[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ][ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ][ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]Comments/Ratings for a Single Item Later ⇩Reverse Order⇧ Earlier DUAL RING Tournament Format. Tournament format for handling uneven number of players.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Rich Hutnik wrote on 2015-05-12 UTCBy the way, I did a YouTube video on my channel, looking at this format. Here is the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOAt9EuIJ9E Charles Gilman wrote on 2009-08-26 UTCFair enough, I could have added losing by losing all pieces (Draughts) or being bankrupted (Monopoly) or being beaten to the last square (Snakes and Ladders) or indeed by being timed out in any game. The point is, the odds of the same player losing by such normal means in two games at once will be rare. What if a particular player is on the verge of winning one game when they lose the other? It could be because (in the case of Chess) they play much better as White than as Black, or because they play better than one opponent but worst than the other, or for other reasons I haven't thought of. Rich Hutnik wrote on 2009-08-24 UTCChess clocks added running out of time as a new way to lose a chess game. This format added another way to get eliminated. I have looked at ways to make this SANE (Single Alternating Non-Elimination), and not sure how to do it. Idea here is to try to come up with a format that can handle a prime number of players playing, or some other way where you can't divide the number of players into sections. The DUAL RING is also meant to handle more than chess. Charles Gilman wrote on 2009-08-24 UTCThe reason why I thought of players taking over existing games was that it seemed odd to end a game that had not actually been lost by Checkmate or resignation (or whatever is usual for the game in question). At least I didn't suggest removing both a losing player's Kings and sticking the boards together camp-to-camp until the final got played on an inordinately long board! Rich Hutnik wrote on 2009-08-15 UTCCharles, you happen to take things in directions I hadn't thought of going. I had the idea of starting a new game. HOWEVER, say C defeats B, who is playing A. If there is a way for C to then play with B's army against A, then that would be another interesting spin. With this, I am asking people to take this and run with it, and see if we can come up with a new format that would fit what we can't handle well now. I know someone else mentioned the problem with stalling by someone who is losing. I proposed a Bronstein clock solution for this, addition to the counting of wins also impacting this. Charles Gilman wrote on 2009-08-15 UTCGood ★★★★When player A beats player B, does player A take over player B's army in player B's other game, or start a new game against player B's other opponent? 6 comments displayedLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ EarlierPermalink to the exact comments currently displayed.