It's based on your ranking. #1 plays vs #2 etc in general with the swiss. But as half the field is currently tied that part of the matching will be random.Thanks @nimanoe I had the feeling it was random but I wasn't too sure.
That's not true. This is one version but a very uncommon one. The most common one - #1 vs #1 from bottom half of the seeds among players with the same points, #2 vs #2 from bottom half of the seeds and so on - was used in the first round.It's based on your ranking. #1 plays vs #2 etc in general with the swiss. But as half the field is currently tied that part of the matching will be random
What do you mean change from round to round? There is an initial round which is seeded, the following are randomly drawn. That is fine.Why do they change swiss systems from round to round ?
And why do they use a swiss system in the first place when there is only 4 rounds...
I've used it a lot in competitive chess tournaments, and a swiss system has 2 main issues :
1/ it's a mess if there aren't enough games compared to the amount of players for first place (happens often in chess tournaments : 5 rounds, more than 32 players) - not an issue here, we don't care about first place too much.
2/ it's terrible all the time to rank players in the middle, especially when there aren't a lot of games being played. 4 games will make the buchholz tiebreak mandatory, and very luck based. We will have what, 4 or 5 players tied for 3 spots at 2 points ?
Tomorrow evening, we will have posts on "the system is rigged, XXX is so lucky and YYY (Nicov obviously :P) has to play against someone with more wins just to "have a shot at qualifying".
Obviously a single elimination bracket is worse but it doesn't seem like the only alternative.There will very likely be a tie break. But the question is, what would you rather have? A tiebreak situation where some people on the same score go out? Or a single elimination bracket where Nicov, Daut, Villese, etc are all kicked out of the tournament on day one. It is a LAN so it makes perfect sense to have 4 days f guaranteed play for each player. Otherwise there's no point in someone flying all the way from Argentina just to lose in round 1 and go home again.
It's better to have more points, because it means you faced tougher opponents. Also note that tiebreaker priority is Buchholz first, then games won lost, not the other way round. So DauT is in the best position he could be in right now with a Buchholz of 4.I also have 1 question about the system, on liquipedia you can now see the points each player has. Is more points favourable to fewer points, or do you want as few points as possible? Since for instance Daut has the most points, is that why he's the top of the 0-2 players, as a tiebreaker after the number of games won/lost?
To add to this: Daut was the only round 1 loser who had to play against a round 1 winner(Jordan), so he has a higher Buchholz than the others could have at this point.It's better to have more points, because it means you faced tougher opponents. Also note that tiebreaker priority is Buchholz first, then games won lost, not the other way round. So DauT is in the best position he could be in right now with a Buchholz of 4.
thanks for the explanation! Yeah I did mean sets won/lost instead of games so first his score of 0-2, then his Buchholz score, and finally the games won/lost? :DIt's better to have more points, because it means you faced tougher opponents. Also note that tiebreaker priority is Buchholz first, then games won lost, not the other way round. So DauT is in the best position he could be in right now with a Buchholz of 4.
Edit: The best position he could be in with a score of 0-2...
Yeah but more than 4 rounds create other problems as you will have only one unbeaten player left, having to play against someone who has lost at least once and potentially lowering that person's score (and chances to qualify?).Feels like 4 rounds is too short to get an accurate Buchholz score with 14 players? The actual win/loss part is fine, but there's no way the Buchholz score is anything other than statistical noise.
I wonder why they went with it then as the original number of players was not a power of 2 either.Swiss into playoffs is just an imperfect system which will always lead to issues (especially when the number of players is not a power of 2).
Can you name another tournament system which allows all participants to play a fixed number of games?I wonder why they went with it then as the original number of players was not a power of 2 either.
I must have found the one UK citizen who does not care at all about the World Cup.Can you name another tournament system which allows all participants to play a fixed number of games?
Yeah Hidden Cup for example really suffers from this.The most used format is probably single elim and this is probably the most unfair of all - one chance, fully dependent on seeding/drawing. Being matched against Liereyy in R1 and you are gg...
There will also be 5 players with a 2-1 score as well, one of them will get chosen by random to play against someone with a 1-2 score.How will round 4 pairings be decided? We will have FIVE players with a 1-2 score line, is someone going to get a by?
The points tab on Liquipedia shows the Buchholz scoreWhere can I see the bucholz score or is it a secret?
The points tab on Liquipedia shows the Buchholz score