Aganju: If you look at his tournament page it shows that he is enrolled in the tournament though. Since he is a brain pawn it means he can't play any more tournaments until that one is over or until he buys a membership.

long

He should PM Fencer about it.

Someone in this tournament ought to message Fencer so that he can deduct 5 brains from the creator's account to start the tourney.

Championship website

coan.net: At first blush it looks like a problem, and maybe it is, I don't know yet, but it is worth pointing out that every single tournament (as of now) is on that very page. There are no tourneys on page 2.

Perhaps the system is designed to make things hard to see "regular" tourneys if there are even more brain tourneys than right now, but there is no evidence right now of that.

For now we just have to scroll much farther to the bottom than usual to see "regular tournaments".

furbster: ...and if you make them too long they never end....

furbster: The only short, or shortish, backgammon that I will play is with a free prize.

I just entered, and I noticed playbunny did too. Good luck folks.

Aganju: I have a possible answer. Does this link count as 1 tournament or a much larger number?

All games; 5 players; fast start.

SL-Mark: I am also puzzled by that. Maybe I am wrong?

He does have a time control that punishes slow players though. It is a red dot time control of 3 days with a bonus of 3 hours per move made, with a limit of 10 days. Woe to anyone who lets his time left roll down to a low number, then moves, then logs out for the night!

SL-Mark: It's not speed, it is BKR. I don't know if he goes by active players or inactive players to determine the top 10% cutoff.

I personally think he should just have a rating cutoff where you can't even sign up if your BKR is too low. That way no one gets booted from the tournament just before it begins.

arpa: The good news (or bad news depending on your perspective) is that all players who will or can advance to the next round are still active players as of this month.

No one will time out because they haven't logged in in a few years....

*edit: There is more good news. All the players who advance will play in a single section, so with any luck there won't be a round 4!!!

JerNYC: Which is more impressive, a player who manages to beat another player who won a lot of games, or a player who beats another player who could only manage to win a small number of games?

Anyway, that is the logic of S-B, for better or for worse. People who lose on tiebreaks tend to be unhappy about it, while people who win on tiebreaks seem happy enough....

furbster: Thanks!

The really amazing thing is that it had 100 players in 15 sections for round 1, and had 3 rounds altogether, and finished in only 3 1/2 months!!!

computeropponen: Aganju's original reply was to a post of mine: Tournaments (happyjuggler0, 2013-09-02 03:52:55)

He gave a clear and concise (and logical) explanation, which I seem to have not thanked him for.

Thanks Aganju!

To computeropponen , I would like to point out that the game was indeed recorded as a draw for rating purposes, but my lower rated opponent advanced in the tournament because of the unintuitive way that the rules were set up.

If you somehow think this is unfair, I refer you to: http://chess.about.com/od/chessvariants/a/Armageddon-Tiebreakers.htm


My game I posted about was Logik, but it could just as easily have been chess as your post gives an example of. If you read my last link, the you should know that in the world of "real" chess matches and tournaments, that tie break odds of a similar sort are used when it is not practical to allow a system of tiebreakers based on original time controls that could very well extend for an insane amount of time,. It is true however that these are not based on FIDE ratings....

In this tournament DeaD Man's GaMeS to StarT Sep 1 , my logik game and another logik game are draws ( a common outcome). This is an elimination tournament but we didn't start a second game to decide the bracket, like I thought we would.

Does this happen all the time, or is it different this time?

Are you rated 1600 or lower (or unrated) in knight fight? Sign up for my tournament then First Friday Knight Fights Low Ratings it only needs one more player and it will start.

DeaD man WalkiN: Thanks. I enjoyed the tournament a lot. In addition to winning a brain rook (!!!), I learned a new game (knight fight) which I like.

awesome: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOKK8mAkiUI

rod03801: I love tournaments. They have the competitive aspect of games, but on steroids.

For that reason tournament organizers are my heroes, and I am grateful for anyone who organizes one.

If you want to know why I won't be playing in this tournament, or any x-gammon tournament, check out the starting date of this one:

The first doubling cube tournament

I won't play in 1 point backgammon tournaments either; there is simply too much luck involved for my taste.

Between the two problems with x-gammon tournaments, I won't play in any x-gammon turn-based tournaments, despite my inherent love of tournaments in general.

My apologies to any gammon tourney organizers for saying so publicly, but I think prospective players in such tournaments should be aware of the inherent problems in them....

Resher: I still don't understand. The rules specified a playoff format for a 2-player section, so I am still confused as to why there is no round 2.

Is it the case that in all BK tournaments that if it is tied (including S-B tiebreaks of course) with one section left, that there is no longer another round? I just assumed that all ties keep progressing to another round until you reach that 2 player playoff or until there is a clear winner, whichever comes first.

hypáč

Ok, I was not involved in this section. However, I stumbled across it because I am in a different game section and I happened to notice that it had two winners.

My question is this: why was there no round 2?

Please note that I am not complaining, since I have no stake in this "fight". I am merely trying to understand what appears to me to be an anomaly in the tournament rules.

Thanks in advance to any who reply.

alilsassy: Maybe there is an end of the month glitch for months that have 31 days?

Just speculating....

Congratulations to novatis, whom I think is probably the best player in his section, despite some very scary players who would vie for that title. If I calculated correctly (and I think I have), then he finishes on top of his group, Section1, even if s3v3n wins all of his remaining games. S-B tiebreaks can be painful....

Additionally, I think (but I am not 100%) that the best player in section 2 will in fact win that group too. Sadly, the person who fits that definition is not me, as much as I would like to think that I might fit that label (I think I'm not even 2nd)....

With any luck round 2 will end soonish, and we can witness a nice brouhaha amongst Pente giants in round 3. :)))