1
2
Poll
2012 WBCCC, Number of Games, 10 or 12? (Closed)
| 10 | 7 | 33% | |
| 12 | 14 | 67% |
Poll time.
With the likelihood of more entries than 2011 WBCCC, I have decided to run an informative poll to see whether prospective players would prefer 10 or 12 games for 2012. 2011 was 10 games and ran from middle January to middle October, roughly.
If 2 more games were to be added for 2012, then the tournament would conclude middle of December, which could mean only a short turn around time of about a month before 2013 starts in middle January again.
Remembering also that for 2012, the starting time for each round will be altered by 3 hours or so, so as to spread the load of starting game times.
So get your vote in. TheHug is on holidays at the moment and this poll is only for information, but I am sure a large margin one way or the other would certainly be taken on board.
As arbiter, if there are a lot more entries, then 2 extra games would not make much difference. It certainly would have made pairings games 11 and 12 a lot harder in 2011, with only 28 players finishing the tournament.
Poll will close 31st November
With the likelihood of more entries than 2011 WBCCC, I have decided to run an informative poll to see whether prospective players would prefer 10 or 12 games for 2012. 2011 was 10 games and ran from middle January to middle October, roughly.
If 2 more games were to be added for 2012, then the tournament would conclude middle of December, which could mean only a short turn around time of about a month before 2013 starts in middle January again.
Remembering also that for 2012, the starting time for each round will be altered by 3 hours or so, so as to spread the load of starting game times.
So get your vote in. TheHug is on holidays at the moment and this poll is only for information, but I am sure a large margin one way or the other would certainly be taken on board.
As arbiter, if there are a lot more entries, then 2 extra games would not make much difference. It certainly would have made pairings games 11 and 12 a lot harder in 2011, with only 28 players finishing the tournament.
Poll will close 31st November
people voting for 12 games... why? How will you handle all the holiday interruptions? There is no vacation for this tournament... we had a clear winner without needing more rounds so why would we add more?
We do this for fun, more rounds more fun!
Fun is not planning your vacations around your corr tournament. I would not participate if it was 12 rounds.
![[mx]](/mwf/v12/flags/mx.png "Mexico")
> we had a clear winner without needing more rounds so why would we add more?
Because we're expecting a higher number of players this time around, and 10 games would probably won't suffice.
New, maybe not so new idea.
Garvin as a TD, you surely know how to make pairings if someone needs a half-point bye. If they told you at least one month before the next round is scheduled to start, could you do it?
That way ALL the players that are too tired to press keyboard buttons, or too busy with their lives for a few minutes on analysis, or like in Nelson and Ruben's case their mind switched to nothing but sex until they can get laid, can have up to two half-point byes during the year?
Garvin as a TD, you surely know how to make pairings if someone needs a half-point bye. If they told you at least one month before the next round is scheduled to start, could you do it?
That way ALL the players that are too tired to press keyboard buttons, or too busy with their lives for a few minutes on analysis, or like in Nelson and Ruben's case their mind switched to nothing but sex until they can get laid, can have up to two half-point byes during the year?
> you surely know how to make pairings if someone needs a half-point bye.
That's not necessary with a double Swiss system, since there are 2 games per player at any point, it doesn't matter if the number of players is odd or a prime, they can always be paired without byes needed.
Please see the Wight as a precedent on the first edition.
As for taking a break, I myself am a precedent on the first edition, I left for 2 games, and got 0 points on them, it would have been unfair if I got a half-point bye in each of them, at least for other players that wanted to play the full tournament.
Keep the votes coming in.
![[in]](/mwf/v12/flags/in.png "India")
How difficult would it be to have a round robin? Assuming we are playing two games simultaneously, how long will that take?
A round robin is impossible. 30 odd players would mean 29 games each. So 15 months at least. And players withdrawing have a larger effect in a round robin. Best to stick with the system we have now.
The only extra change I would like to see is the ability to pair players as per normal swiss rules for each game, but that could mean in some two game sets (round) a person could get two whites, or two blacks. But pairings would certainly be more 'normal'.
Colours would even out over the 10/12 games.
The only extra change I would like to see is the ability to pair players as per normal swiss rules for each game, but that could mean in some two game sets (round) a person could get two whites, or two blacks. But pairings would certainly be more 'normal'.
