2012 Life in 19x19 Tournament Pairings & Results

[lobotommy]

This round was very quick, well done!

So now, we have the following two games in the loser's bracket:

Practise - crux (venkman)
Uberdude - tommyray (lobotommy)

The winners of those games then play against each other to determine who plays against the loser of:

The Winner's Final

ez4u vs. herminator


The only two remaining undefeated players!

As always, full bracket is at: http://hiddema.nl/L19-2012.html

Ok, sure, I will play against Uberdude, no problem, but if he is so strong he should play with his eyes closed!

[jts]

Hmm, so... whatever happened? It seems that none of those matches were ever played, correct? Uberdude is playing like 17 games a day and tommyray (lobotommy) is still visiting the forum, so I don't see any reason they couldn't play their game.

Loons (Practise) may perhaps have quit the forum, and I haven't seen him on KGS recently. Is anyone in touch with him? Crux (venkman) has been quiet, but apparently he is still visiting the forum daily.

As for ez4u and Herman, I can only assume that they think it would be undignified to play their game before the loser's bracket has been hashed out.

------- Now, another topic: I assume we're not going to have a 2013 tournament? It's fun in concept but we haven't managed to finish the 2011 tournament, and here we are nearly halfway through 2013. Last year we started planning in April and posted pairings in June. I guess there's nothing wrong with having a tournament that precesses haphazardly through the calendar. But at the same time, it does seem that the strongest players have the least interest in the tournament, and so the final stage, which should be the most exciting, is instead the point where everyone forgets that we have a tournament going on.

[stalkor]

Just a thought but ASR could host a league or tournament for L19x19 in the beginning of fall or late this year.

[oren]

The problem is not hosting, it's getting players to play through the whole thing.

[stalkor]

The problem is not hosting, it's getting players to play through the whole thing.

Thats true but we can support through agressive emailing and reminding if there is need for it

[crux]

Loons (Practise) may perhaps have quit the forum, and I haven't seen him on KGS recently. Is anyone in touch with him? Crux (venkman) has been quiet, but apparently he is still visiting the forum daily.

We exchanged PMs for a while trying to schedule a game but didn't manage. I haven't heard from him in a while.

[jts]

Loons (Practise) may perhaps have quit the forum, and I haven't seen him on KGS recently. Is anyone in touch with him? Crux (venkman) has been quiet, but apparently he is still visiting the forum daily.

We exchanged PMs for a while trying to schedule a game but didn't manage. I haven't heard from him in a while.

Well, it seems he hasn't logged onto KGS recently. Maybe the best thing is just to award you the win? I imagine Herman will give us a ruling on that. Hope all is well with him.

[karaklis]

The problem is not hosting, it's getting players to play through the whole thing.

The causing problem is probably the format of the tournament. Maybe the format stalkor suggests (ASR-like) would make it easier for the players to play through the whole thing.

[jts]

The problem is not hosting, it's getting players to play through the whole thing.

The causing problem is probably the format of the tournament. Maybe the format stalkor suggests (ASR-like) would make it easier for the players to play through the whole thing.

I'm not so sure. ASR appeals to some people and not others. Our tournament's players seem to think that a game a month is excessive. We could make it a self-paired double-elimination tournament, but I suspect that would only mean players who were not energetic enough to schedule a game with an assigned opponent would schedule nothing at all.

It's also worth hashing out where things started to unravel. My sense is that things started out slow, but that the tournament only stalled out in the last two rounds. OTOH, I could appreciate it if someone wanted to argue that the slow pace at the beginning meant that people who were committed to playing in Summer 2012 had other priorities by winter. But obviously these all have very different consequences.

[Joaz Banbeck]

Hmm, so... whatever happened? It seems that none of those matches were ever played,...

------- Now, another topic: I assume we're not going to have a 2013 tournament? It's fun in concept but we haven't managed to finish the 2011 tournament, and here we are nearly halfway through 2013. ..

An L19 tournament sounds like a good idea, but experience has shown that any project on L19 that has more than two people involved has less than a 50/50 chance of completion. Even one with only 4 people ( 2 vs 2 Malkovich ) seems to require substitutes to finish

L19 members have real lives.

What we need is a more compatible structure - something more like king-of-the-hill - in which new participants can enter easily and retiring participants do not leave gaps.

[HermanHiddema]

Sorry, I lost track of this tournament a bit. I'm abroad this week, I'll try to rouse the participants from their hibernation next week.

