Life In 19x19

I've wondered about the logistics for a win and continue with six teams, and one that seemed quite interesting was to employ a simultaneous method of two brackets in which the losers of a round in each bracket swap places. So that if there were six teams in two brackets, (A,B,c) and (D,E,f), each bracket would run as two separate tournaments, except that when a team loses a match, it switches places with the losing team in the opposite bracket, and of course, both losing teams become the inactive team for that round (A,C,e) (D,F,b). It seems a bit extreme for teams to have more than 3 players, however!

Lasting, how useful could it actually be as a system, to whom? Maybe it could be fun to try in a congress, but it may be a little complicated, for example...

Elom wrote:I've wondered about the logistics for a win and continue with six teams, and one that seemed quite interesting was to employ a simultaneous method of two brackets in which the losers of a round in each bracket swap places. So that if there were six teams in two brackets, (A,B,c) and (D,E,f), each bracket would run as two separate tournaments, except that when a team loses a match, it switches places with the losing team in the opposite bracket, and of course, both losing teams become the inactive team for that round (A,C,e) (D,F,b). It seems a bit extreme for teams to have more than 3 players, however!

Lasting, how useful could it actually be as a system, to whom? Maybe it could be fun to try in a congress, but it may be a little complicated, for example...

In your structure only four out of six teams play each round. What is the point of that? Why is it 'interesting' that 1/3 of the participants do nothing at any given point in time? Just play a round robin so that everyone plays all the time.

The point of win and continue is as drip-feed (hat tip JF for this term), parsimonious entertainment for spectators (and sponsors). String things out over a long period of time while actually playing the minimum number of games.

ez4u wrote:

Elom wrote:I've wondered about the logistics for a win and continue with six teams, and one that seemed quite interesting was to employ a simultaneous method of two brackets in which the losers of a round in each bracket swap places. So that if there were six teams in two brackets, (A,B,c) and (D,E,f), each bracket would run as two separate tournaments, except that when a team loses a match, it switches places with the losing team in the opposite bracket, and of course, both losing teams become the inactive team for that round (A,C,e) (D,F,b). It seems a bit extreme for teams to have more than 3 players, however!

Lasting, how useful could it actually be as a system, to whom? Maybe it could be fun to try in a congress, but it may be a little complicated, for example...

In your structure only four out of six teams play each round. What is the point of that? Why is it 'interesting' that 1/3 of the participants do nothing at any given point in time? Just play a round robin so that everyone plays all the time.

The point of win and continue is as drip-feed (hat tip JF for this term), parsimonious entertainment for spectators (and sponsors). String things out over a long period of time while actually playing the minimum number of games.

Hmm, I didn't think about the percentage of teams playing in a round. If it were a round robin, I guess it would be arranged in the normal 1st-board-2nd-board-3rd-board format. Do you mean that while a round robin can try to maximise the number of games each round (or play each game in the round separately for a similar reason to win-and-continue), and win-and continue minimizes the number of games, this format is a bit like the two-space low pincer?

Elom wrote:

ez4u wrote:

Elom wrote:I've wondered about the logistics for a win and continue with six teams, and one that seemed quite interesting was to employ a simultaneous method of two brackets in which the losers of a round in each bracket swap places. So that if there were six teams in two brackets, (A,B,c) and (D,E,f), each bracket would run as two separate tournaments, except that when a team loses a match, it switches places with the losing team in the opposite bracket, and of course, both losing teams become the inactive team for that round (A,C,e) (D,F,b). It seems a bit extreme for teams to have more than 3 players, however!

Lasting, how useful could it actually be as a system, to whom? Maybe it could be fun to try in a congress, but it may be a little complicated, for example...

In your structure only four out of six teams play each round. What is the point of that? Why is it 'interesting' that 1/3 of the participants do nothing at any given point in time? Just play a round robin so that everyone plays all the time.

The point of win and continue is as drip-feed (hat tip JF for this term), parsimonious entertainment for spectators (and sponsors). String things out over a long period of time while actually playing the minimum number of games.

Hmm, I didn't think about the percentage of teams playing in a round. If it were a round robin, I guess it would be arranged in the normal 1st-board-2nd-board-3rd-board format. Do you mean that while a round robin can try to maximise the number of games each round (or play each game in the round separately for a similar reason to win-and-continue), and win-and continue minimizes the number of games, this format is a bit like the two-space low pincer?

No, I don't believe that I meant that. The main thing that a win and continue format does compared to a round robin is eliminate games that are uninteresting to spectators. Games that no longer affect results may also be uninteresting to the players as well. As you noted, a round robin could be strung out on a schedule similar to a win and continue. On the other hand a win and continue can not be compacted without changes like the approach outlined in your OP.