You are probably right that quite a few people's main reason for being here is the tournaments - my problem was that it sounded like you were assuming that was the #1 reason for everyone.

But the thing is we can argue about this all we want and all we can really do is give our opinion so Fencer can better make a decision. And I think we have all given our opinion. :-)

Yes, things like that certainly could happen. But that would only happen if a player views tournaments as the only reason they are staying - because they left due to not being able to join another tournament. That could be i guess, but since they can only join one at a time (and i'm assuming it would this player's first tournament) why would they leave just because they cannot join another tournament? None of this affected me because i was a rook before tournaments or fellowships got introduced, so i guess i don't really know - maybe you would have a better idea than me.

BBW: If it will remove the person from the tournament, and even if they win they will actually not, it will not really be necessary to wait until all the games are finished (even though later in your post you said "The person and his games would still "be there" and count" which kind of contradicts your 2nd sentence) ;-)

Why would you need more than one tournament to figure out? And even so, pawns can join more than one tournament - just not at a time. If they are worried about it taking a long time, they always have the choice to join one of the small tournaments (4 player max, for example). But that's kind of beside the point.

BBW: Yes, it would likely also be able to determine when a player is eliminated (cannot possibly move on). But you said:

"And yes, when I say "quit" a tournament - not really quit, but let a player deterime for themselfs that they "can not win the section to move on" and then let them joing their next tournament."

So you mean I could go into one of my tournaments and "remove" myself from this tournament (decide i cannot possibly win)? I'm assuming any remaining games i have would remain in progress. But then what if i did happen to win the tournament? Wouldn't that create a problem?

And about your comment that tournaments can last 6 months - they sure can! But like I've said before - having the ability to join tournaments is a privelege for everyone on the site, especially pawns. I definately agree that pawns should be allowed to try out the tournaments. And that's what they are allowed to do - try them out! You don't need to join very many tournaments (one should be plenty) to realize what they are like: goal accomplished. If they want to join another tournament before theirs finishes, they can purchase a membership or simply not join another tournament.

TTjazzberry kind of mentioned this at the end of his post - I think making the pawns wait for the section to finish is a good idea. If they don't want to wait for it to finish, they can become a member and join all the tournaments they want. And I don't think letting people "quit" tournaments is a good idea! If you mean only when they have finished all their games and can't move on, then maybe. Except there is one itty bitty problem with that - Fencer told me he will eventually implement a system where the tournament section winner could be determined early if possible, except this is not done yet. Therefore, it is unknown to the server when a player has no chance to move on.

I certainly agree with TTJazzberry in the sense that pawns should get good service to get them to pay. And I certainly agree with Dmitri in the sense that they are already getting plenty! I see it definately as a priveledge to join tournaments at all - and some of them (not recently that i've read, however) are complaining and want more. Fencer chose to allow them to play in tournaments to see what they're like, and they should be happy, not complaining.

lol what about those of us not from USA or UK? :-)

You can if you haven't already joined a tournament (being a non-paying member). Click on the "tournaments" link on the left. A list of all the tournaments will come up. Click on the tournament you would like to join. A list of available games in that particular tournament will come up (there could only be one). Click on the game type you would like to play. If you are eligible to join (rating, membership, number of players join already, etc) then a link will appear above the list of already participating players saying something to the effect "Sign me up for this tournament." Then, when it starts, as long as you have enough open spots for the games, the games will automatically appear on your main page :-)

Just a reminder, you have about 2 days left to sign up for my 4th Spider Line4 tournament. It will start as close to May 1st as I can :-)

BLUE STEEL: Even when the date passes, the tournament won't start until the creator starts it. They don't start automatically.

Right now, there will not be a new round if the previous round had only one section. Like in that example, round 2 had only one section, so there will be no round 3, ties or not.

I have created my 4th tournament. 2 games per 2 players, 5 days per move. Everyone is welcome to join. Good luck to everyone :-)

I need one more player to sign up for the Anti Line4 tourmament in my Line4 and variants tournament. Then i will start it.

