I dislike your refusal for grand final resets. Does that not mean the second last game is pointless for the winner's bracket players?
Why play your toughest opponent when you can throw the game, win vs a weaker opponent in losers bracket, and then play the tougher opponent directly in the final?
You never want to incentivize an intentional loss.
Why play your toughest opponent when you can throw the game, win vs a weaker opponent in losers bracket, and then play the tougher opponent directly in the final?
You never want to incentivize an intentional loss.
I remember they used a similar format to yours in the early days of the Olympiads. Not sure why it was scrapped
@jns0808 said in #2:
> Does that not mean the second last game is pointless for the winner's bracket players?
Thanks for your comment jns! Let's say in the winners bracket semis, I play A, magnus plays B. Let's say Magnus beats B
Path1:
If I lose on purpose my road to the final is B, A, then Magnus. (With zero margin for error)
Path2:
If I beat A, my road to the final is Magnus *as a freeroll* then the winner of A/B then Magnus.
Path 2 is way better as 1) I freeroll Magnus and b) I don't have to beat *both* A and B with no margin for error.
Otherwise just get rid of the whole loser bracket ;)
Thanks for reading and the input!
> Does that not mean the second last game is pointless for the winner's bracket players?
Thanks for your comment jns! Let's say in the winners bracket semis, I play A, magnus plays B. Let's say Magnus beats B
Path1:
If I lose on purpose my road to the final is B, A, then Magnus. (With zero margin for error)
Path2:
If I beat A, my road to the final is Magnus *as a freeroll* then the winner of A/B then Magnus.
Path 2 is way better as 1) I freeroll Magnus and b) I don't have to beat *both* A and B with no margin for error.
Otherwise just get rid of the whole loser bracket ;)
Thanks for reading and the input!
This is great
That's Great
@Craze said in #3:
> I remember they used a similar format to yours in the early days of the Olympiads. Not sure why it was scrapped
Correct, but then again, if the groups are round robin (i think they were), the whole drawbacks of round robins are creeping back in ... :(
> I remember they used a similar format to yours in the early days of the Olympiads. Not sure why it was scrapped
Correct, but then again, if the groups are round robin (i think they were), the whole drawbacks of round robins are creeping back in ... :(
I'm not necessarily in agreement with every proposed change in this article but I appreciate how thoughtfully they were presented. These ideas (and this blog) should be much more widely circulated.
@ZugAddict said in #8:
> I'm not necessarily in agreement with every proposed change in this article but I appreciate how thoughtfully they were presented. These ideas (and this blog) should be much more widely circulated.
Thank you ZugAddict. I'm not trying to be dogmatic or push for a specific format or implementation, just to say we are allowed to pause and wonder if we can improve things as ubiquitous as tournament structures <3
> I'm not necessarily in agreement with every proposed change in this article but I appreciate how thoughtfully they were presented. These ideas (and this blog) should be much more widely circulated.
Thank you ZugAddict. I'm not trying to be dogmatic or push for a specific format or implementation, just to say we are allowed to pause and wonder if we can improve things as ubiquitous as tournament structures <3
Unfortunately, there's no chance of substantial change in the world of face-to-face chess. It's a dogmatic, reactionary world. Personally, I've given up on face-to-face chess because it's so boring. I now only play on the Internet.