|
Post by Slartucker on Nov 10, 2007 17:23:39 GMT -5
See, this is why I asked for links. I can see links when I scroll through 8 pages of chatter... anyway, phew. 105 turns in 30 days is a lot less disconcerting. Sorry I missed that second game.
I dislike the simultaneous play idea for several reasons. It changes the psychological environment, particularly attitude to risk, and it causes people to do strange things in the opening.
Given that the game doesn't look likely to end anytime soon, I think it would be better to just make a judgement. I'll take a look at the games tomorrow, as I'm about to head out.
|
|
|
Post by xade on Nov 10, 2007 17:38:00 GMT -5
bahhumbug! I play this game 16 hours a day! Having said that, these games have been extremely fun, and I'm hoping we get the chance to finish them up... but yeah, as you said, it has been a month, so I will happily accept whatever decision you come to.
|
|
|
Post by Rycchus on Nov 10, 2007 19:37:00 GMT -5
I think it's good that the games aren't simultaneous. It's good knowing how well you're doing when you start your second and third games, plus if you go through a bad spell you may only lose one match to it, rather than all of them.
|
|
|
Post by freesoul on Nov 10, 2007 19:52:45 GMT -5
I can understand how playing seperate games will make for unbiased matches... however, I think that for Zug's and Xade's matches... an exception could have been made, if they were OK with it, and had the foresight to suggest it. Simply to catch up that branch of the tourney. I think that some flexibility in the option of simultaneous matches would be a better alternative than not finishing the final match... if this was realized earlier.
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on Nov 11, 2007 1:04:14 GMT -5
For anything other than a tournament, I would agree. But the whole point of a tournament is that everyone has to be measured exactly the same way. Nonrandom alterations in the terms of play, however inconsequential they may seem, are not really fair.
|
|
|
Post by xade on Nov 11, 2007 3:43:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Rycchus on Nov 11, 2007 12:31:58 GMT -5
Another pictoral update:
|
|
spacca
Ronin Warlock
(Tchichi #2,342,106)
Posts: 55
|
Post by spacca on Nov 12, 2007 3:53:15 GMT -5
Anything wrong Rycchus, you haven't moved for a week now?
|
|
|
Post by Rycchus on Nov 12, 2007 11:59:37 GMT -5
I'll accept your challenge soon. Bear with me, real life's catching up with me. (Although I don't think it's been a week, more like four or five days.) Things a little hectic right now. Should clear up in a week or so, although I may accept before that and play slowly.
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on Nov 12, 2007 12:42:43 GMT -5
It's been 8 days. :-D
|
|
|
Post by Dubber on Nov 12, 2007 15:10:55 GMT -5
8 days a week, for lo o o o ovin'...
|
|
|
Post by Rycchus on Nov 12, 2007 18:27:24 GMT -5
No it hasn't. There was a few days gap before he even sent the challenge.
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on Nov 13, 2007 0:27:40 GMT -5
Well, that makes 8 days since you played, during several days of which he didn't play either.
|
|
spacca
Ronin Warlock
(Tchichi #2,342,106)
Posts: 55
|
Post by spacca on Nov 13, 2007 11:11:45 GMT -5
Is there anything in the rules to say you couldn't have challanged me. You sent a failed challange to freakflag?
|
|
|
Post by Rycchus on Nov 13, 2007 14:48:32 GMT -5
No, there's nothing at all in the rules to say that. That'd be a strange rule for sure.
|
|