| From | Message |
easy19
7/15/2007
01:12:13
[ report abuse ] |
 Subject: GK tournaments - Speed up
Message:
The tournaments are cool and loads of players join them.
But it is going so slow.. ( waiting for the last 1 to end his game)
- From the 9th tournaments to 37th tournaments there are games running.
Now i wonder? Is it not possible to start Round 2 and round 3 Faster
If you get 20 or more group winners in Round 1 you can start up round 2 and add the new winners from round 1 later on. so they can start playing
|
tag1153
7/15/2007
08:28:46
[ report abuse ] | This dead horse.....
Message:
.......has been continually beaten for the three years I have been playing on this site. While I empathize with your point, no new GK tournament will begin until EVERY game of EVERY bracket has concluded. The field of the next round cannot be accurately set until this happens, as people withdraw (causing the #2 guy to advance), ratings parameters are exceeded (especially after round 1, which causes people to get kicked up to the next section), etc.....
tag1153
PS - to give you an idea of how long a tourney takes, I made it to the final round of GK #22, and it took over 2 years for my section (intermediate) to finish.
|
easy19
7/15/2007
09:57:22
[ report abuse ] |
Message:
Wen i look at wimbledon tennis rounds PDC darts Tournament Football pools
and how easy that works. its maby time for a update.
|
eqj2
7/15/2007
10:16:59
[ report abuse ] | Another Point
Message:
I joined the 35 tourney this was the intermediate class and I have won it. That was quite some time ago and my rating has built up and now I doubt that I will be in that class when the next round starts. They might send me to the advance class for round two? Its those type of situations that tag1153 talks about.
|
tag1153
7/15/2007
11:41:40
[ report abuse ] | eqj2
Message:
That exact scenario happened to me in GK #32...............
tag1153
|
ganstaman
7/15/2007
14:35:30
[ report abuse ] |
Message:
When they start to play tennis and darts through correspondence, then we can compare them to correspondence chess.
Each move can take a different amount of time (ranging in days), and each game can take a different amount of moves (some 20, some 100), and with postponments always possible, you just can't expect there to be a short tournament of this size.
|
levellerlevvie
7/16/2007
01:58:16
[ report abuse ] | Short tournament: no; ShortER: yes
Message:
It's not needed to wait until every game has finished. I'm pretty sure of that. You could easily start a new round when for eg: 95% of the pools are finished. Then the other 5% will join the next round one by one and will be added to the existing pools. You will have like 50% pools with 4 players and 50% with 5 players.
And since they allready have this kinda behaviour in mini-tournaments it seems very implementable if you ask me. I'm pretty sure it would reduce the time spend on a complete tournament with 20 to 40%
There are other and better solutions as well but they are more drasticly and a complete redesign for the tournament-formula would be needed.
Anyway .. Gameknot is really very good, but they can also still improve a lot.
|
mattchess
7/16/2007
11:08:39
[ report abuse ] |
Message:
Thought you would find this interesting:
-> www.correspondencechess.com
Tournament length simply is very long for CC tournaments. You would need to have restrictions on postponements and duration between moves to reduce the average length - but do we really want that?
Just sign up for the next tournament and take pride in winning sections. Eventually you will see the end of the tourney. Easy for me to say since I never make it past a couple rounds ;-)
Maybe one thing that could be done is to create even more sections - i.e. break some in two etc so that there are fewer players per group...but that just increases the probability of people being bumped between groups so I am not sure if that would really work.
|
easy19
7/16/2007
15:22:28
[ report abuse ] |
Message:
I was thinking of split tournaments. ( Qualifaction Tournament > The Tournament )
Example GK Tournament 41A 41B
- Players wil be equaly split amongst the 2 tournaments.
- Groups in round 1 wil be 3 players big instead of 4
- Round 2 starts wen 50% of round 1 is played
- Round 2 has only 2 players who play 3 games
All winners from round 2 41A and 41B wil be merged in the final tournament
41C This final tour wil be played the same as the original GK tours
Only it wil be loads faster with a highly reduced number of players.
I just made this up in a minit so maby it is nothing maby it is somthing..
|
jsemmens
7/23/2007
08:42:42
[ report abuse ] |
Message:
Just for the record, not every single game has to be finished for the next round to start. If there are games that do not affect the final results, they are finished during the next round. So you'll just have to sit tight and wait for the games to finish. It is my recommendation, that if you want to play in more tournament action, that you join multiple tournaments at once.
|
cairo
7/23/2007
10:09:18
[ report abuse ] | I
Message:
also think that something should be done around the popular BI-monthly GK-Tournaments.
Here is an example on how crazy it can go. The tournament winner is florinserban (he is not pronounce as a winner yet) and he finished his last game in december 2004, while players are still playing in the group almost 3½ after the start of the games????