[Kirby]

What we need is a more compatible structure - something more like king-of-the-hill - in which new participants can enter easily and retiring participants do not leave gaps.

One way to alleviate the gap problem would be to impose a time limit. Hold the tournament following the same format as it currently does, with one change: If two players cannot play a game within N days (for some predefined positive value of N), they are both:
Option 1.) Eliminated
Option 2.) Eligible to play against the person they *would* play had they won the game they did not complete in N days. They should play this group of person within M days of that person having won their respective round.

Note: For the final game, if they refuse to play within N days, just call it a tie.

To give an example of Option 2, say there are four players, A, B, C, and D, and let's say that N is 4 days and M is 2 days. Then A&B and C&D both have to complete their games within 4 days. Let's say that A&B do, and A wins. Let's also say that C&D don't complete within 4 days. Then both C&D are eligible to play against A within 2 days. If one of them do so within 2 days, whoever posts the game result first has the game that "counts", and the result determines who advances.

There are a couple of issues with Option 2. For example, maybe A refuses to play C when C tries to play against A since D never showed up. Still, at least it gives A a chance to remain in the tournament, even though B never showed up.

Either way, we at most wait for N+M days at a given stage. I don't know if this is ideal, but maybe it could work.

[stalkor]

The problem is not hosting, it's getting players to play through the whole thing.

The causing problem is probably the format of the tournament. Maybe the format stalkor suggests (ASR-like) would make it easier for the players to play through the whole thing.

I'm not so sure. ASR appeals to some people and not others. Our tournament's players seem to think that a game a month is excessive. We could make it a self-paired double-elimination tournament, but I suspect that would only mean players who were not energetic enough to schedule a game with an assigned opponent would schedule nothing at all.

It's also worth hashing out where things started to unravel. My sense is that things started out slow, but that the tournament only stalled out in the last two rounds. OTOH, I could appreciate it if someone wanted to argue that the slow pace at the beginning meant that people who were committed to playing in Summer 2012 had other priorities by winter. But obviously these all have very different consequences.

i wasnt implying to use the ASR league ruleset, i was implying that we will have a tournament system implemented at the end of the year which will have the automatic game registration system.

What we need is a more compatible structure - something more like king-of-the-hill - in which new participants can enter easily and retiring participants do not leave gaps.

One way to alleviate the gap problem would be to impose a time limit. Hold the tournament following the same format as it currently does, with one change: If two players cannot play a game within N days (for some predefined positive value of N), they are both:
Option 1.) Eliminated
Option 2.) Eligible to play against the person they *would* play had they won the game they did not complete in N days. They should play this group of person within M days of that person having won their respective round.

Note: For the final game, if they refuse to play within N days, just call it a tie.

To give an example of Option 2, say there are four players, A, B, C, and D, and let's say that N is 4 days and M is 2 days. Then A&B and C&D both have to complete their games within 4 days. Let's say that A&B do, and A wins. Let's also say that C&D don't complete within 4 days. Then both C&D are eligible to play against A within 2 days. If one of them do so within 2 days, whoever posts the game result first has the game that "counts", and the result determines who advances.

There are a couple of issues with Option 2. For example, maybe A refuses to play C when C tries to play against A since D never showed up. Still, at least it gives A a chance to remain in the tournament, even though B never showed up.

Either way, we at most wait for N+M days at a given stage. I don't know if this is ideal, but maybe it could work.

i am all for a hard cut off date

[Joaz Banbeck]

I'm slowly developing the opinion that a tournament held in the classic manner just won't work on a forum.

I believe that one of the reasons that it won't work is the problem of pairing vs scheduling. In the classic F2F tournament, pairing players and scheduling their game were almost the same thing. The times and location of the games were known in advance - often weeks in advance. When registering for the tournament, a player implicity agreed to the times and location. So when pairings were posted, both pairings and scheduling were settled. When the pairings went up, you knew who you would play, where, and when. ( Smith, board #24, in 5 minutes )

On a forum, we face the problem that pairing players and scheduling their game are two completely disjointed. Pairings may be done in advance, or done at the last minute, but the scheduling the game is still an unsolved problem. ( Smith, L19 room on KGS, and...err...has anybody seen Smith? )

In the next L19 tournament hope to circumvent this issue by resolving scheduling times beforehand. I hope to go back - by a very weird path - to the situation in which the scheduling issues were resolved before pairing was done.

I have some plans for a totally new type of tournament - one which fits a forum.

[jts]

I have discovered a truly marvelous type of tournament, which this margin is too narrow to contain.