Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
7 Posts

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Gaming Related » General Gaming

Subject: DUAL RING Tournament format rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Richard Hutnik
United States
Albany
New York
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I put this up on the ChessVariants.org website and could use some feedback:
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSdu...

Introduction

This format was developed as a way to handle an uneven number of players,
that normal brackets and round-robing and Swiss formats don't handle. The
format handles anywhere from 3 to 100 (or more) equally well, but with
greater time demands, the more players involved.

This format is meant to be run electronically, or where there is a
moderator who can set up board between both players, and reset clocks.

In short, a player plays two games at same time (one of each color), until
they lose a game, and then they are eliminated. Players play until two
players are left, and then the player with most wins, wins the tournament.

Setup
Set up here refers to how players are assigned in a tournament.

For example, in a 10 player FIDE Chess Tournament:
Player 1 plays black against player 10, and white against player 2.
Player 2 plays black against player 1, and white against player 3.
Player 3 plays black against player 2, and white against player 4.
Player 4 plays black against player 3, and white against player 5.
Player 5 plays black against player 4, and white against player 6.
Player 6 plays black against player 5, and white against player 7.
Player 7 plays black against player 6, and white against player 8.
Player 8 plays black against player 7, and white against player 9.
Player 9 plays black against player 8, and white against player 10.
Player 10 plays black against player 9, and white against player 1.

This format is fairly robust in how players are allocated.

Pieces
Same as in whatever game is being played.

Rules
Play is as follows:
A player play until that player lose a game, and then that player are
eliminated. Once a player is eliminated the two players he was playing
face off against each other. For example, if player 3 was defeated by
either player 2 or player 4, then player 2 will battle player 4, with
player 2 playing black against player 4. This elimination process
continues until there are two remaining players, and the player with the
most amount of wins is crowned winner. In case of tie for wins, players
play two games until they lose one game. A player can lose by standard
victory conditions or run out of time.

Players tying can be handled one of several ways. One way is to have
players replay the tie until there is a winner, or one of two players is
eliminated by an opponent. The other way to handle a tie is to have the
tie eliminate both players.

When one player defeats another player, in a game not run over the
computer, the player who just one notifies their opponent that there is a
new game. The player then pauses the clock on their other game, sets up
the new game, and then continues with their other game. If the player who
just won is white, they would then make their move and start clock. If
they are black, they would set up game and start clock for their new game.
1 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric Jome
United States
Franklin
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mb
This reminds me of another kind of single elimination competition format designed to solve a classic problem - heats.

Another problem people are likely to encounter beyond an odd number for a pairwise game or sport is that people may show up at all hours of the day... or at least you could increase the number of overall participants served by holding an event over a longer period of time and, every time you have enough people, you begin a single elimination.

Let's say our event will run from 8am to 8pm, but for 8 players it will only take 2 hours to play 3 games, the necessary number to move from 8 to 4 to 2 to 1 winner. As soon as you have 8, you can begin... and as soon as 8 more show up, you can begin again. Of particular interest here then is people being eliminated in earlier heats participating in later ones - as soon as you are eliminated, you can get back in the queue and go again if you like. Note that this also replaces elimination with waiting to start, which at an elimination event should have plenty of participants... and all you need is an aggregate method to take many participations and rate the players, like win percentage or overall victories.

BTW Richard, I like your format a lot. I think it might be a bit awkward to have my in progress game end because the person I am playing lost to another person... cascading chains of interrupted games seem like a possibility. But other than that, it's a very challenging format... and I am always a sucker for new and interesting competition formats! It does handle an odd number of players well.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
docreason wrote:
In short, a player plays two games at same time (one of each color), until
they lose a game, and then they are eliminated. Players play until two
players are left, and then the player with most wins, wins the tournament.
...
When one player defeats another player, in a game not run over the
computer, the player who just one notifies their opponent that there is a
new game. The player then pauses the clock on their other game, sets up
the new game, and then continues with their other game. If the player who
just won is white, they would then make their move and start clock. If
they are black, they would set up game and start clock for their new game.

So if I understand correctly, there are no rounds per se? Rather, you simply start your new game as soon as you defeat one opponent? Unless I'm misunderstanding, this means that if there are 2 strong players who will pretty much beat all the others, and one of them is very fast, then that fast one will win because he'll simply rack up more wins before all the weaker players are knocked out?