Check this: -> gameknot.com
Best wishes
Cairo
|
heinzkat
7/23/2007
16:03:53
[ report abuse ] | After all...
Message:
it's correspondence chess. The only way to make tournaments faster is to set the time control to something like 1 day + 3 hours < 2 days. But who would want that? Nobody. So the way it is now, is okay.
|
levellerlevvie
7/24/2007
00:09:04
[ report abuse ] | Heinzkat
Message:
Noone has said these tournaments have to be finished very quickly ... but at this point they are lasting too long.
There are some possibilities to make them go faster but no solutions are apparently considered probably because of the work that has to be done. But wouldn't it be nice if they would all be finished in like 1.5 to 2 years instead of 3 to 4 years?
|
grandphish
7/24/2007
08:41:26
[ report abuse ] | While I agree
Message:
with you that the GK tournaments take too long for my personal taste, why change it? You can't please all the people all the time, but GameKnot tries very hard to provide a variety of options to please as many people as possible:
1. Round robin, multi round tournaments (GK Tournament) (3 day)
2. Round robin, single round tournament, 5, 7, 9 or 11 players (Mini-tournaments) (3-14 days)
3. League (ladder) play (3 day)
4. Team play (3, 5 or 7 day)
5. Team ladder (3, 5 or 7 day)
6. Individual games (3-14 days)
7. Blitz chess
I joined GK Tournament #20 which began on 9/7/2004. After nearly 3 years, we still have two rounds to go and the semifinal is currently held up by 2 games, both are postponed, one for 27 more days. I estimate this tournament will easily exceed 4 years. Some players obviously enjoy this type of tournament and I would not want to change it for that reason. However, that is too long for my personal taste, so I have chosen the obvious course for me - DON'T ENTER ANOTHER GK TOURNAMENT.
With all the options GameKnot has provided, why not try to find a venue you enjoy instead of trying to change the options that others enjoy. I don't think you will find a turn based chess site anywhere that provides more options. Why not find the one that works for you and enjoy?
|
levellerlevvie
7/24/2007
12:17:23
[ report abuse ] | Grandphish
Message:
I enjoy the format of the current tournament: trying to survive round after round. But that doesn't mean it has to take that long, not?
By the way .. I'm pretty sure those guys enjoying playing for 3-4 years will enjoy playing for 1.5-2 years as well ... and least 1.5 year for all rounds is more acceptable than 4 years for most other players.
I think the most annoying fact is that you have to wait for months before a new round starts. If you change things to have a more continues flow than that would solve a lot.
|
kwr1
7/25/2007
23:38:38
[ report abuse ] | Fast Tournaments
Message:
Seems to me that the Tournament field of players should be split into two tournaments. Tournament 1 would be for fast players. Tournament 2 would be for those players that are not so fast. The distinction between slow and fast would be made on how many days a player takes to complete a game on average. This number will account for time to move as well time on vacation. Vacation idle time will not accrue to the opponent of the one on vacation.
|
b123
7/26/2007
02:03:31
[ report abuse ] | Monthly Tournaments
Message:
Another idea the fasten these GK Tournaments are starting a new tournament every month, instead of bi-monthly. And prohibit subscribtion in two successive tournaments, so you still can join a new tournament every 2 months. The amount of players in each group will be halved. And likely the endtime will be halved too.
What do you think about this idea?
|
rocksham
7/26/2007
09:44:38
[ report abuse ] | b123
Message:
Surely then the value of the win would be halved aswell.
|
heinzkat
8/01/2007
09:34:02
[ report abuse ] | Big knock-out tournaments?
Message:
Format: knock-out; everyone plays each round one game with the White pieces, one game with the Black pieces against the same person.
In case of a tie (1-1) both players are out of the tournament? Or maybe both advance? (not sure about that one. Maybe they should be paired with others, who are in the same round and who have tied their games as well).
Time control: 2 days per move.
Pairings: by rating in the first round; then as soon as a 2-game match finishes, the winner gets a place in the next round; there he will wait for somebody who advances as well, or in case there is somebody waiting already, he will play that one.
Now, the thing is that the players who finish their games quickly, will get to a high round soon and can play all the time, while the slower players will slowly but surely advance through the rounds as well. So everybody who is in the tournament will have tournament games running all the time (unlike the way it is set up now). There will be players in round 6 while others are playing round 2 games, which would make the tournaments more dynamic.
In case there are 1024 players, only 10 rounds are needed to get a winner.
