|
Post by Slartucker on Oct 16, 2008 15:19:52 GMT -5
Of course, it is still may be untrue if it will be impossible to pair lower-ranked players, so wait for ExDeath pairings to be sure. Well, I've already said it's going to be very, very difficult to not re-pair at least a few of the players who are lower-ranked. I am not a computer, and thus I have no easy way to figure out the exact fairest way to pair everybody and avoid re-pairs. I'll do my best to avoid it, but in my opinion, the most important thing is the players who are still in contention for top 4 and that none of them should have an easy ride just to avoid re-pairing those who aren't. This confuses me. Isn't the exact procedure implied in the tournament rules? You go from the top down; for each player you look first to the list of players they haven't played yet and go top down by score, and only when that is exhausted to you go to the list of players they have already played and go top down by score. In any case there is a tie, you choose which player to start with randomly. There is no need to figure out the exact fairest way -- that is the only way, right?
|
|
|
Post by xade on Oct 16, 2008 18:42:31 GMT -5
I think Xade is inflating his post counts. 8P Says you! Hand of Temurah...
|
|
|
Post by ExDeath on Oct 16, 2008 19:13:49 GMT -5
Well, I've already said it's going to be very, very difficult to not re-pair at least a few of the players who are lower-ranked. I am not a computer, and thus I have no easy way to figure out the exact fairest way to pair everybody and avoid re-pairs. I'll do my best to avoid it, but in my opinion, the most important thing is the players who are still in contention for top 4 and that none of them should have an easy ride just to avoid re-pairing those who aren't. This confuses me. Isn't the exact procedure implied in the tournament rules? You go from the top down; for each player you look first to the list of players they haven't played yet and go top down by score, and only when that is exhausted to you go to the list of players they have already played and go top down by score. In any case there is a tie, you choose which player to start with randomly. There is no need to figure out the exact fairest way -- that is the only way, right? No, not exactly. In a perfect swiss system, no player will ever be paired against the same opponent twice. That's how it's supposed to be done. But there are soooo many combinations that I would need a computer to figure them all out. Thus, I am doing it the way you described. There was one case in this round where I needed to randomize in the lower brackets, Player A could've been paired against either Player B or Player C. But if he was paired against B, then C would've had to play someone he already played, so instead of randomizing, I just paired A with C and avoided any re-pairings. I'm not going to do this in round 4 because it's going to come up a lot, and those logic knots are very difficult to untangle. It's possible, for instance, that the only way to avoid a re-pair would be to have a 21 play against a 6 or a 9. I'm not ok with that.
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Oct 17, 2008 16:06:39 GMT -5
Judging by current standings, 10-0-2 and 9-1-2 will guarantee top4. Moreover, I'm pretty sure that at least 1 participant with 9-0-3 (or maybe 2 of them, depending on performance on 7-0-2 and 6-1-2 players in round 4) will make it into top-4. Given that most top players after round 3 will be paired down in round 4, it is critical for players with 3 losses after round 3 to win _all_ remaining games and then pray for good tiebreakers =)
// Everything above is simply my own humble (and drunk) opinion and may be untrue.
|
|
|
Post by ExDeath on Oct 17, 2008 23:28:06 GMT -5
Your way of counting losses and draws really confuses me Bio. Traditionally, the loss the second number and draws is the final number. 9W-2L-1D, 9-2-1.
|
|
|
Post by jayef on Oct 18, 2008 0:04:58 GMT -5
About my "problematic" match with Rattler, I bring your attention to the conversation had over the first few rounds: games.ravenblack.net/warlocks?num=67328&turn=3--- Jayef says "This was supposed to be the tournament round 3, but I forgot to make it Maladroit and paraFC. Think we have time to finish this and start another?". Rattler says "Just challenge me to another game we will play two". Jayef says "Being unregistered, I cannot start another game, you will have to challenge me.". --- I just re-challenged Rattler today having been gracefully killed by Freesoul in actuality, forgetting that you can do double Ps in the final round as long as you KILL your opponent and thus having a third slot for issuing challenges. Spleenboy has also been slower than me, but he's still submitting moves.
|
|
|
Post by Dubber on Oct 25, 2008 15:08:41 GMT -5
Any chance we could have a consolation round playoff as well? IE next grouping of 4, or bottom of grouping of 4? Ask in the discussion thread. As directed, is there a possibility of "consolation brackets?
|
|
|
Post by ExDeath on Oct 25, 2008 15:28:30 GMT -5
Consolation brackets are something that haven't ever really been done, and I'm sort of confused what purpose they would serve. We should take all the players who finish 13-16, 17-20 etc. and force them to play 2 extra 2/3 game rounds..for what? They've essentially had 16 rounds already to establish what place they will finish, I'm just not quite sure where the pride might be in finishing 19th instead of 20th.
Plus, we all know those players' games take the longest, so it could add an extra month or more til the tournament is complete. I might not have a problem with 5-8 or 5-12 (if all players want to do it), but beyond that, no.
|
|
|
Post by toyotami on Oct 27, 2008 6:05:13 GMT -5
QnanG permanent permanency. awesome.
|
|
12
Ronin Warlock
Posts: 43
|
Post by 12 on Oct 27, 2008 21:47:44 GMT -5
I didn't even realize perm perm is possible... dam that's pretty awesome indeed, the most I've had was a double anti from succat...
|
|
|
Post by nawglan on Oct 28, 2008 16:57:01 GMT -5
Trying to secure a spot in the finals Rattler? 8P
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Oct 28, 2008 23:44:59 GMT -5
Rattler while reporting results, could you please provide a link to the game?
|
|
12
Ronin Warlock
Posts: 43
|
Post by 12 on Oct 29, 2008 13:19:07 GMT -5
I just noticed we have to wait an extra week before the next round of matches... hmmm, if you read this, send a game over to train me up for the semi... thanks!
|
|
12
Ronin Warlock
Posts: 43
|
Post by 12 on Oct 31, 2008 23:46:38 GMT -5
If the top four is decided *before* the "reserved" week (7-11 Nov) will the semi be moved up? Just wondering..
PS: Why my matches ends so darn quickly??
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Nov 1, 2008 0:38:33 GMT -5
If the top four is decided *before* the "reserved" week (7-11 Nov) will the semi be moved up? Just wondering.. I'm against it. Both I and some other top-4 contestants still have games to finish, and we could use some time to prepare strats\examine our top-4 opponents games - and that could be done only after all significant games are concluded. And, by the way, I personally will not be able to make more then 1 turn\day during November 5th - November 10th.
|
|