Posts:
1,049
Registered:
Mar 7, 2006
From:
Philadelphia, PA
Age:
38
Re: An argument against randomized sections
Posted:
Sep 16, 2026, 5:02 PM
Owen didn't specify how tournament performance would be calculated, but I'll assume it's based on win-loss % due to his earlier post, with head-to-head followed by quality of wins as the tiebreakers. This system is pretty messed up by having sections of both 3 and 4; it tends to favor people who were in sections of 4 (especially in round 1). The tiebreak between noah and mumix is really close, but it ends up looking something like this after 2 rounds:
1 zoey 2 owen 3 mike 4 karl 5 noah 6 mumix 7 tempest
Normal snake seeding would lead to the following sections:
with repeat matches karl/noah and owen/mumix (it seems to be a universal law at this point). If noah and mumix were swapped, the only rematch would be owen/noah.
It's no use going back to yesterday, because I was a different person then.
Re: An argument against randomized sections
Posted:
Sep 17, 2026, 2:09 AM
Nope, the scenario I've suggested earlier is based on groups of 4 (strictly) in case when there are more than 6 players in the tournament with the group system.
18 players started so a preliminary stage needed: 4 players with lowest rating plays a group (others wait; happens). 2 players qualify.
Then we have 16 (or any other power of 2) players, 4 groups of 4 players, each round exactly 2 advance from each group. Tiebreak: points; Berger; prev. round place; prev. round points; prev. round Berger; ...; the final tiebreak is rating at the start of the tournament (so it is unable to manipulate it during the tournament). Preliminaries ignored here. Seeding is trivial.
To avoid problems with tiebreaks, ratings should be floats, not integers (usually they are; dunno about pente.org).