Colours would even out over the 10/12 games.
> A round robin is impossible. 30 odd players would mean 29 games each. So 15 months at least.
That sounds alright actually, just one year three months for a tournament would be very fine. I thought we weren't going for one because we were expecting to have 50 odd players or more.
> The only extra change I would like to see is the ability to pair players as per normal swiss rules for each game, but that could mean in some two game sets (round) a person could get two whites, or two blacks. But pairings would certainly be more 'normal'.
WBCCC 1 was alright with the pairings that it had. Furthermore, I think pairings ignoring the ratings and just pairing based on scores would have been fine, as I think there were players overrated and underrated.
One way to know if the pairings are critical is having you create some pairings (with exact methods), and some random player create another ones (with whatever methods) and try to make players guess which one is the real deal. I think players wouldn't be able to tell unless the fake pairings were truly horrible.
If pairings are not critical, then I think getting a white and a black game is more important than who you're paired with, since that could cause further problems. For instance, a strong player getting two whites against two overrated players would give a boost in the start of the tournament. An overrated player getting two blacks against too strong opponents is going to cripple him at the start. There's no reason to worry at the start if one uses pairings like the first WBCCC, which was a success and I saw nobody complaining about them (other than NATIONAL12 who hates Swiss, but then, a more strict Swiss System would make things worse).
Round-Robin gets my vote, it could run like ficgs. Up to 64 players could enter, 8 8-player RR's. Top 8 qualifiers play in the Final. I know this is probably to much and would take 2 years, but it would sure show something.
I'm with Paul, hate Swiss systems, one loss and it's almost impossible to come back from it. In the recent World Team CC Ch.'s, Eros won best first board prize and he even had a loss. But because there were enough games, he had time to make it up.
At least 12 rounds in this would be better than 10, (so far overwhelmingly favored), and there is time. Look at this two months wasted, Nov. & Dec. 2011.
I'm with Paul, hate Swiss systems, one loss and it's almost impossible to come back from it. In the recent World Team CC Ch.'s, Eros won best first board prize and he even had a loss. But because there were enough games, he had time to make it up.
At least 12 rounds in this would be better than 10, (so far overwhelmingly favored), and there is time. Look at this two months wasted, Nov. & Dec. 2011.
![[gb]](/mwf/v12/flags/gb.png "United Kingdom")
+1
![[us]](/mwf/v12/flags/us.png "United States")
12 games is fine, round robin is out of the question. Would take over 2 years+. Its not happening.
Ok Jimmy, Your funny sometimes,
I guess that puts out of the question the 50 player all-play-all event,
Your funny sometimes, I guess that puts out of the question the 50 player all-play-all event,
> round robin is out of the question.
Please consider it if we get 32 players or less. Though with more, I agree with you, it'd just be excessive.
The maximum for a round robin is 12 players. Otherwise we would go over the one year cycle.
I like the system we had.
Keep the votes coming in, only 13 votes so far. Many more required.
Answering a few comments in the same post.
1) It is not certain if there will be 10 or 12 games. This poll is indicative only and is a guide. If we get close to 50 or 60 entries, then the tournament will certainly be twelve rounds. If we stay with 30 approx entries, then we shall see as time progresses closer to the tournament.
If there is only ten games, then there is an option to add more days to the time control to try and have play all year round.
2) There will be no half point byes in any round. The main point of this is to avoid tactical taking of half point byes to avoid strong opponents, or because a player believes that having a break and getting 1 out of 2 is going to increase their chances of winning a prize.
The expectation when entering the tournament is that everyone plays all games.
3a) A few comments I do recall from the 2011 edition is that if someone does not play a two game set, then they should be withdrawn from the tournament and not be re-admitted.
3b) Along the same line of comments was that players should not be allowed to enter from game 3 onwards.
Both of these ideas I agree with.
3a) There are a few reasons why I agree with this, but the main reason is that if someone misses a two game set, then they drop way down the standings and are most likely going to be 'out of position' relative to their rating. So this then affects those on the lower scores, who would get a stronger opponent than they otherwise should have for the score they are on. The lower rated opponent has done nothing wrong, they have played all their games, did they best they could and now are having their tournament affected by someone who was unable to play in one two game set.
