In another item we're discussing the seeding of MC'winners in Championship. I'm feeling that discussion is finalizing, to a 'keep it as it is' conclusion. I would to open the discussion a bit. We might suggest other tournament formats to Richard, probably in first place for 'top' players. I will do 3 suggestions........
Suggestion 1 (YC) Yearly Cup, where the (at most) 12 MC winners are put together to fight for the Year title........
Suggestion 2 (SC) Super Cup, could start any month or any 3 months, between players that can claim there the best in one of another way. I think of 1. current champ, 2. current ranking leader (if honest), 3. latest MC'winners, 4. most tourneys won, 5.winners of the highest RT's 6. highest win/loss percentage (at least 20 rated games) ...................
Suggestion 3 (AR) All rounders games. vaguely.. Anyone subscribes with 2 different games (real different, not GO9x9 and GO13x13), and plays any opponent in 4 games, or so. Could be in knock-out format (like tennis) or in small round robins
Another format could be King of The Hill. It would be a never ending tournement that would determine the best. The structure would be like a pyramid with one player on level 1, 2 on level 2, then 4, 8 ,16 and so on. Each player would play at most one game defending their position and at most one game attempting to go to the next level. Whoever is at the top would need to continue to defend their position as best.
A new player would have to move through the ranks to reach their level regardless of how good they are, but would only have to play one "Challenge" game at each level.
I have been thinking about the mechanics and don't think it would be hard to code.
I like that pyramid format, but I see one problem, which can occur... when defending and challenging at the same time you could have to level down and up simultaneously, which would turn out to be a dillema... (the obvious, stay where you are would be strange for the other 2 people involved... certainly since they can be in the same situation as well)............ It seems it should be that you can play at most one game at a time (either challenging or defending), which might give another count to how many people are on each level....... but I like the idea!
[1] 'Kepp it as it is' is good for 'old' players but not very good for new players. For example ICCF (Inter.. Corr.. Chess Federation) has three tournaments - championship and cup. Winner of cup has right to play in semifinal of championship.
I have given the "King of the Hill" or Pyramid idea some more thought. How about this as a continually active climb to the top to be King
Rules 1) Players can play at most two games on the ladder at one time. Each game automaticaly started by computer match. 2) Winning player advances to the position above their opponent. Opponent and all players on rungs between the two players drop 1 slot. (Simple ladder rules) (If winner is ahead of opponent no change in ladder position)
The diference between this and a ladder is the automatic game matching. That prevents someone at the top not playing and holding their position. This could be done as follows: When a player joins the tourny (placed last) or finishes a challenge match, the computer would start at the highest person in their challenge RANGE to find a game (if nne available enter name in a que). Range would be determined by LEVEL in ladder. LEVEL is determined as follows: Lev 1 is 1st position, Lvl 2 is 2nd - 3rd positions lvl 3 is 4th -7th position ... Range would be zero for lvl 1, 1 for lvl 2, 2 for lvl 3 and so on. Just a thought. It would allow players to be in a long term championship without committing to a lot of games at one time and then none for a long time. Also allow higher rated players a chance to play with someone that might beat them.
"Range would be zero for lvl 1, 1 for lvl 2, 2 for lvl 3 and so on" Range would be 1 WHAT for level 2? 1 position? Or 1 level? Range would be 2 WHAT for level 3? 2 positions? Or 2 levels? If you mean positions, then the only player who could challenge #1 would be #2. If you mean levels, then anyone on the ladder may challenge #1. Seems like #1 would be almost inaccessible the first way, and could be flooded with challenges the second way.
My suggestion was that level 2 would be able to challenge 1 position above them, Only the person at rung 2 would have the right to move to the top. Some one in position 3 would only get to challenge the person in the second position. It was only an idea to stimulate discussion. We should not allow everyone to challenge the first rung. Anyone have an idea as to what a good range would be? I would not want the range set so that a person could challenge more than 1 level above them. For instance if I am at level 5, I should not have arange that extends into level 3.
Little Golem