Tournamant Pairings in Round 1
Moderators: hammy, philqw78, terrys, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Design, Field of Glory Moderators
-
babyshark
- Field of Glory Moderator

- Posts: 1336
- Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 6:59 pm
- Location: Government; and I'm here to help.
Full points to Nik and madcam.nikgaukroger wrote:A view I suspect that is shared by most playersmadcam2us wrote:Just as long as the IWF pits me versus 6 players I don't normally face I'll be happy...![]()
In fact I think that for the vast majority of players the "problems" that AP was supposed to solved just didn't exist.
I suspect that this year is the year where an American has the best chance of winning the IWF.
That's right.
Marc
-
hazelbark
- General - Carrier

- Posts: 4957
- Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
- Location: Capital of the World !!
Clearly lies spread by a non-Reigater.hammy wrote:Actually there is no sign of Reigate domination of the FoG tournament calendar in the UK at present.hazelbark wrote:Of course the answer is NONE they aren't reigate...
Reigate wins are few and far between. Infact I have a feeling that Nik is the only Reigate player to have won a FoG tournament but I may well be wrong.
-
madcam2us
- Master Sergeant - Bf 109E

- Posts: 492
- Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 1:54 am
- Location: Searching for the meaning of "Authors Intent"
hazelbark wrote:So now you just lose to Americans!madcam2us wrote: In N.O. I got to play 3 americans, 1 Dane & 1 Brit.... Beat the americans, lost to the Dane and the Brit!
So far not too often in FoG....
There goes another crossing the Rubicon!
W/D/L
2008
CoA - 3/0/0
C.I. - 1/1/1
2009
Ottoman - 6/0/1
Khurasian - 3/5/2
2010
Catalan - 4/0/0
W/D/L
2008
CoA - 3/0/0
C.I. - 1/1/1
2009
Ottoman - 6/0/1
Khurasian - 3/5/2
2010
Catalan - 4/0/0
-
nikgaukroger
- Field of Glory Moderator

- Posts: 10287
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
- Location: LarryWorld
That is a hell of a lot of interventions to aid the US players thenhazelbark wrote:Since I am Umpiring the odds are now even.nikgaukroger wrote: I suspect that this year is the year where an American has the best chance of winning the IWF.
Only Finns entered so far?PS I bet on Hannu to win the DBM event.
I bet on Dave Handley to win the FoG.
Nik Gaukroger
"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith
nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith
nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
-
grahambriggs
- Lieutenant-General - Do 217E

- Posts: 3079
- Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am
Sorry but can we get back on topic please. Which is goading Hammy's statto compulsion.
The main reason I dislike all this accelerated pairings/seeding stuff is that the purpose of it all seems to be that the best man wins. i.e. pandering to just one out of many players. Random draw but don't play mates followed by swiss chess seems fairer to all to me.
This would mean that sometimes (not often) the 'wrong' person would win. However, the serious competition types play many comps so if they're the best will win plenty. And there are over-arching formats such as annual rankings, etc. to accomodate the willy waving.
The main reason I dislike all this accelerated pairings/seeding stuff is that the purpose of it all seems to be that the best man wins. i.e. pandering to just one out of many players. Random draw but don't play mates followed by swiss chess seems fairer to all to me.
This would mean that sometimes (not often) the 'wrong' person would win. However, the serious competition types play many comps so if they're the best will win plenty. And there are over-arching formats such as annual rankings, etc. to accomodate the willy waving.
-
babyshark
- Field of Glory Moderator

- Posts: 1336
- Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 6:59 pm
- Location: Government; and I'm here to help.
Hear, hear!grahambriggs wrote:Sorry but can we get back on topic please. Which is goading Hammy's statto compulsion.
The main reason I dislike all this accelerated pairings/seeding stuff is that the purpose of it all seems to be that the best man wins. i.e. pandering to just one out of many players. Random draw but don't play mates followed by swiss chess seems fairer to all to me.
This would mean that sometimes (not often) the 'wrong' person would win. However, the serious competition types play many comps so if they're the best will win plenty. And there are over-arching formats such as annual rankings, etc. to accomodate the willy waving.
Marc
-
thefrenchjester
- Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D

- Posts: 1376
- Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 12:23 pm
- Location: the wilderness of mirrors
in France it's as below
first round : historical pairings when possible and no pairing with mates of same clubs before the third round
for more details please contact Olivier his " Vincent special excel and exellent program" do all you want ,apart perhaps washing our clothes , I say perhaps because for the moment we haven't tried
and it works on 2003 and 2007 versions
regards
thefrenchjester "FOG on Tour "
first round : historical pairings when possible and no pairing with mates of same clubs before the third round
for more details please contact Olivier his " Vincent special excel and exellent program" do all you want ,apart perhaps washing our clothes , I say perhaps because for the moment we haven't tried
and it works on 2003 and 2007 versions
regards
thefrenchjester "FOG on Tour "
-
johno
- Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1

- Posts: 146
- Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:07 pm
- Location: Plymouth UK
I've got to admit, as someone who plays tournaments for a fun weekend, all these complicated pairing systems always seemed designed to allow the Tournament Tigers to avoid playing the "fun" players.
I'd assumed this was just in case the Fun player put something unexpected on the table, something not in the current accepted canon of tournament-viable armies, which the Tournament Tiger might not have an answer to in his playbook...
More seriously, I generally like first rounds matched on date and/or historical opponents, and following rounds in a simple Swiss Chess, with the proviso that same club players aren't matched against each other for as long as possible.
Whilst I realise that Swiss Chess has its problems, it is easy to understand, and it is perceived as matching similar strength players against each other in later rounds.
johno
I'd assumed this was just in case the Fun player put something unexpected on the table, something not in the current accepted canon of tournament-viable armies, which the Tournament Tiger might not have an answer to in his playbook...
More seriously, I generally like first rounds matched on date and/or historical opponents, and following rounds in a simple Swiss Chess, with the proviso that same club players aren't matched against each other for as long as possible.
Whilst I realise that Swiss Chess has its problems, it is easy to understand, and it is perceived as matching similar strength players against each other in later rounds.
johno
Well as one of the supposed 'tigers' I can say that one of my most enjoyable tournaments for a long while was the Derby doubles where I managed to lose my first three games and draw the last one. I got to play lots of people I don;t normally play and had a great time.
As for AP, if I felt it worked reliably I would most definitely champion it. As I don't think it works reliably I really don't like it.
Swiss with don't play your clubmates or countrymen as appropriate. There is nothing worse IMO than in the last round of a tournament four players from two different countries on a similar or even identical score both playing their regular club opponents when a simple switch would not hurt Swiss, not impact the result significantly and end up with four happy players rather than 4 grumpy ones.
As for AP, if I felt it worked reliably I would most definitely champion it. As I don't think it works reliably I really don't like it.
Swiss with don't play your clubmates or countrymen as appropriate. There is nothing worse IMO than in the last round of a tournament four players from two different countries on a similar or even identical score both playing their regular club opponents when a simple switch would not hurt Swiss, not impact the result significantly and end up with four happy players rather than 4 grumpy ones.






