Tournament id 10000

I already have a name for this tournament - RHP Open I. Sounds grander than August 2010 Threesomes II, what do you reckon?

OK, lets see what the main issues are.

1. Format. The main advantage of the Swiss system is that it allows to determine a deserving winner out of many players, without them all having to play each other and anyone being eliminated. If the software doesn't support the Swiss system, fair enough, although it's not really a rocket science, surely far less complicated matter than some of the features on this website. If it needs testing, well, why not start some turbo ultra hardcore tournament with 100 players and test it now?
In the end it doesn't really matter this system is used or that, my point is that it would be nice to have a tournament with as many members involved as reasonably possible, something that has not happened before, something special. Maybe someone could think of a better system?

2. Non-subscribers. I want to make it absolutely clear: Swiss system means everyone has only 2 games per round (or 1 game, if it is decided so). So is it really a big deal to give them a few tournament games a year? They would still be limited to 6 games (unless of course they already have 5 or 6). Maybe this would even encourage a few of them to subscribe? Or, if it's not acceptable, well, we could still have a tournament for subscribers only.

3. Duration. This is a problem - on one hand waiting 10 years for a tournament to finish is not fun, on the other you'll need a lot of rounds when thousands are playing whatever the system is. In fact nine rounds may not be even enough, as there is a small possibility that we could end up with the winner and runner-up who didn't play each other. So this probably must be a hardcore tournament, 0/90 (2 rounds a year), or even 0/45 (4 rounds), with 11, perhaps 13 rounds. That said, as I went through a (rather unpleasant) process of flicking down through the most active player tables all the way down to the 10000th, I noticed that the wast majority of people (93%, say) made their last move that day, or a day before. So I think this time control would still be acceptable to most, after all this only adds 2 (or 1) games to their gameload.

4. Number of entrants. Fine, 10000 may be too ambitious. But the participation can easily exceed that of Championship - first, because subscribers will only have to worry about 2 games, rather than 20, and will be more willing to join, and second, of course, because of the non-subs.
BTW, I wasn't really serious about setting a world record. However, I failed to find any records of this kind on Internet. In fact, on the Guinness World Records website, it is possible to submit a record application. Perhaps someone from RHP staff could do it? After all, the worst thing that can happen is they'll say no or will not answer - big deal.


So, can we pull this off, or am I waisting my time?

and when i suggested this no one listened 🙁 lol

I think the "Tournament id 10000" should be something extra!
I just don't exactly know what...

Agreed. It should not simply pass.

A massive one game random colour Knock Out just with all the subs.

Time control is one day with a 1,000 hours time bank no vacs.
That is about 41 days.

Winner gets 1000 days subscription.

Originally posted by O Artem O
and when i suggested this no one listened 🙁 lol

Originally posted by Phlabibit
Is that how you remember it going?

Thread 117671

You jumped the gun a bit.

You gave no ideas how to make it special.

You just threw it out there.

Originally posted by greenpawn34


A massive one game random colour Knock Out

If there is a prize, then I think it should go randomly to one of the participants (who hasn't lost by a timeout), rather than a winner. This way everyone would have a chance of "winning", not just a handful of semi-gods with almighty ratings.
IMO such a tournament should be about everyone feeling involved, not just who's going to win it.

Originally posted by kes29
If there is a prize, then I think it should go randomly to one of the participants (who hasn't lost by a timeout), rather than a winner. This way everyone would have a chance of "winning", not just a handful of semi-gods with almighty ratings.
IMO such a tournament should be about everyone feeling involved, not just who's going to win it.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Agreed. It should not simply pass.

A massive one game random colour Knock Out just with all the subs.

Time control is one day with a 1,000 hours time bank no vacs.
That is about 41 days.

Winner gets 1000 days subscription.

Originally posted by trev33
sent feedback.. not possible to have a one game shotout tournament. shame.

Originally posted by Phlabibit
It's very complex. You'd need to play a game. Winner would advance, the loser would drop out.

It would be InSaNE to set RHP up to support it, with all the OMG this and that stuff required to make a tournament like this.

I am glad to see RHP not wasting time on this, and just saying it can't be done... since it won't be done anyway.

P-

Originally posted by trev33
well, of course it can be done, the feedback was clear to say that it just wouldn't be done, if not my post. i think one game knockout tournament would bring a lot to rhp, of course you would have to knock both players out in the result of a draw which some people might bitch about but other than that it should be fun.