol :-)

Heyyyy, we got a 'my tournaments'!! Nice one Fencer, that will make life loads easier! :o))

The second prize tourney has been posted for 4iar on the tournament board, so if you are a pawn and would like a chance to win a 6 mo. knight membership, please sign up.. must have a rating of 1500 or less though!! Good Luck!

Hannelore.. i signed up for your 5-in-a-line tourny, even tho i'm on the 5-in-a-line for a different fellowship.. so i think you are correct.

There seems to be some confusion about fellowship tournaments. I have a lot of Chess players in my fellowship, but not many on my team. I understand that since many are on teams in different fellowships. I am sponsoring a "Fellowship Tournament" in several different chess types, and some players seem to think they can not join the T because they are on other teams. I believe this is a misunderstanding on their part. My understanding is that anyone in the fellowship can join this Tournament and it has nothing to do with teams. Please correct me if I am wrong.

hey, im looking for a game of reversi. it's my first time at this site, and i've never played here...of course...so, if u can...plz invite

only 6 slots remain... 10 spots filled...

its open for everyone... hurry and sign up today! :-)

I created new 3-checks chess tournament. It's open for everyone. Start time is 10th March 2003, 10,00 AM. Join and enjoy it!

Thanks Fencer

ellieoop: It will be added soon.

7 have signed up... only 9 slots remain open... hurry b4 ya miss out on your chance :-)

i was wondering if there's a way to remove the tournaments that you've finished, from your profile page.

Is open to the first 16 players... Sign up now and try to be the Ultimate Survivor!

I have created my second Spider Line4 tournament. You will be able to sign up until the end of Febryary. 3 day time limit. Good luck to everyone :-)

Sorry if players tried to sign up for this tourny. It's up again,and anyone can enter.

rabbit's blitz tournament available, with a timeout of one day.
this is well suited to people who have limited tournament participation: not to get stuck in rounds which never end
need some more signups to make it interresting.

Tournament started! A week to sign up, have fun!

I love the new game. How can we get some tournaments started with that game?

Atomic chess probably has an advantage for white. I prefer the swiss system with 2 game matches myself.

Hmm...there's actually a few games where colour is a big difference! Horde Chess is a big white advantage, Maharajah is a big black advantage, Tablut seems to be a white advantage, and Spider Line4 is a relatively small white advantage. (that's all i can think of right now).

However, Fencer did mention implementing more tournament formats later. Be patient...he has a lot to do :-)

I personally would like to see the old fashioned double elimination style tournament tried here. One-on-One, with random draws. With all the matches being played at once i would think it would shorten the length of a tournament significantly. With 5-in-Line being the only game here (far as i know) where the draw of color can be an advantage, youd have to make it a race to 3 match or something like that. All other games could be one game matches. Win, and move on, lose and go to the losers bracket for a second chance.

That's ok if you don't agree with me...everyone can have their opinions. But we can argue and argue here all we want and neither of us get anywhere, so i'm not going to argue about this any more - i have voiced my opinion, and will leave it at that :-)
We will see what Fencer decides (and i image a very difficult decision!)

Kevin: Sorry I don't agree but have to say this.
I think its wise to look towards the sites with the most success and emulate their good points, especially for a new site with quite a bit of competition out there for membership money.
The most successful tournament systems I have seen is Cases leagues (which offers a variety of formats and is used by most of the online gaming sites for all games) and IYT neither of them use S-B, both have over 1,000,000 members.
If players don't like something then they won't support it in the long term. And it is finding what makes people the happiest which brings in the money. :-)

I'm not saying it would give anyone an advantage, just maybe not a true S-B.
I'm quite happy to agree to disagree! We have different opinions, no big deal :o)

hrlqns: Ok. Assuming those 2 players timed out in every game, that would leave each and every one of the other remaining 5 players with 4 games to make up the S-B. Each player still has the 4 games. No one has more games then others to get more S-B. Those 2 games that were timed out will award the 5 remaining players with a grand total of 0 S-B. No advantage to anyone.

Also, that is what i said - they would complain now, but if it was originally introduced with 2 games against each opponent, i doubt many of them would complain then. Besides, it isn't a right to be able to play in tournaments for free. The pawns get a lot for free, why do they need more? :-)

If you don't agree with me about the S-B (which you quite obviously don't) that's fine. We are not the ones to make the final decision anyways. I think we have both argued our point, and i will let Fencer decide for himself.

dream: Yes, i have only seen it at one other site, which is littlegolem, so people are not used to it. Even if tournaments never go passed the 3rd round for a while (and i'm sure they will eventually with more people at this site), that doesn't make it just to advance everyone who has won the same number of games, especially with time-outs (if a player doesn't time out against everyone). I am not saying tournaments will not work without S-B, but i'm saying the winner will more often be deserved this way.

I have never struck SB before, when playing tournaments on other sites. I can see how it will upset people (and perhaps already has) With the current tournament format the rounds will rarely go beyond 3. I would prefer to see players with equal points go into the next round, ir makes for more competition that way. In other tournament formats the SB would be totally uncalled for anyway, not needed in single or double elimination or swiss, and IYT has run round robins very successfully without it. This current format is one I have never seen, I am not sure if it is common in other game types ie: chess, perhaps this will sort itself out when Fencer introduces new tournament types and players can choose their preference?

Well, if theres 7 players in one section, and two of those timed out on every game, that would leave 5 players.
So you would only have 4 opponents to make up your S-B.
Its similar to the ratings in that the more games you play the more accurate your rating. So it follows that the more people you have as opponents, the more accurate your S-B.
I think people would complain if they suddenly needed 14 empty slots to enter a tournament instead of 7!! Pawns are limited to 20 slots so they would have to have only 6 normal games going to enter a tournament.
There must be another option.

If there were the same number of players in the section, pawns and knights would need twice as many open game slots to join the tournament. But think of it this way - what if Fencer introduced tournaments with 2 games against each opponent? People wouldn't complain, even though they would now if it was changed to that. Besides, Fencer said he was going to introduce more formats for tournaments later. I'm not sure how high on his TODO list it is though :-)

Actually, if a player times out in every game in the tournament, every player will get a total of 0 S-B from that player. I would say that's fair :-)
What do you mean it will affect the chances of it working fairly?

And if 2 games were started at the same time for every opponent, that would give everyone double the amount of games to play. How would that work for pawns with a limited amount of slots for games?
I do agree, some games could do with one of each colour being played to make it fair because of the differences in each colour. I just dont see how it could work for players with limited game slots.

Well theres a few tournaments where the player has obviously not returned to the site, and timed out on every game. Therefore nobody gets S-B points from them. Which significantly affects the chances of it working fairly to decide who goes to the next round.

hrlqns: Not if both games started at the same time, like it is done at IYT.
Kevin: I totally agree: if 2 games, one of each colour, were played it would be fair and S-B points would also be OK.

No, they would not last much longer. If you played one game and then the other when the first one finished, then it would last twice as long. But if they were both started at the same time, they would finish at relatively the same time as well :-)

If you played 2 games against each opponent the tourneys would last twice as long!

sundance: The only way to solve that would be to play 2 games against each opponent, which i would agree with. Even if S-B was eliminated, if they beat you playing first, there's nothing you can do to stop them from winning all their games and winning the section alone.

hrlqns: You're right - no system is perfect. However, in games like backgammon where there is the luck factor, you have a chance of beating anyone, unlike say chess where i'll never beat the top rated players. In fact, the game of backgammon is a lot luck, so everyone who goes to the next round in a backgammon tournament will have some luck. Also, they cannot have a high S-B without winning games. Maybe those games have been won by time-outs, but that's how it works on sites like this. Yes, you're right it's random - you don't choose who you play against. Several times at IYT i have been put in a section with very good players and several times i have been put in sections with quite weak players. But what does that have to do with S-B exactly? :-) And why do you assume players who go on to the next round by time-outs will not go on and win the tournament? :-)

Kevin, I thought that at first, but then changed my mind. If you look at tournaments theres not many where there are drawn points, and rarely more than two people with the same amount of points. Of course there are a few occasions where there are three people with the same amount of points. But then again there are three people in one tourney with the same S-B! So I really dont think that matters.
What does matter is that people are penalised by the performance of people they win against.
In games like backgammon especially, that really isn't right because a normally good player can have bad dice. No back/nack gammon player has won ALL their games through skill. A certain amount of luck of the dice is involved too.
If you win five games in one section, along with one or two other players then that should be the end of it, you go through to the next round along with the other players.
If you've won those five games against poor players or by timeouts then you'll soon be ousted in the next round.
But the sets are random, you get to play against high rated players, and low rated. You dont get a choice who you play. Someone with a high S-B could have achieved that by luck, and is unfairly going through to the next round leaving behind a better player maybe. No system is perfect, and its very disappointing to win most of your games, the same amount as another person, only to be dropped from the tourney because of a S-B! Especially when theres only one or two S-B points between you and the other player.

Kevin: Even if they beat you in a game in which the player making the first move always wins if he doesn`t make a mistake?

How is it unfair? Even though it is just one game against each person, if they beat you they deserve to go on to the next round over you. And if all ties simply by wins were moved to the next round, tournaments in general would last much longer, as more players would go to later rounds. I think the S-B should stay - moving on to the next round should not be based on how many games you win, but also who you win against.

I will think it over.

I agree with Sundance about the S-B being a bit unfair. In the First Official BK tournament, 10 x 10 reversi, both myself and Stromovous have won 5 games each. Yet he will go through to the next round without me because his S-B will work out higher than mine. Would it be so bad to drop the S-B? The later rounds will soon filter out those who may be there more by luck than skill, and it seem much fairer to go through on points (how many games you've won) than by the S-B system.

Yes, that would be right IF both players had an equal chance of winning the game. At least in 5-in-line this S-B system only makes an already very unfair system even worse.
As I mentioned earlier, with optimal play the one making the first move should always win in 5-in-line. Now if there are 2 very good players in the section, the one getting to play white against the other already has a really HUGE advantage. If we add S-B points we have a situation in which the other player cannot even compensate his bad luck of having to play black by winning all the other games even if the other good player lost one game against a lesser player.
And of course this 15x15 board (which is the best size, don`t get me wrong about that) compared to IYT`s 13x13 makes the white`s advantage even bigger.
So in this tournament system even the best player needs luck to win a section. For example, I`m not THE best 5-in-line player in the world, but I`d really like my chances against a world champion in a BrainKing 5-in-line tournament. That is, if I got lucky and got white in my game against him.

If the only game you win is against a player who wins 4 games in the section, your S-B will be 4. But if you also beat someone who wins 2 games in the section, your S-B will now be 6. It is kind of like a more accurate determination of the winner - if 2 players get the same number of wins, but one beats the other, that person should be the winner. This takes that into account :-)