The #1 vs. #128 is commonly used bc players have been already seeded based upon previous qualifiers and thus have earned their position and easier pairings. That is not the case for this event.
There's good arguments for both formats. A 3rd idea, and one that will prolong the event (which can be good or bad) is to have 16 groups of 8 players each. Have everybody play everybody inside of a group and have only a certain number from each group (maybe 2) advance and at that point either have some sort of seeding process or re-group the players.
ooh pawnintraining i like your idea.
follow to the 1v65 2v66 etc idea question: what would second round, third round look like? and fairygirl it is giving a higher ranked player an easier path to the final but thats because its where they should be.. like it would be strange to see 1 vs 2 in the third round
follow to the 1v65 2v66 etc idea question: what would second round, third round look like? and fairygirl it is giving a higher ranked player an easier path to the final but thats because its where they should be.. like it would be strange to see 1 vs 2 in the third round
In my idea, the next stage after groups would be 1 vs 64, 2 vs 63, etc. Results in group play determine the seeds. Determining initial groups should be random but the overall ratings of each group should be close to make it relatively fair.
@PawnInTraining This was FOX's original idea, but as I've told him, this would make the Candidates tournament a dumb idea and it might eliminate strong seeds earlier on. Not doing that, no.
I highly disagree with you @FischyVishy this time and I explain you why.
The purpose of a world championship is not only to see who will be the champion at the very end, but also to see who is able to reach the final. And to do so every player must win some matches.
If you preclude already at the start the possibility of these strong players to get eliminated before say the semi-finals (which are the Candidates) is not going to be better nor easier the next championships, because you will always have the same people playing each other.
If you follow Pawn's idea (originally by Fox) not only you would make many people happy (will tell you why later on) but also we will have the chance to see how these strong players are managing the group situation. Also, if they're strong enough to have a secure spot in the Candidates, they won't get eliminated in the group stage, will they?
In each group you can select players following their entrants ratings. Say:
One 2500+, two 2300-2500, two 2100-2300, two 1800-2100, one U1800. Something like this (would have to be better calibrated) would be equilibrated, say 2 or 3 pass to knockouts and then the Candidates.
When I said you would make many people happy is because if you follow any kind of knockout stage from now, there are many players who will play 6 games against a too strong opponent for them, getting crushed, then tournament is finished for them.
You always said this stuff is for fun first of all, then come the glory and prizes. Well I'm not sure playing 6 quick games is considered fun. I'm talking for me of course, but also for players under my level who are in the same if not worse conditions.
The purpose of a world championship is not only to see who will be the champion at the very end, but also to see who is able to reach the final. And to do so every player must win some matches.
If you preclude already at the start the possibility of these strong players to get eliminated before say the semi-finals (which are the Candidates) is not going to be better nor easier the next championships, because you will always have the same people playing each other.
If you follow Pawn's idea (originally by Fox) not only you would make many people happy (will tell you why later on) but also we will have the chance to see how these strong players are managing the group situation. Also, if they're strong enough to have a secure spot in the Candidates, they won't get eliminated in the group stage, will they?
In each group you can select players following their entrants ratings. Say:
One 2500+, two 2300-2500, two 2100-2300, two 1800-2100, one U1800. Something like this (would have to be better calibrated) would be equilibrated, say 2 or 3 pass to knockouts and then the Candidates.
When I said you would make many people happy is because if you follow any kind of knockout stage from now, there are many players who will play 6 games against a too strong opponent for them, getting crushed, then tournament is finished for them.
You always said this stuff is for fun first of all, then come the glory and prizes. Well I'm not sure playing 6 quick games is considered fun. I'm talking for me of course, but also for players under my level who are in the same if not worse conditions.
I think BughouseMaster, as always is wrong. 1 v 128 is the best way to go. Anything TrumpetX says should not only be discarded but should be shunned. On top of this, he should be charged with hate speech.
I agree with deadban and program fox^^
@Deadban Yes, but then we lose out on competition...
There's a solution which combines both fun with competitiveness: instead of having each seed determined by the current method, we can have the seeds determined by this 8-player group method. THEN, we will proceed with a knockout, then a Candidates, then a WC. However, if we agree that this is the best format, I'm not going to implement it this year because a) it'll take too long b) it'll cause too much confusion c) much more work
There's a solution which combines both fun with competitiveness: instead of having each seed determined by the current method, we can have the seeds determined by this 8-player group method. THEN, we will proceed with a knockout, then a Candidates, then a WC. However, if we agree that this is the best format, I'm not going to implement it this year because a) it'll take too long b) it'll cause too much confusion c) much more work
Agree with Deadban too :)
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.