Ever since the "update", they've been all sorts of messed up! Just wondering why no one has posted on this.

coan.net: I use a Gateway with Windows Vista. Is it possible this could be part of the problem? I see that other tournaments are set up with max values other than 20, but I used to be able to set it before there were changes made here that increased the max value to more than 8.

coan.net: Well, that's what I thought too, but it isn't working. I set up a tournament and entered 7 for the max value, but when I created it, it showed 20; so I edited it, and got a message that an administrator would have to approve it. Several hours went by, and it wasn't changed, so I edited it again. That was a few days ago, and it is still 20!!?

Frustratin', man!!!!!

Why can't this:

"Maximum number of players per section"

be set (or edited) to less than 20?

srnity: thank you!!!

Tournaments(discuss)
Creator: Universal EyesA WHAM BAMS (ALL GAMES)
Join and have fun!!

Your friends,

Mike and Angelina :0)
Back to the list of tournaments

Match type: Normal game
Tournament type (?): one game for each two players
Membership level:
Minimum number of players: 5
Maximum number of players: 4

Just checked the winners chart, MIHEL now has 999 titles, and should get the very next today or soon thereafter. HATS OFF to him as he prepares to cross this coveted threshold!

Fencer:

"the ideal form of the last rounds should be 1-4 3-2 or 1-8 5-4 3-6 7-2."

This is from the notes blog, and has been in practice from quite some time, but I have never thought it made any sense. You can have the top players meet in the final round (in theory), but why should the second-highest rated player get the bottom slot? Rather, it could be:

1-3 2-4 or 1-4 2-3 for 4 players, and
1-5 3-7 2-6 4-8,

which would still permit the top two seeds to meet in the "finale"

Eriisa: Thank you, Sally, and thanks for any previous like mentions you may have made.
:))

(I read this board very infrequently.)

READMYPROFILE:): Yes, an amazing feat!!!! Hats off to arpa

and, nice artwork

tonyh: Quite true, arrangements would not be easy by any means. But Filip has the aptitude for this, as he has proven many times heretofore. At issue is whether he wants to expand the methods of tournament creation, or (to be more direct) whether he can be persuaded that he wants to by us! The only way that will happen is if enough members request it.

The single elimination tournaments are tilted in favor of the highest rated player. In the new types of tournaments we've discussed, that player might still win, but it would require more effort and exacting play, and the chances among all the entrants would be more balanced.

I also think that the restriction limiting pawns to one tournament should be lifted. It doesn't induce membership and, as to the databases, I don't see the difference between storing 20 tournament games as opposed to 20 casual games, or some combination thereof.

Some things to ponder .....

tonyh: Swiss is a good basis; after all, it is the most widely used in OTB tournaments. From that system, many interesting formats could be created.

joshi tm: Interesting! If only we could test these theories
:))

What follows received NO RESPONSE on the 'features' board, so let's try it here:

I'd like to investigate the possibility of establishing "double elimination" tournaments. Eight entrants may be optimal, although any of the multiples available for single elimination would suffice.

Here is a proposal. Each player would start with two game points. Following each round, points are DEDUCTED for results as follows:
WIN -- No points
DRAW -- one-half point
LOSS -- one full point

Players would be eliminated whenever their point total drops to zero. Therefore, each entrant will play in at least the first two rounds.

In the first round, players would be paired normally according to ratings. In the second round, winners play winners and losers play losers, etc. and in successive rounds players are paired against others with point totals equal or within a half-point of theirs, as closely as possible. Also, to balance the opportunity, each player should have roughly the same amount of Blacks as Whites over the course of the tournament.

It may occur that an odd number of players would start a round, which could be resolved by issuing a bye to the lowest rated player with the fewest points, except if the tournament is reduced to three players, a round-robin round should commence until two players remain, and then match play until one is the winner.

There may be other flaws that need to be ironed out, yet the system would produce interesting games and results.

Would it be possible to implement "Swiss system" style tournaments here? At this point, I think only the gammon events draw enough players to make it feasable, but that might change in the future.

Marfitalu: All that is shown for elimination events is wins match and points match for odd numbers from 3 to 21 inclusive. For example, 1 point and 2 point, as well as any even number therefter would not be possible.

Why aren't the options for "games match" and "points match" offered under Match type for elimination tournaments?

What would happen if an elimination tournament was deleted but some events in it had already started? Would everything disappear as if it had never been created, or would just those games not yet begun be deleted?

Nirvana: I've signed up for a lot in the PIPIKUV CAS. It would be helpful if there were some kind of "all games" reference, otherwise many players probably just overlook these.

BIG BAD WOLF: ... And this happens prior to slots being counted for games with enough entries?

For a tournament series (such as an 'all games' offering), does this system automatically eliminate those games with less than four entrants before it counts the necessary slots required for the remaining ones?

Re: on Time

I sympathize with BG's earlier comments. I've entered quite a few tournaments with longer time limits, thinking that would not matter, and MAN, DID I EVER GET BURNED!!? Now I'm stuck in events, including some in which I finished my games many weeks ago, due to the fact that one player or another--who has way too many games going--is moving almost constantly at the "11th hour".

Nothing to do but wait.... and wait.... and wait.... and wait.... However, when browsing the tournament list, I no longer even consider those listings that have time limits greater than 5 days, and I'm even a bit hesitant at that level.

It has been argued that an access problem or emergency could cause some timeouts. I thought that is what the "autovac" policy was for. Even so, I would rather deal with that than the slow play alternative; after all, there will be other tournaments, other times.