It sounds fun (and indeed clever) as a non-serious "lightning" event, but it really seems to be rewarding fast play and discouraging thoughtful careful play, which doesn't sound like a "serious" tournament to me. Am I missing something?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tuomas Korppi
msg tools
mbmbmbmb
If you're losing one game, you can let that game stall in the hope that the player you're losing to loses his other game before you run out of time.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Hutnik
United States
Albany
New York
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Punainen Nörtti wrote:
If you're losing one game, you can let that game stall in the hope that the player you're losing to loses his other game before you run out of time.


I would play with chess clocks. If you stall, then your clock runs out. You then allow your opponent to fully focus on the other game he is playing. You end up losing on time. Stalling is a more minor issue though here, because if you are losing, you won't rush your moves anyhow.

The format does need work. You can have it so that, if someone doesn't make a move in a minute (or whatever works) they are eliminated for stalling. I leave it to others to tweak here. One could use a Bronstein clock also here (have so many seconds to make a move, or you end up eating in your reserve), and you set the time to make a move sufficiently long, and the reserve time short.

What I might also look at here, in discussions above, is to have it so that the player with the most wins doesn't win if s/he has more wins, but had an advantage in the final game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Hutnik
United States
Albany
New York
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
russ wrote:
docreason wrote:
In short, a player plays two games at same time (one of each color), until
they lose a game, and then they are eliminated. Players play until two
players are left, and then the player with most wins, wins the tournament.
...
When one player defeats another player, in a game not run over the
computer, the player who just one notifies their opponent that there is a
new game. The player then pauses the clock on their other game, sets up
the new game, and then continues with their other game. If the player who
just won is white, they would then make their move and start clock. If
they are black, they would set up game and start clock for their new game.

So if I understand correctly, there are no rounds per se? Rather, you simply start your new game as soon as you defeat one opponent? Unless I'm misunderstanding, this means that if there are 2 strong players who will pretty much beat all the others, and one of them is very fast, then that fast one will win because he'll simply rack up more wins before all the weaker players are knocked out?

It sounds fun (and indeed clever) as a non-serious "lightning" event, but it really seems to be rewarding fast play and discouraging thoughtful careful play, which doesn't sound like a "serious" tournament to me. Am I missing something?


Idea is to win as quickly as possible, and there are no rounds. You start a new game up once the old one is finished. As I posted in another reply, I would tweak it so that the two players play each other, but the player with more wins gets an advantage. But, if you do play thoughtlessly, you will lose.

I will say here, the moment you add a time element, it begins to impact deep and "thoughtful" play, in favor of a game being more of a sport. I believe there is room for this. I also believe that this format should generate enough action, to be of interest to spectators. Of course, it needs to be played and tweaked accordingly. A simple version where players play against one person only, but play both sides in an abstract strategy game, could be another way to handle it.

Another variant on this is competitive simul, where players would play against the entire field, all at once, using computers to moderate, and go for double elimination. In this, say the field is 5 players big. Players play 4 games at the same time, and have to manage them all.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Hutnik
United States
Albany
New York
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
cosine wrote:
This reminds me of another kind of single elimination competition format designed to solve a classic problem - heats.

Another problem people are likely to encounter beyond an odd number for a pairwise game or sport is that people may show up at all hours of the day... or at least you could increase the number of overall participants served by holding an event over a longer period of time and, every time you have enough people, you begin a single elimination.

Let's say our event will run from 8am to 8pm, but for 8 players it will only take 2 hours to play 3 games, the necessary number to move from 8 to 4 to 2 to 1 winner. As soon as you have 8, you can begin... and as soon as 8 more show up, you can begin again. Of particular interest here then is people being eliminated in earlier heats participating in later ones - as soon as you are eliminated, you can get back in the queue and go again if you like. Note that this also replaces elimination with waiting to start, which at an elimination event should have plenty of participants... and all you need is an aggregate method to take many participations and rate the players, like win percentage or overall victories.


I have looked at a way, rather than elimination, after a game is over, you play the next person to the left (if battling left) or going right (if battling to your right). Due to the time pressures, one would likely end up needing to run this by computers.

One could possibly use smaller rings, and then run multiple rounds.


Quote:
BTW Richard, I like your format a lot. I think it might be a bit awkward to have my in progress game end because the person I am playing lost to another person... cascading chains of interrupted games seem like a possibility. But other than that, it's a very challenging format... and I am always a sucker for new and interesting competition formats! It does handle an odd number of players well.


It is going to need to be played out, and tweaked, to find out what works. And yes, there will be a bit of ackward moments to it. One could end up having it so that there can be a time delay before a new game starts up. Play will determine what works here.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.