Feedback & Future Events...

If there's interest I'd be happy to run another event next year, maybe around September again. Please write any suggestions for rule or format changes here for consideration.

There have been some suggestions already and my current thinking is to have it similar to this year, with the main event being an elimination, but with a couple of rule changes:

1. Limiting the number of breaks to 2 per person in a match
2. Having an Armageddon game if the score is tied after 2 pairs of tie-break games (so 7-7)

The main thing I could see changing is the qualification. I think there could be potential to make that a bit more interesting and give lower rated players a chance to play more games.

How did people feel about the length of the tournament? Would 1 week per round be better?

I would personally love for there to be another tourney. I feel like most people should be able to find a time and to play their round in a 1 week time span, but maybe I am being too optimistic.

I do think something needs to be done about the tiebreaks, as the way they are currently set up could cause problems since the match could theoretically go on indefinitely. I feel an armageddon game is a good idea, but I'm not sure how it would be implemented.

Qualification changes would be cool, but they might not be nessecary. Perhaps round robin pools of say 6 people, with the top 2 advancing that are played out over a two week time span would be a good setup to help players get some good practice against strong players and to speed things along. I think the specifics of this would have to be decided based on the number of entrants though.

@Gannet

I'm currently organizing the tournament of Atomic Chess Rating Group Tournament (link: https://sites.google.com/site/atomicrtggroup/)

In this tournament, I included Armageddon game as a part of tiebreak with time negotiation.

The rule for tiebreak is following.

If the score is still even, one Armageddon game will be played. Black will receive 3 minute and both player should message the time they want as white, in nearest 15 seconds, to the TD during the break. Then, they should declare the time they messaged to the TD after the break and the player messaged the lower time will hold white, with the time they messaged. If two people messaged same length, person with lower rating index will choose the color. The time should be adjusted by "Add 15 second" feature. For example, if one player holds white with 2 minutes and 15 seconds, both player should start the game with 2 0 (2 minute and zero increment) and Black should add 15 second to white time and White should add 15 second four times (total of 1 minutes). There will be no increment. Draw is considered win for black.

What do you think about this rule? Could it be the effective and fair alternative of the current endless tiebreak?

Have everyone post the times of their matches and aggregate that in some sort of calendar so it’s easy to watch.