FOC Tournament Structure

[rick.leeds]

A. STRUCTURE

Qualifying Phase.
(a) Entrants will be randomly split into groups of four.
(b) Round One will have two games in each group: Player A v Player B, Player C v Player D. Winners progress to Phase One.
(c) The defeated players in the first game will play-off against each other. The winners progress to the Phase One.
(d) One additional player will be selected from those who were defeated in both Qualifying games. This will be based upon total SCs held at the end of both games.
- In the event of a tie, the number of SCs held at the end of the second First Phase game will be used.
- In the event of another tie, I will compare the last game year of the shortest of the second games with the same year of each second game of the players tied (eg, if one game finished in 1912 and another in 1913, games will be compared in 1912).
- In the event of a tie, I will work backwards through each game from the year used in the tie-breaker above comparing years.
- In the event of no tie being broken, a coin will be tossed.

Phase One.
(a) The 16 players will play each other. Players will not play anyone from their Qualifying Group, but the draw will be random apart from that.
(b)[i] Winners will play each other. WG1 v WG4; WG2 v WG3; WG5 v WG8; WG6 v WG7. Players who win two games will progress to Phase Two.
(b)[ii] Defeated players will play each other. DG1 v DG2; DG3 v DG7; DG4 v DG6; DG5 v DG8. Winners will progress to next round in Phase One, defeated are eliminated.
(c) The players who lost a W game will play a player who won a D game; winners progress to Phase Two.

Phase Two
A repeat of the Phase One, so that four players progress. Initial games will be a random draw.

Semi-finals
In the Semi-finals, players will play two concurrent games playing both sides following a random draw. If one player wins both s/he will qualify for the Final. If the games are shared, two more will be played, until one player has a lead of two clear games.

Final
In the Final, players will play two concurrent games playing both sides. If one player wins both s/he will be declared the Champion. If the games are shared, two more will be played, until one player has a lead of two clear games.

[rick.leeds]

This may look (and possibly IS) more complicated than it needs to be, and it might have been easier to look again at my concept for the First Phase. However, it will work... I know what I mean

The allocation of sides will be random in each Phase except for the Semi-finals and Final, when players will play one side in one game, and another side in the other.

[Peanut]

6. Final
In the Final, players will play two consecutive games playing both sides. If one player wins both s/he will be declared the Champion. If the games are shared, two more will be played, until one player has a lead of two clear games.

Why consecutive, once we get to the Final wouldn't it make more sense to play these games in parallel?

[rick.leeds]

Ah yes I meant concurrent... sorry.

[slippydippy]

Is reading the rules a prerequisite to being in the competition.
T&C's? 'Click!'
SquintySally.

[rick.leeds]

Heh, no-one HAS to read the rules (although they are surprisingly short by my standards, except for the STRUCTURE which is only there in that much detail so I don't forget it )... howeverly, should anyone fall foul of them EVERYONE knows my "ignorance is no defence" stance

[Peanut]

... howeverly, should anyone fall foul of them EVERYONE knows my "ignorance is no defence" stance

I didn't know that!

[sinnybee]

Rick! Goodness gracious! You're forcing me to protest: This tournament is too long!

Several days ago, I was thinking of posting the following:

Rick, my biggest concern is tournament length, especially as the longer the tournament, the more likely that it is to not finish, or to have to stop for a while, as has been seen on this site in the past. Also, the longer the tournament, the more likely for players to drop out.

In a 16 player tournament as you have explained, there would be Phase One with four groups of four players, Phase Two with two groups of four players, Phase Three with one group of four players, then the Final. Each Phase has three rounds and the final has two times x rounds. So, there would be a total of 11 or more rounds.
In a 32 player tournament as you have explained, there would be one extra phase for a total of 14 or more rounds.

Eleven+ to fourteen+ consecutive, non-overlapping games would cover a decent length of time.

Would you consider a double-elimination tournament or even a triple-elimination tournament so as to decrease the length of the tournament?
My style of a double-elimination tournament would last 7 rounds for up to 25 players.
My style of a triple-elimination tournament would last 10 rounds for 16 to 31 players.
Add just one or more rounds to have the Final as you have proposed.

I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND if you want to do things your way, because you'd be the one spending the time to run the tournament. However, if you'd just consider a few more points I have to make:
-My way would allow for any number of players, even an odd number (I'd be glad to explain)
-I do really like your organizational structure of groups of four, but I don't see why it's necessary unless as a vehicle to accomadate playing both F/E/R and G/A/T, which it is not.
(I'll stop there, where I left off)

I decided to not post that (instead saving it to a notepad incase I wanted to use it later), thinking to myself: Rick is a great tournament director and I'm just going to go ahead and let him do this the way he wants to.

In my opinion, the first and second phases, as you have just explained how they would work to us, are (way) too long. I didn't bother risking a headache by trying to understand your explanation of the Second Phase.

Rick, here's my suggested comprimise:
Leave phase three through the final exactly as they are. Each of those phases use three rounds (the final is different but also acceptable) to eliminate half of the players and to promote the other half to the next phase.
However, phases 1 & 2 need to be reduced, I believe. Phase 1 eliminates no players and phase 2 only eliminates 20% or 4 players, not half of the players like in other phases. If anything, since less players are being eliminated, there should be less than three rounds involved, and certainly not more than three rounds. Phase 1 is three rounds on its own, just like phases 3 through the semis. Phase 2 is of a round length that probably only Rick knows .

A possible / my suggested way of how to do it:
Round 1 of Phase 1: Those who win (10 of 20) move on and are part of the 16 to play in phase 2 (no longer named phase 3).
Round 2 of Phase 1: Have the losers play each other. Those who win this game (5 of 10) move on and are part of the 16 to play in phase 2.
If there are two (if more than two, take the first two who signed up) players / reserves willing to step into the tournament, have them play each other during Round 2 of Phase 1, with the winner of that game filling the sixteenth and final spot into phase 2. If there only happens to be one player / reserve available, then let them into the sixteenth spot uncontested.

My comprimise would reduce the length of your tournament from b + 14 or more rounds to 13 or more rounds, where b is the length of Rick's phase 2 in rounds, and the "or more" refers to the huge possibility of the final going into one or more overtime round pairings.

Thank you for your consideration.

[rick.leeds]

I've been considering this and the only Phase I would consider changing is Phase Two. Phase One has been set that way from the start and isn't going to take over long. There's no diplomacy and finalising is there to be used. As I say, Phase Two is the one I'm looking at shortening.

By the way, I'm also looking at ways to make this fit in with super_dipsy's 2-player variant, which isn't far from being launched to on the site. I'm waiting on feedback from Dipsy about that to see if it could be worked.

EDIT: Actually, I've been thinking about this (I answered in a bit of a hurry as I was about to go eat) and I think I agree with what Sinny is saying. There is another issue that occurred to me too. But first, the structure. I will in a minute (or two) go back and change the structure of the tournament in the first Phases. It will make it shorter.

Also, the other thing that occurred to me was game length. With the SC criteria being stretched to meet the 2-player conditions, I realised that some games might not reach a conclusion, especially when the proposer of a draw effectively concedes the game. So I have decided to put an end date to games too. This change will go up in the main RULES thread, but I will end games after the Fall Retreats phase of 1920 as far as the tournament is concerned. At this point, should the game not have reached a necessary conclusion, then the side that holds most SCs will be deemed the winner. Players can still play the game, but it will be over for tournament purposes... otherwise some games may NEVER end.

[sinnybee]

Thank you, Rick. You changes are acceptable.