#20
My proposition is a 24 h tournament with a fixed number of games e.g. 11.
You play whenever you want, but only 11 games.
@tpr said in #21:
> #20
> My proposition is a 24 h tournament with a fixed number of games e.g. 11.
> You play whenever you want, but only 11 games.
A limited number of games is a Swiss game. In the arena, the limitation may only be on the time of participation, but this won't solve the problem of the last game under the current system.
Where do you see the author complaining about the system as a whole? Is it just about the last batch?
@tpr said in #4:
> In arena tournaments only games that end before time is up count.
Thanks for the information.
@Italiya said in #18:
(...)
> Someone would play longer, BUT NOT MORE!
>
> Under any system in the arena, the number of games between opponents will vary; the question is how to finish the last game properly. You cite maximum time control as an example, although you understand perfectly well that the vast majority of tournaments are held with a time control of less than 20 minutes for two players (1+0, 2+1, 3+0, 3+2, 5+3, 10+0).
> Alternatively, in classical time control, the draw could be closed earlier than it is now.
> Any other option would be less offensive than when the opponent has the opportunity to deliberately stall for time to take away the victory. So I ask, which is fairer? An element of chance is one thing, and deliberate actions are quite another.
I still believe that the current option is a bit fairer (though far from perfect), although none is perfect. First of all, my example is not extreme. It might be a six-hour classical tournament where someone would play for more than 7 hours, or a 90-minute blitz tournament where someone plays for extra 15 minutes. (My longest 3+2 blitz game lasted almost 200 moves, and if it were an online game with the 50-moves rule applying immediately, it would still be around 165 moves, more than 15 minutes.)
If you close the pairings earlier, it only aggravates the problem as the basic time (before the pairings are closed) would be a bit shorter, while the longest final game would stay the same.
@tpr said in #21:
> #20
> My proposition is a 24 h tournament with a fixed number of games e.g. 11.
> You play whenever you want, but only 11 games.
Alas, it looks unrealistic. If you join the arena at the beginning, you usually get much stronger opponents than when you join it towards its end.
Arenas are fine, but having more Swiss tournaments on Lichess would be nice.
@ILikeBlitz said in #24:
>
> (...)
> > Someone would play longer, BUT NOT MORE!
> >
> > Under any system in the arena, the number of games between opponents will vary; the question is how to finish the last game properly. You cite maximum time control as an example, although you understand perfectly well that the vast majority of tournaments are held with a time control of less than 20 minutes for two players (1+0, 2+1, 3+0, 3+2, 5+3, 10+0).
> > Alternatively, in classical time control, the draw could be closed earlier than it is now.
> > Any other option would be less offensive than when the opponent has the opportunity to deliberately stall for time to take away the victory. So I ask, which is fairer? An element of chance is one thing, and deliberate actions are quite another.
>
> I still believe that the current option is a bit fairer (though far from perfect), although none is perfect. First of all, my example is not extreme. It might be a six-hour classical tournament where someone would play for more than 7 hours, or a 90-minute blitz tournament where someone plays for extra 15 minutes. (My longest 3+2 blitz game lasted almost 200 moves, and if it were an online game with the 50-moves rule applying immediately, it would still be around 165 moves, more than 15 minutes.)
> If you close the pairings earlier, it only aggravates the problem as the basic time (before the pairings are closed) would be a bit shorter, while the longest final game would stay the same.
The thing is, the game still has to be played; it doesn't end like on Chess.com. If you're worried about some players having to play for another hour with a 20+10 time control.
In all other cases, it's less than 20 minutes, because the pairing ends a minute or more before the end of the tournament time.
Yes, the game still has to be played, so play it, it will be rated if the event was rated, but why should it count in the tournament standings? If a last game in a 90-minute blitz tournament exceeds the time limit by 15 minutes, why would one player have 17 percent more time to score his points? If the standings are close, there are a plenty of random factors which might favor one of the contenders. Arenas typically produce slightly random results in this respect.
I'm leaving this discussion, as I've used all my arguments and repeating them makes little sense.
@ILikeBlitz said in Post 27:
> Yes, the game still has to be played, so play it, it will be rated if the event was rated, but why should it count in the tournament standings? If a last game in a 90-minute blitz tournament exceeds the time limit by 15 minutes, why would one player have 17 percent more time to score his points? If the standings are close, there are a plenty of random factors which might favor one of the contenders. Arenas typically produce slightly random results in this respect.
> I'm leaving this discussion, as I've used all my arguments and repeating them makes little sense.
<Why would one player have 17 percent more time to score their points?>
For some reason, you're expressing this as a percentage, how much more someone will play.
Even 50%, in fact, it's just one game.
It will be exactly the same, but more fair. Just like someone will play more, someone less. But there will be no opportunity to deliberately waste time, harming the opponent.