By having the perfect number of rounds to determine a winner, you don't give anyone a chance to take first place except for the undefeated. This is true of elimination tournaments as well, the only first place possibility is the undefeated. By playing extra rounds you allow more people to have a shot at first place, people that lost or tied a game somewhere along the way.
At smaller tournaments, its nice when you get to play all the players in a category.
...why is it preferred to have more rounds...Mainly because people came to the tournament to play Redemption. The more rounds, the more they get to play. I also like having an extra round where someone gets to try to knock off the undefeated person in 1st. I think both of these are good reasons.
At smaller tournaments, its nice when you get to play all the players in a category.
You want seven rounds of a category in an 8-player tournament?
Mainly because people came to the tournament to play Redemption. The more rounds, the more they get to play.
I also like having an extra round where someone gets to try to knock off the undefeated person in 1st.
It actually is statistically true when the number of players is a power of 2 or one less than that. At that point if you lose one game you are out of contention for first (barring multiple time out wins by the undefeated player). So, at the recent MN State tournament where we had 31 T1-2P players, playing the minimum number of rounds it would have been equivalent to a one and done for players interested only in taking first.By having the perfect number of rounds to determine a winner, you don't give anyone a chance to take first place except for the undefeated.
This actually is not statistically true.
However, Swiss style pits the best player and the 2nd best player against each other in the second round. The 2nd best player looses and then, without the additional swiss round, doesn't have a chance to place. I have strongly felt all along that swiss style is not complete and does not demonstrate 2nd place-3rd place accurately unless additional rounds are played.
It actually is statistically true when the number of players is a power of 2 or one less than that. At that point if you lose one game you are out of contention for first (barring multiple time out wins by the undefeated player).
Only at Nationals. Every other tournament I've been to, District and up, has had an undefeated winner. And I don't think Natz is the tournament in question here.
I know mine is only one example, but just to throw that in there.
Stephen, set up a four player two-round tournament (or an eight player three-round tournament or...) and use Swiss pairings. Show me how a player with one or more losses can possibly win the tournament (barring multiple time out wins by the undefeated player).Quote from: EmJayBee83It actually is statistically true when the number of players is a power of 2 or one less than that. At that point if you lose one game you are out of contention for first (barring multiple time out wins by the undefeated player).
I don't see how this proves that only an undefeated player can win a category.
You seem to fall into the same trap as everybody else, assuming that one (in the interest of completeness - and only one) person will always be undefeated.In tournament where you play n rounds, and there are 2n players, one player will always go undefeated. It is a mathematical necessity based on how Swiss pairing works.
Seriously, has no one here ever attended a tournament that has ever had a winner that did not go undefeated? Ever?This happens all the time when you play more than the minimum number of rounds, or when you are just slightly over the threshold for the next round bump (say 9 players forcing four rounds). Both of those, however, are exactly what I am asking about wrt extra rounds.
Stephen, set up a four player two-round tournament (or an eight player three-round tournament or...) and use Swiss pairings. Show me how a player with one or more losses can possibly win the tournament (barring multiple time out wins by the undefeated player).
This happens all the time when you play more than the minimum number of rounds, or when you are just slightly over the threshold for the next round bump (say 9 players forcing four rounds).
A four-round ten player tournament is no different than one with 14 or 16 players, in that four rounds will determine a winner, in most circumstances going undefeated is not 100% requiredActually I think that most of the time the winner will be undefeated. After 1 round, there would be 5 undefeated players matching up. After 2 rounds, there would be 2-3 undefeated players matching up. After 3 rounds there would be 1-2 undefeated players matching up. If that number was 2, then there would have to be an undefeated player. The only way for this to not be the case is if someone lost a game, worked their way back up to the championship game in the 4th round and defeated the last undefeated player (or multiple timeouts).
