Play Format

[Hugmenot]

You may want to check the section titled Format at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_tournament for the format used Over-The-Board (OTB) chess tournaments. Correspondence chess (CC) tournaments are primarily round-robins as playing 15 or more correspondence games simultaneously is not as time consuming as it may first appear.

I will post additional comments this weekend.

[Poor Yorek]

One format you (pl) may wish to consider would be borrowed from duplicate bridge.

Determine N participants; pick N/2 scenarios; randomly select/determine side A and side B for each scenario (i.e. so that the Germans might be side 1 one time, but side 2 another); have half of the participants denoted as "side A" and half the participants as "side B" - each participant is always either side A or side B; then each set of sides rotates through the selection of scenarios. Players are competing against others on their own "side."

Points could be given for victory levels or what-have-you. Of course, there would be two "winners" one from each side, again, just like in duplicate bridge for N-S and E-W partnerships.

Just $0.02.

[Hugmenot]

Is this like the Snowdrops versus Oldhands tournament format described here http://en.chessbase.com/home/TabId/211/PostId/4008705 ?

This format is sometimes seen in chess with one side usually being all women or all young players, and the other side typically all veterans.

[Poor Yorek]

...will need to read up on this because I am not at all familiar with it!

Suppose you have eight players and four scenarios. Four players are assigned to side "A" and four players to side "B". Each of the four scenarios can have the two opposing forces assigned as side A or side B (to avoid any preference for having the Germans listed first in the OOB, for example).

Denote individuals as A1, A2 etc (first player using side A, second player using side A etc.). Denote scenarios as roman numerals.

A1 vs B1 sc i
A1 vs B2 sc ii
A1 vs B3 sc iii
A1 vs B4 sc iv

A2 vs B2 sc i
A2 vs B3 sc ii
A2 vs B4 sc iii
A2 vs B1 sc iv

etc.

Players A.1-4 will have each played all four scenarios as side A and can compare their results against one another. Players B.1-4 will have played all four scenarios as side B and can compare their results against one another.

If you wish to play "rounds" with no single scenario being played at the same time, there are schema based on whether one has even or odd numbers (odd being easier), see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duplicate_bridge_movements .

[Shad]

Relevant bits of Tony's post from the old thread:

1. I would think that we would want to limit the scenarios to 1- session skype games, as it seems like 2 or more session games tend to go a month or more before completion. Turn length and Number of counters seem to be more of a factor of game length than actual map size. I don't know if anyone has done a study on the duration yet but it seems to me in a game with two players fairly familiar with the rules, 10-15 turns with approximately 80 counters or less can usually be completed in 1 session. I think participation would be greater. At least for the first one...

2. I like the idea of match play better, similar to the world cup, possibly? Awarding points for levels of victory or some other method, as we all know some Victory conditions are "impossible" as written and would lead to pre-determined results. Maybe as part of the scenario selection process, making sure that all scenarios were based on casualty figures of number of units exiting. I think we would almost need to have the players play both sides, just to make things more level.

[Shad]

Relevant bits of Alan's post from the old thread:

To answer your original questions:

- Elimination is the quickest and simplest to manage, but less satisfying to all players.
- Tournament if you go with a ladder style that could be used for longer term to handicapping future play.
- Match will take the longest and require multiple plays which may become dull.
- Prizes, Prizes, we don't need no stinking prizes we are hard-core PG'ers
Come up with what you want, but I would guess that a free game from APL is out.
Forgot about Vassal, what has been people's experience with it lately? The past few games I have played or viewed had many problems with slowness and crashes. Not sure what it is, probably a Java compatibility issue. Playing by Skype is not bad for something like this. I agree with Tony about keeping them to smallish sessions.

[waynebaumber]

For what it's worth here are my thought's.
Has to be played on Skype, not sure about VASEL having never used it.
One session games, which means 1 or 2 maps, less than 15 Game turns and less than 20 counters per side.
All rules deemed to be "controversial" to be sorted out before the tournament starts.
No actual prizes but medals galore.
Round robin style would be ideal depending on numbers.
Leader selection by a third party.

I have real doubts though if a "Skype PG Tournament" is really viable given time differences, work commitments and issues over rules. However I applaud Andrew's efforts.

[Hugmenot]

Saipan has several such scenarios, Wayne.

I would prefer the tournament be restricted to one box game to ensure players who want to give it a try do not have to buy more than one product. Saipan was well received, so why not?

Round robin style tournaments can be problematic if players drop out and it also precludes new players to join after the tournament is underway. A six rounds Swiss style tournament might work better, with a round every two months. New players joining in would get 1 point (Victory = 2 points, Draw = 1 point) per missed round. Players would get to choose their side in half the games.

I am OK with Skype or with VASSAL, or a combination of both.