Yes, I am completely guilty of saying "the details of which need to be worked out", and then going on to propose the exact details of it, and of two alternative systems -- which could be freely chosen from depending on the will of the organizer.
I guess the appropriate line would have been, "the exact details of which need
to be checked and tested", or "the exact details of which need to be neatly formulated and typesetted".
As for the incentive to not take part or to try to lose a match -- I understand that you're in part talking about the problem with alternate systems in general, but I'm rather of the opinion that my suggestion betters the current system.
And as for the extra work involved in bookkeeping -- I'm not sure if you're just using it as an example, and I know that's a reason against using an Elo system as a replacement for the tournament/ranking structure, but (depending on how your backend system works), it shouldn't be a showstopper for an alternative tournament structure (as I said, the only problem with my proposed system is if the tournament organizer doesn't have the right to allocate the points instead of the positions).
In summary, if I were wanting to arange a tournament, then, even if it were slightly more work for me to organize, I would want to do it with some alternative system such as the one I proposed if I had the right to allocate the points (within the limitations of the total points, and maximum points for the winner), and I would want to deliver a list of {players, points}, as well as the following pieces of information: {winner, 2nd place, third position}.
↧
Post by ^Tom_
↧