But it's a threshhold for a reason. A four-round ten player tournament is no different than one with 14 or 16 players, in that four rounds will determine a winner, in most circumstances going undefeated is not 100% required, and in the one case where it is, the winner defeated everyone in front of him, no one else was undefeated, and there are so many different scenarios once you have 16+ players that the number of rounds before every one-loss player gets one crack at the champion could as much as double the play time.Heckuva run on sentence, dude. :)
For State and higher can we up the minimum number of required rounds to be at least one more than is listed currently.I can't see that in the general case adding a single round is going to double play time. Nor can I understand why anyone would think that I am asking that "every one-loss player gets one crack at the champion."
Don't you have to pull the plug at some point? I can see the logic in recommending extra rounds in certain situations but I don't agree with the idea of changing the rule to fit the exception.I understand that. In the specific case under discussion I am asking that we pull the plug at State, Regional, and National tournaments. I feel the extra round should be granted for these tournaments precisely because Cactus limits the availability of these tournaments. This means a player can lose his/her only chance at a State/Regional title solely because he had a single horrible draw in one game.
For State and higher can we up the minimum number of required rounds to be at least one more than is listed currently. Simply put, if you play only the minimum number of rounds listed the tournament is effectively a single-elimination event. The tournament host's guide speaks all about the advantages of Swiss-style tourneys compared to single elimination, but all of that is lost if you only host the current minimum number of required rounds.
Actually I think that most of the time the winner will be undefeated. After 1 round, there would be 5 undefeated players matching up. After 2 rounds, there would be 2-3 undefeated players matching up. After 3 rounds there would be 1-2 undefeated players matching up. If that number was 2, then there would have to be an undefeated player. The only way for this to not be the case is if someone lost a game, worked their way back up to the championship game in the 4th round and defeated the last undefeated player (or multiple timeouts).
I can't see that in the general case adding a single round is going to double play time. Nor can I understand why anyone would think that I am asking that "every one-loss player gets one crack at the champion."
I understand that it could add to the burdens of the host.
How do you figure that the person playing either of the top two players in the second round placing are the best players in that category?
It is not quite as apparent in a game to only 5 points, but if we played to 10,000 points, it would be quite clear that the top player (getting 9,993 points in the first game) and the 2nd best player (getting 9,225 points in the first game) would be playing against each other in the second round. This is the design of swiss style - not just another pairing.
A four-round ten player tournament is no different than one with 14 or 16 players, in that four rounds will determine a winner, in most circumstances going undefeated is not 100% requiredActually I think that most of the time the winner will be undefeated. After 1 round, there would be 5 undefeated players matching up. After 2 rounds, there would be 2-3 undefeated players matching up. After 3 rounds there would be 1-2 undefeated players matching up. If that number was 2, then there would have to be an undefeated player. The only way for this to not be the case is if someone lost a game, worked their way back up to the championship game in the 4th round and defeated the last undefeated player (or multiple timeouts).
Based on the experience of people who have been to a lot of tournaments (Pol, Kirk, etc.), this just doesn't happen very often.
| Year | Event | Players | Min. Rounds | Undefeated* |
| 2008 | T1-2P | 91 | 7 | Chad Soderstrom |
| 2008 | T2-2P | 50 | 6 | Tim Maly** |
| 2007 | T1-2P | 84 | 7 | Daniel Whitten |
| 2007 | T2-2P | 40 | 6 | none |
| 2006 | T1-2P | 76 | 7 | none |
| 2006 | T2-2P | 22 | 5 | Ross Lang** |
| 2005 | T1-2P | 123 | 7 | Justin Sangillo** |
| 2005 | T2-2P | 26 | 5 | Eric Largent |
| 2004 | T1-2P | 82 | 7 | Roy Cannady |
| 2004 | T2-2P | 20 | 5 | Josh Hey** |
| 2003 | T1-2P | 102 | 7 | Kyle Hostutler** |
| 2002 | T1-2P | 75 | 7 | Mike Turnidge |
| 2002 | T2-2P | 18 | 5 | Bryon Hake** |