3b) The reason I agree with this is similar to my answer to 3a, but then also it means everyone knows from game 1 onwards who they are likely to be playing. Entrants were allowed to enter from Game 3 onwards to bolster the field and to expose as many players as possible to the tournament, thereby increasing the numbers and exposure of the event.
For 2012, with quite a few more entrants, none of those factors will be in existance. We should have plenty more entries, so no new entries will be required to 'make up the numbers'.
1) It is not certain if there will be 10 or 12 games. This poll is indicative only and is a guide. If we get close to 50 or 60 entries, then the tournament will certainly be twelve rounds. If we stay with 30 approx entries, then we shall see as time progresses closer to the tournament.
If there is only ten games, then there is an option to add more days to the time control to try and have play all year round.
2) There will be no half point byes in any round. The main point of this is to avoid tactical taking of half point byes to avoid strong opponents, or because a player believes that having a break and getting 1 out of 2 is going to increase their chances of winning a prize.
The expectation when entering the tournament is that everyone plays all games.
3a) A few comments I do recall from the 2011 edition is that if someone does not play a two game set, then they should be withdrawn from the tournament and not be re-admitted.
3b) Along the same line of comments was that players should not be allowed to enter from game 3 onwards.
Both of these ideas I agree with.
3a) There are a few reasons why I agree with this, but the main reason is that if someone misses a two game set, then they drop way down the standings and are most likely going to be 'out of position' relative to their rating. So this then affects those on the lower scores, who would get a stronger opponent than they otherwise should have for the score they are on. The lower rated opponent has done nothing wrong, they have played all their games, did they best they could and now are having their tournament affected by someone who was unable to play in one two game set.
3b) The reason I agree with this is similar to my answer to 3a, but then also it means everyone knows from game 1 onwards who they are likely to be playing. Entrants were allowed to enter from Game 3 onwards to bolster the field and to expose as many players as possible to the tournament, thereby increasing the numbers and exposure of the event.
For 2012, with quite a few more entrants, none of those factors will be in existance. We should have plenty more entries, so no new entries will be required to 'make up the numbers'.
![[sa]](/mwf/v12/flags/sa.png "Saudi Arabia")
The more games for me the better my chances as it is very difficult to earn a point in this fast time control. The uniqueness of this tour was employing the swiss system, making it round robin will only prolong this tour and will defeat the purpose of making this as a correspondence blitz tournament. IMHO
Yeah, for a Round Robin to work, I think it would need to have a maximum length of a year and a half, which seems impossible in current circumstances.
The only way I think could work out, is if the number of games per round were increased, but with many players that would lead to some 6 games per round instead of two, now, that's too extreme, I think. The idea of WBCCCII is to repeat what made it successful, so any drastic changes would need to be applied to a different tournament.
The only way I think could work out, is if the number of games per round were increased, but with many players that would lead to some 6 games per round instead of two
, now, that's too extreme, I think. The idea of WBCCCII is to repeat what made it successful, so any drastic changes would need to be applied to a different tournament.
Keep the votes coming in, only a few more days to go.
Poll closing date has passed and results as of now are running 2 to 1 in favour of 12 games.
So unless something dramatic happens and entries fall through the floor, the competition will most likely be 12 games. Jimmy and I do reserve the right to still make the competition 10 games though
So unless something dramatic happens and entries fall through the floor, the competition will most likely be 12 games. Jimmy and I do reserve the right to still make the competition 10 games though
If this is the path chosen then we have to be careful about the Christmas holidays.
Believe it or not, but I have only just realised that working on a two month schedule with two games per round, 12 games will take us across Christmas for the final 2 games, which I think no-one wants.
So this can still be done for twelve games, but will mean playing three games in the first two sets of pairings.
Games 1, 2 and 3- Jan 14 - March 13
Games 4, 5 and 6- March 14 - May 13
Games 7 and 8- May 14 - July 13
Games 9 and 10- July 14 - Sept 13
Games 11 and 12- Sept 14 - Nov 13.
In previous remarks, I stated that if we have only five sets of games, then it might be possible to add a few more initial days to the time control. This would certainly be helpful if we play 3 games in the first two sets of pairings.
I will post a possible schedule and new possible time control after a few comments by posters on the comments above.