(round 1: 1024 players)
(round 2: 512 players)
(round 3: 256 players)
(round 4: 128 players)
(round 5: 64 players)
(round 6: 32 players)
(round 7: 16 players)
(round 8: 8 players)
(round 9: 4 players)
(round 10: 2 players)
Maybe the finals should be in another format; instead of a knockout round 9, a group of 4 players that play in a same sort of group that are used already in the current GK tournaments. Any thoughts?
heinzkat
PS: of course there are a lot of minor things that should be thought about before this system can work, like what to do if an odd number of players have signed up, what to do when 1000 players have signed up instead of the 'perfect' 1024 etc.
|
tag1153
8/01/2007
21:02:01
[ report abuse ] | J.D.
Message:
..........you're REALLY on to something there......that sounds entirely cool.......I'm no techie, but it seems entirely likely the "minor things" you mention could be worked out fairly easily.....couldn't they? Anyway, I hope Mike would consider something along these lines.........
tag1153
|
heinzkat
8/02/2007
06:03:14
[ report abuse ] | I hope so.
Message:
I figured the minor things aren't that big, you could qualify Cyrano (or the next one with the highest rating who has signed up) automatically for the second round in case of an odd number of participants, so that the one that gets to round 2 first, immediately can get himself kick around by the master himself. Moreover, if the number is not dividable (?) by 4 in the regular GK tournaments, they still can work things out at the moment. So I hope Mr Mike or one of his many assistants would look at this thread and say 'hey that guy has a good point' :-)
|
heinzkat
8/03/2007
17:45:57
[ report abuse ] | A PS:
Message:
This sort of KO tournaments should definitely not replace the current GK tournaments; it would be a nice extra.
heinzkat
|
cyberknight999
8/28/2007
13:41:09
[ report abuse ] | Mini-Tournament Suggestion
Message:
I recently made a suggestion that the number of concurrent games for player in a mini-tournament be increased. In a 5 player mini, you can play 4 games simultaneously, so these tourneys finish reasonably quickly (subject to personal definition of course). Unfortunately, in the larger tournaments you can get stuck waiting for players to finish games before you can complete your games and get on to other tournaments. (See my mini: -> gameknot.com - I have one games remaining against martinn). I asked that the number of games be increased to one less than the number of players in the group. I also, suggested a lesser increase like 7 Players = 5 Games, 9P = 6G, 11P = 7G. And maybe only for paid members. Any thoughts?
|
heinzkat
8/28/2007
13:55:57
[ report abuse ] |
Message:
You have a valid point. I think the limitation to 4 games at the same time is only there not to overload the games list of non-subscribers
|
cyberknight999
8/28/2007
14:07:29
[ report abuse ] |
Message:
Glad to hear that someone agrees.
Certainly they don't want to have a non-paying member with 10 mini games. I once had 60 games even though I have a 50 game membership. New games in minis (and regular GK tourneys) seem to get added to your list even if it puts you over your games limit. And that might discourage the player from becoming a paying member.
|
kewms
8/29/2007
09:15:57
[ report abuse ] |
Message:
I actually like it that minis only give you four games at a time. That lets me have a good mix of games -- league, mini, and team -- while keeping my total game count under control.
It would be fine with me if minis were flexible enough to give each player a different number of games, so that players who want more can get more. But forcing me to accept more games in order to play in minis would be a very big negative.
|
cyberknight999
8/29/2007
10:09:23
[ report abuse ] |
Message:
Kewms
I see your point. Good idea to let them make it configurable by member. Its just another selection on the edit profile screen (max number of games per mini from 4 up to the limit for the size of the mini. Sounds easy enough for them to do.
CK
|
heinzkat
8/29/2007
10:25:46
[ report abuse ] |
Message:
@ kewms: good concern.
@ cyberknight999: good idea. Send feedback (Contact us at the bottom of the page)
|
cyberknight999
8/29/2007
11:54:26
[ report abuse ] |
Message:
HeinzKat: This is now done!
CK
|
kewms
8/29/2007
22:47:01
[ report abuse ] |
Message:
On further consideration, the four game limit isn't really the reason why minis drag out anyway. The problem is actually that you can only have one game at a time against any given opponent. As the tournament winds down, I find I often still have to play one or more players twice, and so I may only have one or two games going at a time. And of course the last players standing are probably the slowest in the tournament anyway.
For a standard mini, I don't see anything wrong with playing both games against an opponent at once. It would be sort of strange for thematics, though. I wouldn't want to have to play against my own best lines.
|
cyberknight999
8/30/2007
09:46:24
[ report abuse ] | Mini-Tournament Options
Message:
I don't see any problem with playing the same person twice in a regular mini. This happens in league games and also in the GK tourneys. I do see your concern in the thematic tourneys (although I don't play in those). But, I guess it pays to learn both sides of each line so improve your play.
Maybe the person setting up the tournament could set up some of the options discussed during this part of the thread.
|
|
Post a reply to this message:
|
