Slitherine

What happens if you draw? Is that win or a loss?

nikgaukroger wrote:

madcam2us wrote:Just as long as the IWF pits me versus 6 players I don't normally face I'll be happy...

A view I suspect that is shared by most players

In fact I think that for the vast majority of players the "problems" that AP was supposed to solved just didn't exist.

Full points to Nik and madcam.

I suspect that this year is the year where an American has the best chance of winning the IWF.

That's right. We have the additional advantage this year of having Dan in charge. Hilton couldn't rig the thing well enough when it was in New Orleans so we have upgraded the scallywag in charge.

Marc

dave_r wrote:What happens if you draw? Is that win or a loss?

By the look of it in Athens if you drew game 1 you played another player from the same quartile who had drawn. I haven't done an exhaustive check but it looks that way.

hammy wrote:

hazelbark wrote:Of course the answer is NONE they aren't reigate...

Actually there is no sign of Reigate domination of the FoG tournament calendar in the UK at present.

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.

Clearly lies spread by a non-Reigater.

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 now you just lose to Americans!

nikgaukroger wrote: I suspect that this year is the year where an American has the best chance of winning the IWF.

Since I am Umpiring the odds are now even.

PS I bet on Hannu to win the DBM event.

hazelbark wrote:

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 now you just lose to Americans!

So far not too often in FoG....

Nik's comment 'Clearly discussions on accelerated pairings are so dull that the forum software blanks it' shows the software to be the most intelligent thing contributing to this thread.

hazelbark wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote: I suspect that this year is the year where an American has the best chance of winning the IWF.

Since I am Umpiring the odds are now even.

That is a hell of a lot of interventions to aid the US players then

PS I bet on Hannu to win the DBM event.

Only Finns entered so far?

I bet on Dave Handley to win the FoG.

Whatever system you decide upon for the IWF, could I request 6 easy games please?



So avoiding Messrs Handley, Gaukroger, Shaw etc etc would be nice.

Thanks very much!

Pete

petedalby wrote:Whatever system you decide upon for the IWF, could I request 6 easy games please?



So avoiding Messrs Handley, Gaukroger, Shaw etc etc would be nice.

Thanks very much!

Pete

Just lose every game. Then they should get progressively easier as throughout the comp.

lawrenceg wrote:
Whatever scheme one comes up with, it can always be messed up by players winning games they were not expected to win.

Well that's just rude. How outrageous of them, they should know their place!!

Just lose every game. Then they should get progressively easier as throughout the comp.

Not quite the winning strategy I was looking for.

Pete

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.

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.

Hear, hear!

Marc

I'm with Graham on this. I also prefer the Swiss chess system because just about everyone understands it, which is not, I believe, the case with AP.

Paul

Got to agree with Graham and Paul. Don't play mates ,otherwise random then swiss chess system.


And that does apear to be were the poll is steering us.

Jim

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 "

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

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.