So this can still be done for twelve games, but will mean playing three games in the first two sets of pairings.
Games 1, 2 and 3- Jan 14 - March 13
Games 4, 5 and 6- March 14 - May 13
Games 7 and 8- May 14 - July 13
Games 9 and 10- July 14 - Sept 13
Games 11 and 12- Sept 14 - Nov 13.
In previous remarks, I stated that if we have only five sets of games, then it might be possible to add a few more initial days to the time control. This would certainly be helpful if we play 3 games in the first two sets of pairings.
I will post a possible schedule and new possible time control after a few comments by posters on the comments above.
We have to rethink this, I have already got two guys that don't like the idea of more than 2 games sets.
I have a feeling the majority feels the same on this.
I have a feeling the majority feels the same on this.
> I have already got two guys that don't like the idea of more than 2 games sets.
Add me to the list
That's why I don't like polls, it doesn't allow you to know who is voting and doesn't allow you to ask them about what they were thinking when they voted. 2/3 of people want 12 games, are they happy with the final games going over Christmas? I for one, have no problem with that, and think it was a given when suggesting going for 12 games, so probably other voters had this is mind when voting.
I really like how players are being asked what they want, but I think those votes have to be open and happen on the thread, and probably that only WBCCC players or people that have planned to play in the tourney can vote.
My proposed solution:
Start a Round as soon as the last round finishes, maybe, with two days of rest for pairings or something. I think that rounds will end much sooner than the max round time, because both players never seem to use all the time on their clocks. So that, along the rounds you save and save time with the games starting earlier every round, and when you get to the "November" games (in Garvin's chart), they start in the middle of October with enough time for all games to end before Christmas.
It suffices to calculate how much time it took for all WBCCC 1.0 games of a round to finish, and see how earlier the rounds would have started if the start times were dynamic. I recall several weeks of idle time were lost, if you don't lose them, they solve the problem.
I never liked how if all games took 1 month to finish, the second month is wasted doing nothing, anyway.
+1
+2
That's why I don't like polls, it doesn't allow you to know who is voting and doesn't allow you to ask them about what they were thinking when they voted. 2/3 of people want 12 games, are they happy with the final games going over Christmas? I for one, have no problem with that, and think it was a given when suggesting going for 12 games, so probably other voters had this is mind when voting.When creating the poll, I was trying to find a public poll option, so I could see who was voting for which option, then take whatever information was provided to use as a guide. Could not find a way to have a public poll option.
On to the topic at hand. After speaking to Jimmy, we are going back to the 10 game option, unless numbers really balloon passed 50 or more.
>Could not find a way to have a public poll option.
The forum software doesn't have such an option. But you can just, ask the question in a thread, let people vote and voice their opinion in it, count the votes manually, etc.
>After speaking to Jimmy, we are going back to the 10 game option
Why? Three people that cared enough to give our opinions (NATIONAL12, keoki10 and me) agree that you can hold 12 games just fine if you start new rounds as soon as old rounds are over. I just hope those polls aren't just there to give illusion of democracy but are thrown away for arbitrary reasons.
Lets not jump to hard here, We have some weeks still to go.
Yeah, I don't mind my proposal being dismissed like that, but would like to hear a reason (it was said that you were going back to 10 games, as if my post was ignored).
The last time I checked, 7 is a higher number than 3. 12 games at least gives you a chance to come back if a person happens to lose a game.
> Why? Three people that cared enough to give our opinions (NATIONAL12, keoki10 and me) agree that you can hold 12 games just fine if you start new rounds as soon as old rounds are over. I just hope those polls aren't just there to give illusion of democracy but are thrown away for arbitrary reasons.
Uly, there is no dismissing of anyone's opinions, but sometimes organisers and arbiters are required to make decisions that seem contrary to some people's wishes. That is just nature of the beast I am afraid. The issue with the idea of just starting the next round as soon as the previous set of games finish is that players do plan their vacation and break times around the starting dates for each set of games. It also makes it very unclear as to when the next round starts.
I can also see the situation where if we had next games starting after previous set of games finish, that players will be complaining if the games are not produced quick enough, even if this takes two days to do, which increases the number of complaints, makes Jimmy/Dadi and myself look dis-organised and also increases the amount of pressure on us to get things done quickly. That can lead to increased mistakes.
