I can see your point, Eric, but personally I feel it would be best to apply the same values on adjudication across all the rounds. If you have two basic types of result from the adjudication process - either a 5-1 win where one player is deemed to be the cause of the failure to complete the game, or a 3-3 draw where boths players are equally culpable or non-culpable - then the cynical player will only get one point for deliberately not playing. Hardly a championship winning strategy! I think what is more likely is that one or two games between players further down the table might not get played in the last round.ericdoman1 wrote: I can't really alow a 3 vs 3 or a 4 vs 4 in the last round as possibly that is all a player might need to win. But in the first round it would seem fair. Also if something unfortunate has occurred to one player, I still have to consider the other 21 players. I suppose that is another random factor in the game. For later rounds in particular 5th and 6th I would have to make a call.
With regards to the two incomplete matches from the first round here, it seems to be fairly clear who is causing the delay (for whatever reason) and so the adjudication results should be 5-1 in both instances, in my opinion.
Isn't that today's date?Round 2 will begin March 25th.
3 points a piece would be much better split the maximum 6 in half =3. Im waitinf for A and Ts comments 