Fencer: Where, pray tell, are the FIVE 'Moderators' that are supposed to be moderating this site?

I ususlly enjoy reading this board, but lately it has become too cluttered with comments by Pedro Martinez, ChuckChuckers, & BBW about BBW's slow play and/or other activities. I like these players, but would not this bickering be better done among them with PMs? If not, how is all of this relevant to tournaments?

If an event has 13 players sign up at a maximum of 8 per section, it is broken down into 5-4-4 or 7-6?

The problem with these unrestricted creations is that Rook members can set up a tournament on a proposed starting date that far exceeds their membership. Kata, for example, is a member through June 2006, but has set up events that are not scheduled to begin for over 500 days!!? If she does not renew her membership, is there some mechanism to automatically cancel these remaining events? If not, isn't this an abuse of the system? Furthermore, isn't it a bit absurd to arrange tournaments that won't begin for more than 500 days from now? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to have a cutoff, say, 3 months or 6 months?

Also, since gammon tournaments are so popular, perhaps a separate page should be made just for those tournament types. Some of us are not interested in gammon, but we have to wade through the extensive listings to get to those we do want. Selecting a particular game type to display is not really a solution, it is tedious, too.

No, just sp-line4, but today it is rectified.
Case closed!

Why, all of the sudden, do the black pieces have this horrible green background? It's a real distraction.

Not to ruffle anyone's feathers, but in reading over the latest notes, I agree more with what Imchucking said, but I don't believe that most (notice I said "MOST") slow players are sitting there watching the minutes tick away before submitting a move, although I know of a few who I am sure were doing exactly that!

But something else bothers me, a problem similar to this discussion. In quite a few tournaments I am in, I am poised to go on to the second round, and the winner of the opposing section has been decided also, but some other insignificant game is keeping the second round from starting. I appreciate that the game is important to those playing it, but it is not consequential to the procession of the tournament, and this is the only site I have ever played on that did not have a constant recalculation process (after each finished game) to move the events along expeditiously.... Well, I can live with it, but it is a definite deterrent to enjoyment, always checking to see if one of these games is over, or how near it may be.

As for opponents who take too much time, whether by accident or design, I don't really believe there is any remedy, since there is no clear infraction of the rules.

If you're interested in Gothic C, Extinction C, Crazy Screen C, Anti C, or other CVs, sign up for the Winter 2004 Chess Variants Congress. Closing date is January 10.

Hey BBW,

Have you seen the crosstables you've produced? Lots of extended sections, and our names appear several times each.
: )

I trust you and/or Fencer are on the case!!?

I don't like the long time limits, either. I have stopped entering those events, because some players will go for weeks without moving!! It gets frustrating. I prefer the one and two day limit events.

For those who want more time, as Caissus says, play fewer games; or, take some vacation time until you can get a handle on things.

Can anyone explain this? I was removed from a tournament (All Games-Mini Tourney\'s-5 Players Only-No 12 Snadné keryo pente) by a message saying I did not have enough game slots for all the tmts. that would be created by me, or something like that!? My game page shows 24+24, which is wrong. I do have 24 games in progress but the only tmts. I'm signed up for are:
--goodfoods atomic chess 9/13, 8 games;
--BBW's Corner chess, which will probably be cancelled since only two players have entered.

So I have just eight games pending, combined with 24 going; that is 32, which would still leave 18 open, but my page says I have just 2 open. What became of the other 16???

Kevin,

Perhaps I should have been more explicit in my quetioning. There are two tournaments (one in keryo19, and one in restricted keryo13) that I have already won and finished all my games. Therefore, I certainly don't want to be eliminated from them! The bad news (for me, at least) is that two other players are still playing their what now amount to irrelevant games. As rules stand now, if I try to enter another tournament of either of these types, I get some message to the effect that I cannot enter because I'm already playing in a tournament (which I have already completed and won)!!?

What about Knights who have completed a tournament and want to join another tournament of the same type, but must wait for other slow players to finish?

I tend to agree, at least as to the notorious nature of Mr. Trice. In my view, it is difficult to demonstrate that he didn't simply steal the idea of Grand Chess (created in 1984 by a Dutch inventor) and apply it to a smaller board with new names for the special pieces. He might swear he never heard of Grand Chess, but it still looks suspicious.

His patents are not impressive. Patent examiners routinely overlook material in the public domain, especially if it is not in their files, or otherwise within easy reach without too much research. And with enough attempts, a slick lawyer can almost always find a way to secure a grant.

He says he is fronting the prize money for the tournament, and since I am not an entrant, I don't really care if he makes good on it or not. I suspect his angle is to gain financially by trying to peddle a lot more of his manufactured sets to the participants.

Just for kicks, I tried entering some tournaments that I was rated either too high or too low for, and I was able to do it!? I was expecting to see some note saying I didn't qualify, but instead my name was placed on the list, which I immediately removed.

Then, I wondered if someone deliberately or by accident made such an entry, how would it be handled? Do the organizers delete anybody who should not be there when they start the tournament?

Why is there a considerable delay between the 'last term to sign up' for a tournament and the time when it actually gets started?

Thanks, Eriisa! It was a really fun event against some really tough competitors.
: )

I would like to enter another tmt., but I get a prompt saying that as a Brain Pawn I can only play in one. However, I am finished in that event (MainBrain #2, Atomic chess) and the only player with games remaining is on vacation for a month!? Is there any remedy for this? Why did a player who knew he would be away so long enter this tmt. anyhow?