I really do believe the setting of the start time for each new set of games is important and can be a fundamental feature of the event. Everyone gets to know when all games are going to start and can plan their lives accordingly. Remember also for 2012 that rolling GMT starting times will be used.
Thanks for giving the reasons.
All these seem like hypothetical, imaginary situations. I recall that you thought WBCCC 1 was going to be a failure for similar hypothetical, imaginary situations (like the tourney was going to be full of withdrawing players, time forfeits, and even, people challenging proposed pairings) and you were wrong. I think this case is similar.
I agree there are potential risks for trying to start Rounds ASAP, but it sounds like it's more a risk for the organizers, and not the players. So starting rounds as soon as they're over comes at a price, why don't you ask the players if they are willing to pay the price for having 12 games? Because, dismissing the idea just because of imaginary players that plan their lives according to some tournament doesn't sound fair to me. You have to check if those imaginary players (that would complain) exist before making decisions. What if you go for it and nobody complains?
Don't assume too much.
>That is just nature of the beast I am afraid. The issue with the idea of just starting the next round as soon as the previous set of games finish is that players do plan their vacation and break times around the starting dates for each set of games. It also makes it very unclear as to when the next round starts.
>I can also see the situation where if we had next games starting after previous set of games finish, that players will be complaining if the games are not produced quick enough, even if this takes two days to do, which increases the number of complaints, makes Jimmy/Dadi and myself look dis-organised and also increases the amount of pressure on us to get things done quickly. That can lead to increased mistakes.
>I really do believe the setting of the start time for each new set of games is important and can be a fundamental feature of the event. Everyone gets to know when all games are going to start and can plan their lives accordingly.
All these seem like hypothetical, imaginary situations. I recall that you thought WBCCC 1 was going to be a failure for similar hypothetical, imaginary situations (like the tourney was going to be full of withdrawing players, time forfeits, and even, people challenging proposed pairings) and you were wrong. I think this case is similar.
I agree there are potential risks for trying to start Rounds ASAP, but it sounds like it's more a risk for the organizers, and not the players. So starting rounds as soon as they're over comes at a price, why don't you ask the players if they are willing to pay the price for having 12 games? Because, dismissing the idea just because of imaginary players that plan their lives according to some tournament doesn't sound fair to me. You have to check if those imaginary players (that would complain) exist before making decisions. What if you go for it and nobody complains?
Don't assume too much.
I can see that...and agree it should be set ahead of time. I thought that's why these discussions.
At the cost of two extra games? Do you really plan your life just for one tournament? Would it make a huge difference to you if the start dates are announced 2 days in advance instead of from the start?
Please answer to these questions and think it over, I find the situation "I'm going to plan my vacation so it matches the WBCCCII schedule" unrealistic, as players are going to be playing in several tournaments and it's impossible to plan vacations for all of them.
If I recall correctly, the starting dates of the rounds of WBCCC1 were planned on the fly depending on when the rounds were finished, they weren't stated from the start of the tournament, and there were no problems whatsoever (other than wasting idle time, what I propose fixes that).
Please answer to these questions and think it over, I find the situation "I'm going to plan my vacation so it matches the WBCCCII schedule" unrealistic, as players are going to be playing in several tournaments and it's impossible to plan vacations for all of them.
If I recall correctly, the starting dates of the rounds of WBCCC1 were planned on the fly depending on when the rounds were finished, they weren't stated from the start of the tournament, and there were no problems whatsoever (other than wasting idle time, what I propose fixes that).
> Would it make a huge difference to you if the start dates are announced 2 days in advance instead of from the start?
>
>
I would be fine with this.
> I find the situation "I'm going to plan my vacation so it matches the WBCCCII schedule" unrealistic, as players are going to be playing in several tournaments and it's impossible to plan vacations for all of them.
>
>
Agree with this.
> If I recall correctly, the starting dates of the rounds of WBCCC1 were planned on the fly depending on when the rounds were finished, they weren't stated from the start of the tournament, and there were no problems whatsoever (other than wasting idle time, what I propose fixes that).
I thought I remembered them announced a short time ahead. Also it was always known it would be around the beginning of the month???