Just a reminder - you have about five days left to join my third Spider Line4 tournament, and about a week and 5 days to join my Line4 and Variants tournament. Anyone can join.

Good luck to everyone who joins :-)

Yep, it does look like it works. I didn't try it, but i wonder what would happen if you selected say Line4 as the game for the tournament, and also checked the Line4 box at the bottom. Would it make 2? :-)

I have created my first Line4 and Variants tournament. 5 days per move, open to everyone. Sign ups will be until April 7th. Good luck everyone :-)

Ok, but even then...probably about 90% of them are obvious as to what game it is. And even if that box a convenient thing to have (which it certainly would be), it would be simply that: a convenience. Not a necessity. But it doesn't really matter. I would assume Fencer will do something like that when he gets time. Just be patient :-)

I agree that a box like that would be a good feature, but right now there are 32 tournaments to sign up for: 30 of them make the game clear just from the name, and the other 2 you could probably guess. Or if not, it's one page to load to find out. When there are hundreds of tournaments to sign up for, absolutely, you shouldn't have to look through them all. But right now, it's not a big deal.

True, there are a lot of new tournaments. However, more or less all of them tell you what the game is right in the name, or have a generic name if they contain all games. Personally, i don't think there are enough tournaments to have a seperate list for each game, although i wouldn't be against having a list box at the top that allows you to select "All" or a specific game type, to show all tournaments or just tournaments that have a certain game in it.

Brain pawns play for free. They don't pay anything and get a lot for free. I think they're lucky to even get to join one tournament, IMO. If you would like to join more than one tournament, by all means, upgrade your membership :-)

I have created my third Spider Line4 Tournament. Open to everyone and anyone who wants to play. It will start at the beginning of April. Good luck to everyone who enters :-)

Hi Gary :-)

As you have probably read, many people seem to agree with you that 2-games against each opponent would be better. Fencer said he would implement that later (don't think he gave a timeline).

And just to clear up the Five in Line, it was originally 20x20, but now all new games started are on the 15x15 board - only games started before this change are 20x20.

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 :-)

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 :-)

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!)

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.

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?

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 :-)

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? :-)

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.

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 :-)

dream: I would assume you have to provide it for the winner! Otherwise, what if even someone made a tournament, their friend made 4 accounts, signed up all 4, and won a membership with the one they wanted! All at no cost to anyone! lol :-)

Ian: I'm pretty sure Fencer just needs their ID, which is found on their profile to apply the membership :-)

If, for example, all the Spider-Line4 sections are complete in eddie's fast tourney 1, can it not progress to round 2 until all the sections in all the games are complete? Thanks!

i had the same problem...all i could come up with was that the time you enter is GMT, and it converts that to your local time.

Just a reminder, your time is running out to sign up for my first tournament! It will start on February 1st.

Does that mean there should be no quotes in any of the tournament names?

And what about having the ability to select exactly what levels may join a tournament, instead of just a minimum (similar to the way you can do when sending out an open invite). That way for the prize tournaments, for example, it can be restricted to just pawns.

No, i think it is good this way. Just checking :-)

If there is a tournament with a rating restriction, and you are currently above the lower limit, but by the time it starts your rating is below the lower limit. Will you still be able to play? (same applies for upper limit)
Thanks!

I have created a new tournament for all people interested. Please go to the tournament page and sign up if you like! :-) Good luck to all who sign up! It will start at the beginning of February.

As long as you remain a knight you will still have a limit of 50 games at a time. The extra month is simply that...you will get 13 months if you pay for 12, or 7 months if you pay for 6 :-)

I think i read something about a limit and "20" on the Czech board...so i'm guessing it was a question asking if the pawn's 20 game limit applies to tournament games too. The problem is i do not understand czech, so i could not pick out the answer. I'm just curious, but do the tournament games count towards the pawn and knight game limit? Thanks!