MostFamousDane wrote:Granted this is something that people may not like - but it IS fair!
It could be fair only in case EVERYONE doesn't like and hates it
MostFamousDane wrote:Of course I need to specify the details it could be two games with regular time, then 32 minutes, 16 minutes etc.
Can you translate me "etc" ?
Sure 8 minutes, etc
Alex_Moiseyev wrote:
MostFamousDane wrote:and in that case a coin flip is as fair as anything.
You are my hero !
MostFamousDane wrote:what I propose is double knockout system - not single knockout.
Finally you've got me ! For more than 40 years I played in many Soviet Union and FMJD along with ACF & WCDF events, but never under this particular system. Once I am not experienced - I leave it to other experts who played (or judged) many events with this system and is familiar with it's sternth and weakness.
Back to 40's-50's we used double-knockout system in ACF but later it was replaced by Swiss system with repair round(s).
I notice that you haven't made any argument for the swiss system - why do you think it is fair to win over opponent not by beating him/her but by getting more points from another opponent ?
The transitive laws (A > B, B > C -> A > C) do not apply in checkers if they did I would be in the world elite by beating liam who has beaten shane .
MostFamousDane wrote:I notice that you haven't made any argument for the swiss system - why do you think it is fair to win over opponent not by beating him/her but by getting more points from another opponent ?
Hmmmm ... you never asked me that way. If you are interesting my opinion - I don't like Swiss system and am a big fan of Robin Round.
MostFamousDane wrote:I notice that you haven't made any argument for the swiss system - why do you think it is fair to win over opponent not by beating him/her but by getting more points from another opponent ?
Hmmmm ... you never asked me that way. If you are interesting my opinion - I don't like Swiss system and am a big fan of Robin Round.
In that respect there is no difference you still win over opponent not by beating him/her but by getting more points from another opponent (typically) - you do agree that with the double knockout system you DIRECTLY beat your opponent ? That is alot more fair - no ?
MostFamousDane wrote:you DIRECTLY beat your opponent ? That is alot more fair - no ?
On more step and we hit into MATCHES !!! Yes, indeed this is more fair. To the best of my knoweldge - this system was abonded in ACF due to many games / rounds to play.
I like this system because in general it's in favor of strong players.
I don't like it because of necessity to play blitz games and using coins. Lets say someone is "inches stronger" than other, but not enough to win GAYP game. Than it goes to coin - is that FAIR ?
Alex_Moiseyev wrote:
I like this system because in general it's in favor of strong players.
I don't like it because of necessity to play blitz games and using coins. Lets say someone is "inches stronger" than other, but not enough to win GAYP game. Than it goes to coin - is that FAIR ?
Alex.
Yes more fair than the current system and the maximum fairness that can be achieved.
It will be fun to see a face of someone who doesn't lose any single game and being double knockout by coin - very likely possibility. Then you should tell him/her about fairness
And by the way - how you identify best lady ... or we should also knockout them from entire event ?
Last edited by Alex_Moiseyev on Tue Sep 08, 2009 11:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
Alex_Moiseyev wrote:It will be fun to see a face of someone who will be double knockout by coins - very likely possibility. Then you should tell him/her about fairness
Well you should see the face of somebody being the only unbeaten player of a tournament and finishing 3rd
Well everything is possible. There is existing democratic procedure adopted in WCDF - you have to find backers to submit your motion, get it to the vote and WCDF Exec Committee and / or GA should approve it.
Very serious, significant change ... but if majority is in favor - why not ?! Good luck.
I can only predict: if this system will be adopted in WCDF - number of tears will be growing ...
MostFamousDane wrote:somebody being the only unbeaten player of a tournament and finishing 3rd
Hmmm ... if somebody was unbeaten and get less points than others, it's probably the same to say that he won less games than others.
It's sort of chicken-egg question. Losing less games means winning less games if points total is the same. And what we suppose to do with someone who drew all games - he also can say that noone beat him.
In match losing less number of games and playing safely is a great strategy, but tournament strategy commands different.
JohnAcker wrote:Somehow, Tommy, I suspect that if Shane had been the one to get eight points, you would still be crowing about how superior he is, not denigrating him for "ruining" the tournament.
Well having drAWN UP A CROSS-TABLE from the information to hand it looks like Jim Morrison was the loser in the end having superior hp/sb points (over all opponents)and not Shane who only made 4 wins against Jims 6 wins.
While this cross table may not be 100% ,lets wait and see the "official" table but for now this is my impression.
Always read "Cannings Compilation 2nd Edition" every day.
Tommy, what are your suggestions ? Do you think something should be change, and if so - what you propose ?
REPAIR round in ACF works quite well for many years.
One ty is over, another on the way ... it's game only ... Shane should start preparing seriously for the upcoming 3-moves QT - he has much better natutal abilities here ... soon he will play his match. I am ready give away all my titles but take his age
.
