c4countdown

I've been thinking about this for a while, as for this year's COLIN, I know for certain one player didn't turn up because of a dislike of being beaten all the time by higher-ability players, and I can see this becoming something of a trend.

The question is, do I create two divisions a la Scrabble tournaments and have separate prizes for 'A' and 'B', or do I keep it one glorious whole, as it's always been? Alternatively, do I include 'ratings prizes' like they have in aforementioned Scrabble tourneys to give those in the bottom half of the line-up something to aim for? Obviously this isn't going to be an issue unless I get 36 people at least along to the next COLIN (which would fill the venue anyway) but it is a question that needs answering...

Ben Wilson wrote:two divisions a la Scrabble tournaments and have separate prizes for 'A' and 'B'

Is that what the 3rd option is, because thats what I chose .

I'm very happy with the way it's been so far. All being in one competition gives a great opportunity for anyone to be able to play against top players, at least in the first round.

Howard Somerset wrote:I'm very happy with the way it's been so far. All being in one competition gives a great opportunity for anyone to be able to play against top players, at least in the first round.

Don't get me wrong, its nice to play to against the top players, but I know that when I play the top players, I have a very slim chance of beating them and therefore I apologise at the end for not being able to give them a decent match.

Though on the plus side, I do end up learning words like EXORDIA and FEIJOA .

I'm all for being able to play everyone.

Joseph Bolas wrote:Don't get me wrong, its nice to play to against the top players, but I know that when I play the top players, I have a very slim chance of beating them and therefore I apologise at the end for not being able to give them a decent match.

You may have a slim chance - I have no bloody chance at all. I must be some sort of masochist. Now wouldn't that be a nice niner to get.

Howard Somerset wrote:

Joseph Bolas wrote:Don't get me wrong, its nice to play to against the top players, but I know that when I play the top players, I have a very slim chance of beating them and therefore I apologise at the end for not being able to give them a decent match.

You may have a slim chance - I have no bloody chance at all. I must be some sort of masochist. Now wouldn't that be a nice niner to get.

I just make it a goal to get off 0 when playing against the top players . Last year for example, I played Conor Travers and it wasn't until round 7, I actually got off the mark .

In order to win these tournaments you either have to get 5 wins or 4 wins with pretty high scores. If you have 2 games where you play someone who you know you cant beat, then you have to do brilliantly on the other 4 games just to have a chance of getting a good end result (ie as in the top 5 to win a prize).

I think there's only a small group of players who have very little chance against the best in the room. Looking back over my last two Countdown tournaments, my opponents have been Charlie, the very lovely Sarah Duncan (won a few games a couple of series ago before losing to Richard Brittain), Mike Brown, Kirk, Chris Wills, Jono, Stewart Gordon, DanVan, Neb, Chris Wills again, Kirk again, and Michael Bowden.

Over 9 rounds all of those players would stand a chance of beating the best players there, but some of them would have to play in the second division. If I was in their position, I'd feel hard done by.

I'd say one division would be best, but with a Scrabble style 'ratings prize' for the bottom half to compete for. Maybe even two ratings prizes depending on the field.

Paul Howe wrote:Looking back over my last two Countdown tournaments, my opponents have been Charlie, the very lovely Sarah Duncan (won a few games a couple of series ago before losing to Richard Brittain), Mike Brown, Kirk, Chris Wills, Jono, Stewart Gordon, DanVan, Neb, Chris Wills again, Kirk again, and Michael Bowden.

I have been to 4 Countdown events, and decided to keep track of who I've played and how many times (win and lose too) and this is what I ended up with:

Joseph Bolas wrote:I have been to 4 Countdown events, and decided to keep track of who I've played and how many times (win and lose too) and this is what I ended up with:[/img]

That's a hell of a lot better than my list Joseph. I've been to two, and I know my totals. They are win-3, lose-9. There was a slight improvement in performance between the two, however.

Woo!

Obviously, I won't be at any of these events so my two pennies can be taken with a pinch of salt and other mixed metaphors. I know if it was a chess tournament I would love to have a shot at the best player there, there is no way you can lose. It's a 'hiding to nothing' for the stronger player: if they win, well, they were expected to win and if they lose the 'weaker' player has an excellent scalp.

Joseph Bolas wrote: If you have 2 games where you play someone who you know you cant beat,

Tut tut - that's not the attitude. Ask anyone that takes any game seriously, and if you're in that mindset, you'll never win. Phil Taylor is famous (?) for saying that most people are beaten before they even walk on stage if they are to play him because they think they are going to lose. Anybody can beat anybody on their day. Well...maybe.

Kirk Bevins wrote:Tut tut - that's not the attitude. Ask anyone that takes any game seriously, and if you're in that mindset, you'll never win. Phil Taylor is famous (?) for saying that most people are beaten before they even walk on stage if they are to play him because they think they are going to lose.

I know its not the right attitude, but I just don't see how I could end up playing the likes of Travers, Wills and O'Neill etc, when I am nowhere as good as them. I am trying to better myself though so I don't give them an easy win, if I do play them next time.

Kirk Bevins wrote:Anybody can beat anybody on their day. Well...maybe

I honestly think the only way I could beat the likes of Travers, Wills and O'Neill etc is if they deliberately lost

You could have a B division and an Open division. Players above a certain rating (or whatever threshold) would have to play in the Open division, and everyone else would have a choice. That only works if a decent number of people want to be in B division and I'm not sure if that's the case.

Failing that, a ratings prize would be good.

Hiyo,

I'd definitely add my vote to keeping things as they are. I think we all agree that I'm not a top player, I'd half near die of shock if I came out in the top half at the competition. The fact is we all have the opportunity if we happen to play well. Chance for a bit of giant killing from those less able certainly adds entertainment value. With the method previously used those who don't do all that well rapidly plummet to the bottom table and are more likely to have a good game at their level (see you there, haha)

I've spent more time down the bottom end than most and had good games, I've also appreciated the opportunity to play vs Conor, Chris W and Stewart in times gone by. Still waiting to play Mark T but it'll happen eventually.

If someone doesn't want to get beaten by the best players they have two options, opt .1 not come. opt .2 raise their game and become one amongst them. Option 2 is probably better for the self-esteem.

DC