Okay, but n/2 is probably enough. Like I wrote earlier, we played 6-round swiss with 12 players in our club and we didn't have to do manual adjustment, those things are just implemented in the core of swiss tournament.
#105
Halleluja! Round robin as an option for players who know each other - that's exactly what I proposed in #40!
Let's hope this is successful and Nepo does not complain too much about having to wait constantly for the others ;-)
Halleluja! Round robin as an option for players who know each other - that's exactly what I proposed in #40!
Let's hope this is successful and Nepo does not complain too much about having to wait constantly for the others ;-)
#112 8 players 5+2 time control double round robin i.e. 14 rounds is quite feasible
It does not need any software: just the paring table.
It does not need any software: just the paring table.
And is it implemented or the cross-table and pairings will be outside and just games will be played on lichess?
#114 I am sure there is an easy workaround for RR ;)
Of course implementing of RR tournaments is probably easy. I don't think the problem is with implementation at all, those are not hard things for skillful people like lichess staff. The question is: is it worth it? Maintaing costs are not irrelevant, and players behaviour is always unpredictable. From that point of view, arena is great format. People can join and leave whenever they want, pairings is flexible, almost no waiting for new game, etc.
But if you want the best and most fair tournament experience (for clubs mostly), it's actually pretty terrible. Did I finish 5th because i was 5th best player? Or because I had some kind magical streak while other players had wins-losses? Or did I just played more games because i played for quick mates and not tried to use all my time to play the best chess possible?
That's why i think arena is great format for bullet or probably even 3+0 blitz. Those are speed chess formats and makes sense that speed and quick solutions are rewarded. But if you try to play the best chess, you would be punished for taking your time, not berserking, etc.
But if you want the best and most fair tournament experience (for clubs mostly), it's actually pretty terrible. Did I finish 5th because i was 5th best player? Or because I had some kind magical streak while other players had wins-losses? Or did I just played more games because i played for quick mates and not tried to use all my time to play the best chess possible?
That's why i think arena is great format for bullet or probably even 3+0 blitz. Those are speed chess formats and makes sense that speed and quick solutions are rewarded. But if you try to play the best chess, you would be punished for taking your time, not berserking, etc.
@RainPiper #110 Well, I could understand that at round n-1 or even n-2 there could be an issue. But it seems at Chesscom they only go as far as an rounded up square root of n. So n=10 -> the tourney ends after 4(!) rounds. I've seen it happen and it makes no-one happy. Above all, it is unnecessary and therefore there is an opportunity for Lichess to take pride.
@ #105 #112 Great news indeed, so round-robin is a possibility for small closed teams. Like you said, that's just how we suggested it, bring it on!
@CarlosMagnussen #116 I totally agree. In our tournament this week, someone with 9/13 ended higher than another with 9,5/12 who even had an higher TPR but less streaks. Very lovely for the first player of course, but it feels wrong.
@ #105 #112 Great news indeed, so round-robin is a possibility for small closed teams. Like you said, that's just how we suggested it, bring it on!
@CarlosMagnussen #116 I totally agree. In our tournament this week, someone with 9/13 ended higher than another with 9,5/12 who even had an higher TPR but less streaks. Very lovely for the first player of course, but it feels wrong.
@TacticalBert: The exact rule for restricting the number of rounds at chess-com is published nowhere, but my experience is n/2. I was able to run a Swiss tournament with 16 player and 8 rounds (where 9 was the targetted number of rounds).
More rounds would be possible, but the pairings become increasingly random an unfair. It can easily happen that if you have two tournament leaders, one of them plays a strong opponent, whereas the other is paired with a very weak player. This makes nobody happy either. In a friendly environment, you may want to accept this. But it is certainly undesirable in a more competitive environment.
More rounds would be possible, but the pairings become increasingly random an unfair. It can easily happen that if you have two tournament leaders, one of them plays a strong opponent, whereas the other is paired with a very weak player. This makes nobody happy either. In a friendly environment, you may want to accept this. But it is certainly undesirable in a more competitive environment.
@ #118 I get your point, and it is a valid one.
But talking competitive, Arena doesn't solve this here. For example, I was again in a tournament where the number one and two didn't play each other the whole time, and that is 12-13 games(!) Meanwhile, there were quite some 2100 vs 1100 pairings. They are fed up that much that they say they quit for the next weeks. Well, that is of course certainly not our intention, because then the other players in the range 11-1400 have less opponents of the same strength...
But talking competitive, Arena doesn't solve this here. For example, I was again in a tournament where the number one and two didn't play each other the whole time, and that is 12-13 games(!) Meanwhile, there were quite some 2100 vs 1100 pairings. They are fed up that much that they say they quit for the next weeks. Well, that is of course certainly not our intention, because then the other players in the range 11-1400 have less opponents of the same strength...
#119
For 16 players you can think about a 15 round round robin.
Swiss would be 5 rounds at most to avoid pairing problems (3 times same color in a row, unequal pairings...)
It is important to seed the players i.e. rank them according to rating.
Arena is suitable for large tournaments > 100 players.
For 16 players you can think about a 15 round round robin.
Swiss would be 5 rounds at most to avoid pairing problems (3 times same color in a row, unequal pairings...)
It is important to seed the players i.e. rank them according to rating.
Arena is suitable for large tournaments > 100 players.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.