Life In 19x19

I'm with Herman on this. Of course, from a practical perspective, more games makes more sense as a tiebreaker. As a tournament attendee who likes to know how many games I'm playing and when before I set off to the tournament at all, knowing that there may or may not be tiebreak games I may or may not have to participate in would make me less likely to want to attend at all.

For a tournament, I'm a believer that having a tiebreak system that is both understood and appreciated by the players is more important than a tiebreak system that is empirically fairer with respect to the outcome. If you had 400 attendees and 300 of them would prefer the extra games, then as an organiser it makes sense to try to have a way of expecting to fitting tiebreak games into the tournament schedule.

However, my gut instinct says players would rather the risk of being semi-arbitrarily downgraded on SOS than have to make room for additional games at the end of the tournament - in which case I think SOS is a better system to use. If the majority people are happy, the system is good.

topazg wrote:However, my gut instinct says players would rather the risk of being semi-arbitrarily downgraded on SOS than have to make room for additional games at the end of the tournament - in which case I think SOS is a better system to use. If the majority people are happy, the system is good.

That's certainly my anecdotal evidence. I experimented with a tournament that involved four games in a day rather than our more usual three. This was primarily because players had expressed a desire to get more out of the event (meeting and playing against players from far away is a rare treat), the improved tiebreaking was only a secondary benefit.

However, in practice, a significant percentage of players ended up forfeiting their final game. The games were going on too late, and players were just too fatigued.

quantumf wrote:I experimented with a tournament that involved four games in a day

Sounds like 4 games with full thinking time. Tiebreaking games can be fast.

topazg wrote:having a tiebreak system that is both understood and appreciated by the players

To start with, tournament players need some time before they even understand what SOS is...

RobertJasiek wrote:

topazg wrote:having a tiebreak system that is both understood and appreciated by the players

To start with, tournament players need some time before they even understand what SOS is...

And those that don't, don't mind not understanding it. I don't exaggerate when I say I have never heard anyone complaining about the usage of SOS in any tournament I've attended.

The exact order of players within a score group is essentially immaterial, especially when players get prizes for numbers of wins. Only at the tournament top, tiebreaking really matters in those tournaments where tiebreakers are used to split places and prizes. So talk to the top players! Among them, I see three factions: a) the tiebreaker haters, b) the tiebreaker believers, c) the indifferent "I don't care how my place is determined" people. If anything, then the three groups are roughly equally mighty.

Taiwan Superpower!

http://wmsg2012.org/results/youth

The 5:0 player of the qualifications won the gold medal.

http://wmsg2012.org/results/pairs

RobertJasiek wrote:

quantumf wrote:I experimented with a tournament that involved four games in a day

Sounds like 4 games with full thinking time. Tiebreaking games can be fast.

Yes, you're right, I wasn't describing a tiebreaking scenario. In reality, even for the players who hate the arbitrary tiebreakers like SOS, do they really want to play a blitz or near-blitz game to decide the result, in a tournament that has involved serious/slow games?

quantumf wrote:do they really want to play a blitz or near-blitz game to decide the result, in a tournament that has involved serious/slow games?

1) Shared places are ok.

2) Yes.