[bluejak]

I suggested:

Quote

Let us try this:
7 triples
1 straight match
Now you have 8 undefeated, 15 once defeated

Undefeated:
4 straight matches
Once defeated:
5 triples
Now you have 4 undefeated, 9 once defeated

Of the 21 teams who played in the triples, 10 teams are twice defeated. Of the 2 teams who played in the straight match, one will be twice defeated half the time.

That does not seem 'brutally unfair', and 'None of these teams will be twice-defeated in the third round, whereas a quarter of the people in head-to-head matches will be.' just is not true.

[campboy]

I think you are talking at cross-purposes. Vampyr is talking about the Spring Fours. In that, being in a triple for the first two rounds guarantees that you will be in the third round, whereas the people who play straight matches for the first two rounds may get knocked out completely.

[bluejak]

Oh? I thought we were trying to decide what is best for a 23 team double elimination k/o.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on Jul 1 2010, 06:53 PM, said:

Oh?  I thought we were trying to decide what is best for a 23 team double elimination k/o.

Yes, and I have told my reasons why I believe that a combination of head-to-head and triangular matches is very poor. For instance, in a 23-team knockout. The Spring Fours was used by way of example.

Sorry for the confusion. I hope this has cleared things up for you.

[campboy]

It seems that the reason that the Spring Fours format has the problem you describe, though, is that in the Spring Fours a triangular match lasts for two rounds. One-round triangular matches do seem to be much fairer than byes -- having a bye in round one certainly means you can't be twice-defeated after round two!

[Vampyr]

campboy, on Jul 3 2010, 04:20 PM, said:

It seems that the reason that the Spring Fours format has the problem you describe, though, is that in the Spring Fours a triangular match lasts for two rounds. One-round triangular matches do seem to be much fairer than byes -- having a bye in round one certainly means you can't be twice-defeated after round two!

Yes, but in a knockout it is really not right to be defeated after playing half the boards...

[FrancesHinden]

bluejak, on Jul 1 2010, 02:03 AM, said:

Ok, fair comment, but as you say it comes to much the same thing. I also would not like to be the TD who explained to all those teams why they are not getting a game on the Friday evening.

Given that the draw for the S4s is known in advance, personally I would be praying for a Friday evening bye.

One reason I rarely play in the S4s (only twice, and don't forget I play in virtually all major EBU tournaments and many smaller ones) is the cruelty of having to do a full day's work, then get to Stratford, then play 32 boards on a Friday evening. We play dreadfully as a consequence.

(The other reason is the unknown potential day off work on Tuesday)