> I thought I remembered them announced a short time ahead.
Just like in my proposal!
> Also it was always known it would be around the beginning of the month???
I don't recall ever knowing for a fact when the rounds were going to start, until the last game of the round was over. And it worked!
But anyway, even if we don't go for dynamic round starting, 12 games are being ditched because it was assumed players wouldn't like to have the last round going crossing Christmas, but players weren't even asked if they would mind! Would you mind having your last 2 games happening in December? I'd expect them to be over before Holidays anyway.
I just hope we get more than 50 players and these discussions are moot
> The last time I checked, 7 is a higher number than 3. 12 games at least gives you a chance to come back if a person happens to lose a game.
Scott, I am not sure what is meant by 7 is a higher number than 3, in this context. How do those two numbers figure into the situation?
in the poll 7 (67%) for 12 games 3 (33.3%) was for 10 games or roughly 2 to 1 in favor of 12 games.
You want to play games in the Christmas holidays? That is what this really boils down to. If the answer is no, then you see were the issue is.
P.S.- I'm just talking about the issue that doesn't necessarily reflect my opinion on this.
P.S.- I'm just talking about the issue that doesn't necessarily reflect my opinion on this.
> You want to play games in the Christmas holidays?
Or to have starting dates of Rounds being announced shortly in advance, just like in WBCCC I.
Yep, the holidays was my issue. If its 10 games, I'll play. If it is 12, I won't. I refuse to schedule my holiday around corr tournaments. Corr is something I picked up because it fit in my life so easily. The second I have to *plan* my life around a corr tournament then I will quit.
> I refuse to schedule my holiday around corr tournaments
And I hope they refuse to schedule their tournament around a single player, specially when the majority wants 12 games, and when that player has 4 conditions that need to be fulfilled for him to play that sounds like threats ("make it my way or I won't play").
I would rather like to see decisions being made on majority, not tyranny of players that wouldn't play otherwise. You can't please everyone, but you can please most people.
It would figure the very day I take you off ignore list that you go off like a raving lunatic. Solution: immediate readd to ignore list. Well done sir.
I know you aren't a TD and that your logical reasoning skills are quite weak. But there is a simple formula used to determine rounds in swiss events. It is to 2^X=y where y is the number of participants you have. If you had 50 participants then you would need 6 rounds. It was clearly obvious we had too many rounds for players last time but the proposal of 12 rounds requires 4096 participants. There was no point after round 2 where ppipper was not leading.
As to 'conditions' they are not conditions in the sense you are using them. I simply making it known why I will or won't play. Its no skin off my back if the tournament becomes an unplayable quantity for me. I can always play elsewhere.
I know you aren't a TD and that your logical reasoning skills are quite weak. But there is a simple formula used to determine rounds in swiss events. It is to 2^X=y where y is the number of participants you have. If you had 50 participants then you would need 6 rounds. It was clearly obvious we had too many rounds for players last time but the proposal of 12 rounds requires 4096 participants. There was no point after round 2 where ppipper was not leading.
As to 'conditions' they are not conditions in the sense you are using them. I simply making it known why I will or won't play. Its no skin off my back if the tournament becomes an unplayable quantity for me. I can always play elsewhere.
>your logical reasoning skills are quite weak [...]
>the proposal of 12 rounds requires 4096 participants.
No comment.
>As to 'conditions' they are not conditions in the sense you are using them.
They aren't? What if I said "if parmetd plays in WBCCC II then I won't play"? I'd be putting conditions on the organizers, so that they have to make actions to benefit me, instead of making actions to benefit the majority. They are conditions, and conditions are selfish, specially when you are the only one making them.
>I simply making it known why I will or won't play.
See above, I made a proposal that allows 12 games and not crossing holidays, so the "I won't play because 12 games cross holidays" doesn't apply necessarily, it's just a condition to try to force the organizers to go with 10 games.
It would figure the very day I take you off ignore list that you go off like a raving lunatic. Solution: immediate readd to ignore list. Well done sir.(parmetd)
i am amazed at this statement.Complete opposite in all my dealings with Uly.You appear to be a very touchy or sensitive soul.
i am amazed at this statement.Complete opposite in all my dealings with Uly.You appear to be a very touchy or sensitive soul.
1
2
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill