Nice. =)




But I don't like this idea. It should be a double challenge (one game on each side against the same player). Otherwise you can't compare the games.

How about this:

0] map = trinity
1] 5-day limit
2] victory in case of 40% balance
3] top 50 players who want to join "the top 50 trinity tournament" (TT50TT)
4] 5 players in 8 groups
5] every player in each group plays 4 games against 4 different players (2 PL and 2 FNU games)
6] after 3 weeks the rematch games come into play
7] the two best players in each group advance to the next round
8] now we have 20 players in 4 groups and 5) and 6) again
9] no more groups now: quarter-finals, semi-finals and finals

To my mind this would be the "I've got a life" tournament a lot of players have asked for.

i think we can't afford 50 players this month, but next tournament will be TT50XT (X = map)

now we are at the start of MAN2 tournaments serie, there will be a lot of tournaments for 2000-2500, 2500-3000 and 3000+ rated players.

Congratulations to you and your partly new family, Herr Ravermeister!
Is the little man going to be sitting on your lap as you click out victory?
--Much thanks to Neoff for working on this Easy-Does-It Match.
This sounds very playable.

Whilst I agree that a double match is the best way - it does double the amount of games required.... On big maps - going first is not as big as an advantage as the smaller maps. (it doesn't hurt- but the SA's are more important that going first).

I am happy with playing everyone just once - the luck will balance out over the many games - I may lose to the one player due to luck but beat another with the help of luck ...

This game always has luck involved - but people can make their own luck too.

Fair enough!

5 games simultaneously is way too much for those of us with a life - is anyone expecting to play mid-game (i.e. when most of the SAs are declared and the result is still in doubt) turns in under an hour at this level? The proposed format so far is harder work than the current tournament which takes up less time per day on average and usually gives a week off a month at least.

With a 5-day limit?

We'll start tournament as soon as Rocklizard and storm440 will register.
Guys, we are waiting for you!

Sorry I cannot participate in the format as currently proposed, not least since we hope to follow Ravermeister's lead with a new addition in September. I ask you to reconsider and use a format that requires no more than two simultaneous games. If not then I will sit this one out and offer to run my proposed ring tournament in the new year.

All the best.

I am not clear on what i would be signing up for--ie the rules of this game. Are we each going to start 5 games, each with a 5 day turn limit, and play these games untill they are finished or is there also a 4 week chess clock or are all of the games just over after 4 weeks with the person ahead in % winning. If the rules are anything other than that the games will be played untill someone actually wins--up 40%-- I will have no interest in playing. I have to agree with rocklizard as to the time involved with these games--case in point--i just finished turn 20 in a game against Pitor on trinity--the game is very close with Pitor being up 1% while i am down 1%. The turn probably took well over 2 hours and this was not my first attempt to play it and even after taking this long i still felt that perhaps there were better ways to do this turn or that i perhaps forget something. If you play 5 games and only have time to play 1 or 2 each day then you would only make 10 to 12 turns in each game in 4 weeks --assuming that there will be days when you can not play at all. Now i will grant you that the first few turns will not take hours to play but this map will become very complex very quickly and i do not think most games will be decided in 10 or 12 moves and i sure would not want to lose by time being only down 1%

the rules state that 5 games will be started now and then another 5 in 4 weeks and then another 5- 4weeks after that. So my question is --who is playing the 2nd and 3rd set of games since i know i would not finish my original 5 in 4 weeks and i would not want to start 5 more while i have the original 5 going.

0) map = trinity
1) 5-day limit
2) 5 new games every 4 weeks (15-20 active games will be a good penalty for those who slows the tournament)
3) victory in case of 40% balance. (if you have 40% before your turn, tell it to moderator)
4) every pair of players have only one game. because of map size, it's no matter to play two games with different sides.

judging:
0) victory = 3 point, draw = 1 point.
1) players with same number of points will take one place.

2Rocklizard
i think that players with rating >=3000 can play very fast. this rules are acceptable for us

after a month, most of us will have 10 games, but only 5 games from this 10 has a lot of units.

2storm440
My turn on trinity takes no more than half hour

2all
it's first tournament in a serie, we need to test this rules. next time we'll try other limits

Sorry, I do not want to commit as much of my time as this tournament will eventually require. While some play quite fast, others (since they are old) play quite slow Having 10 or perhaps even 15 games going on trinity, all against first tier players, is not something i would want to do even if i had a 14 day turn limit. I have far too many demands on my free time for this. Have fun!

Good to see a Storm brewing .
The fewer games the better on a big map.
REMEMBER: This is a 5-day LIMIT...which is a long time.
Jedi Knight:
This is 5-day limits ?
IF a player decides to "get out" of the match, he can finish games in progress and decline to start anymore ; ask to have name removed from roster? No problem ?
Thanks for working on this thing
If Rocklizard instigates another match, that will also be good.

2Rextrent
no problem

lets check this format and start the tourney tomorrow.

[quote="Jedi_Knight"]0) map = trinity

2) 5 new games every 4 weeks (15-20 active games will be a good penalty for those who slows the tournament)

Why should a player that is playing within the rules of the tournament be penalized by having to play more games at the same time than someone who just plays faster? Another reward for those who can devote all of their non-working time to this game?


Jedi_knight--quote:i think that players with rating >=3000 can play very fast. this rules are acceptable for us
Maybe it is just me, but i would think it somewhat presumptuous to tell rocklizard--one of the games very best players--that you think he can spend much less time on his moves than he thinks he needs to spend

That's tourney. We must play faster because we want end it in finite time and start another
this penalty is better than chess-clock because i can go on holidays or short vacation with no doubt.

Skillful players can play chess faster, MAN2 is new version of chess

i realize, it's fast tourney, for those who loves big strategic battles.

we can also start tactical tourney, on antarcticus or emerald, with divisions, with 2 or more games between any pair of players in division.

I don't think that a high rating has anything to do with playing fast.



It's no problem making turns on Trinity in a half hour. But I doubt that it would be the best turn which you could have made.

I know it will be very time consuming nevertheless I'm eager to fight on Trinity.

I don't see why the tournament can't go on as long as it takes with new games started both players have finished previous games. I'm happy to give these rules a go, but I can see why busier players can't.

What will be the etiquette for timing players out. I'd rather not time anybody out, but we need to be consistent for fairness.

OK, lets edit rules following way:
when player finished game, he's get another one (of course, there must be other "free" player)
BUT
if some game exists more than 2 months, that's bad game and players receive another one!

Update (Pitor's idea):
if player goes to vacation for more than 5 days, he must inform moderators and we'll give him a break

UPDATE: rules updated.