Tournaments
30 Dec 05
02 Jan 06
Originally posted by no1marauderVery true. But I wouldn't propose any change for this year. I'm hoping by RHP 2007 Championship the issues will be worked out.
The rules for the NFL playoffs were put in place before the season. The Indianapolis Colts and the Pittsburgh Steelers and every other NFL team knew in advance that if they earned the two best records in the conference, they would get a bye. Here you want to change the rules in the middle of the season. Big difference.
02 Jan 06
Originally posted by RavelloI belong to that half of the remaining 30%.....
.... and I bet that half of the remaining 30% doesn't give a damn if top players enter that tournament
It is rightly so as you said before earlier in the thread, Ravello : 'What is this fuss all about?"
02 Jan 06
Originally posted by sevenstarThere are a lot of tournaments, so it is important the prestige tournaments retain their... er... prestige.
I belong to that half of the remaining 30%.....
It is rightly so as you said before earlier in the thread, Ravello : 'What is this fuss all about?"
The championship winner should be recognised as the champion of the site.
02 Jan 06
Originally posted by dottewellNot quite.....
The championship winner should be recognised as the champion of the site.
The championship winner should be recognised as the winner of the championship, which is (relatively) a short term, and also a one-off, event.
The 'site champion' (if there's one at all) I believe is the player who ranks #1 on the big board, which position indicates his/her skills and strength over a long period of time.
02 Jan 06
Originally posted by sevenstarThat is an absurd argument and here is why. By your logic, if Anand has a good month or two and his rating surpasses Topalovs, he is the new Chess Champion due to his excellent play over a long period of time (and perhaps against inferior opposition). This would also imply that due to his rating Kramnik never was World Champion to begin with (despite beating Kasparov).
Not quite.....
The championship winner should be recognised as the winner of the championship, which is (relatively) a short term, and also a one-off, event.
The 'site champion' (if there's one at all) I believe is the player who ranks #1 on the big board, which position indicates his/her skills and strength over a long period of time.
02 Jan 06
Originally posted by zebanoOn the contrary, we do in fact have the same point of view. Kramnik became World Champion because he won that specific match (read: tournament). Yet on the 'long term' ranking list he was not #1.
That is an absurd argument and here is why. By your logic, if Anand has a good month or two and his rating surpasses Topalovs, he is the new Chess Champion due to his excellent play over a long period of time (and perhaps against inferior opposition). This would also imply that due to his rating Kramnik never was World Champion to begin with (despite beating Kasparov).
More importantly, Kramnik choose to play out of his own free will, not because by-standers called him a coward and a loser in case he didn't play (which is, as you will recall, currently the situation here at RHP).
And all that means that you or I or Dottewell or anyone else for that matter could win the 2006 tournament, although that will not take us to the #1 position on the big board.
02 Jan 06
Originally posted by sevenstarExcept that is not my point of view, I was merely extrapolating your argument to it's natural conclusion. YOu become #1 by beating the number 1. When the #1 shys away from playing then you have issues such as we have had lately.
On the contrary, we do in fact have the same point of view. Kramnik became World Champion because he won that specific match (read: tournament). Yet on the 'long term' ranking list he was not #1.
More importantly, Kramnik choose to play out of his own free will, not because by-standers called him a coward and a loser in case he didn't play (which is, as ...[text shortened]... win the 2006 tournament, although that will not take us to the #1 position on the big board.
03 Jan 06
2 edits
Originally posted by cludiyour suggestion is not quite calculated correctly ... you would have a groupsize of 35 in the final round.
I agree with your reasoning as far as the decisive championship games is a matter of the top x players playing against each other.
But why not have the lower rated players battle out the initial rounds against each other?
Why not have a sub 1500 round 1?
And a sub 1900 round 2?
And then let in all the big guns in the 3rd round?
I still think a site cham as many of the top players as possible, to increase the odds of finding the rightful champion?
my thoughts for an ideal championship are:
first round time: 0/48 ... groupsize: 10,
second round time 0/60 ... groupsize: 8,
third round time 0/72 ... groupsize: whatever it takes.
the top 10 rated entrants, and the previous year's champ winner .... all get a bye in round 1.
the previous year's champ winner, and the highest rated entrant(when the second round begins) ... get a bye in round 2.
of course this is probably more hassle than it is worth to russ ... and so our present format is likely to continue.
03 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by flexmoreyou convinced me I entered after reading your post, after all its in the spirit of the site.
a very few players have a legitimate reason for not being in the tournament of all tournaments.
but ...
i think ...
the most common reason for very strong players not to play in this is ...
if they enter then they commit to trying to win it ... yet [b]EVERYONE faces the likely-hood of not winning ...
when they do not win they must face the ...[text shortened]... ayers ... they may have to face the fact that they are not perfect... and that is good ... PLAY.[/b]
03 Jan 06
Originally posted by flexmoreif you mean the 28th tournament there is till time to enter, i just have
i just got an email from gameknot ... it told me the next tourney was starting (i had forgotten that i even had an account there) ...
it was annoying ...
but maybe rhp players could take such #$%# just once per year.