Summary of the Thousand Series Competition

The AIIS is coming to an end and it would be interesting to know how it worked, please vote. In my opinion, the system did not work, the number of participants probably played a role in calculating the average, how else can you explain the fact that with few participants the average also drops when you get second or third place. After a long time, those who have received their results will no longer risk playing. Vipids - not vipids, a game or three a day, puts some in a completely unequal situation, understandable by the developer, This is business. In the point system, a split of -70 to others?? For God's sake, it's not a thousand, then think of another name for it, don't slurp the Thousand Game as such. Vote whether the next competition in this similar series should take place with or without changes.

Whatever the average is. But I completely agree that the game is sloppy. The idea of a thousand lies in offers and their fulfillment. At the moment, however, the offer is punishable and so the lowest offer can get maximum points - absurd. If I offer more than others and take it in full, then my task is fulfilled and should be evaluated accordingly. In the case of equal offers, it is simple, the one who gave more gets lower points. It is also understandable to compare the taker from a forced position with others, since the player is not left with a choice. Also, the offerer and taker of the same position should not be comparable, so I still come back to the fact that the point of the game is to reach the highest score through offers.

And in the case of a split, the evaluation of others should be based on the usual principles - whoever has more points gets more - forcing you to play for yourself until the end, there is quite a lot of collusion in this regard at the moment.

Of course, one can talk endlessly about the technical nuances of the game. But the main thing about such a tournament series is that the initial rating was not important, as, for example, when finding the best card player. Every player has a chance to win the tournament series regardless of whether he is gray or red at the beginning. I will not repeat myself for the third time, but I will simply say that explaining the best in this form gives a fairer result than one based on historical achievements. Such a system should also be applied to find the best card player.

/And in the case of a split, the evaluation of others should be on the usual basis/ I would still try to solve two completely different things separately! 1. Rules It was the case at the beginning that every point taken was counted, even in the case of a "split", but in any case this second version is better, of course with certain shortcomings. Maybe for those who "drive" the bidder into the bucket, it could be 65 instead of 70, but not 50 or 60 (I guess it's the norm now). There are also some mistakes in the levels (especially for certain numbers of tables), especially when leaving 60. A tournament thousand and a regular thousand can't have exactly the same rules, otherwise 1 tournament would last for hours and hours! In my opinion, the system is quite good and hence its popularity. In the open tender, there is also a "bočka", where the only goal is to hinder the bidder and you can't get a point yourself! This is the peculiarity of the thousand and is reflected quite well in the tournament system, where in fact everyone seems to be on 800 tricks all the time and there is still time to overcome the "dog's tail". If you play a tournament, you have to somehow try to compare players on an equal footing. If you start calculating the tricks exactly mathematically for each player's defensive actions again, then it wouldn't be fair, because most of the time you will defeat the bidder through cooperation! Basically, a couple of cooperation like Saskus, but 1 opponent - so in any case the defenders should get equal points like now, because someone's 10 points taken can be even more expensive than someone's 80, right? And if the bid cannot be broken, then the actual trick tricks will be included in the comparison - all right!. 1 change must definitely be introduced: If those playing in the same position get 0 tricks or more, then the 14 point rule should not apply, especially if the winners of the bid are the same at the tables! Whoever still doesn't win a trick will of course get 0 trick points in the comparison, but a player in the same position who has won even 1 trick and scored 2 points should be one step higher in the comparison. These examples occur in almost every tournament. Otherwise, the number of tricks really doesn't matter, whether it's 1, 2 or 3, etc., the points are important. There are still more of these little mistakes. 2. Specific proposals will soon be made regarding the scoring of the series competition, the current system cannot stand criticism! No one knows exactly what rules are being used. For example, I asked the director today if this average is his average of 65 games, and when he answered in the affirmative, it really surprised me. He almost doesn't think about playing to increase his average, and that's the case for many who have a lot of games. One thing is certain, however, that absolute calculation and certain place points for certain places must be introduced, regardless of the number of participants, from which a certain number of worse results can then be deducted, or errors corrected. If you are a VIP, then you simply have the opportunity to improve more, but this does not guarantee that you will get a better final result. Some players can get a better result in 3 tournaments than another in 30!. All participants should be taken into account (in the ranking). Still similar to sports competition cups.

Rabapalm: 1 change that definitely needs to be introduced: If players in the same position get 0 tricks or more, then the 14-point rule should not apply, especially if the same bid winners are still on the tables! Those who still don't get a trick will of course get 0 trick points in the comparison, but a player in the same position who took 1 trick and got even 2 points should be a step higher in the comparison. These examples occur in almost every tournament. Otherwise, the number of tricks really doesn't matter, whether it's 1,2 v. 3, etc., the points are important. There are still more of these little mistakes. I always say the same thing, that 0 tricks or 0 points should be separate from both minus and plus, i.e. on their own level. Even one trick with 1-14 points should be the next level. There is still a big difference between not getting any tricks or no points or getting that one trick 1-14 points somehow, and that would immediately change the situation and make the effort to get one trick more valuable. It would be motivating to try until the end and even hold the boy until the end if you know that the 9 of the same suit is still on the board. However, this step can also be 1-15 points and the next step 16-30 points, etc. We simply increase the steps by one point if it is not technically possible to make 13 14 14 14 steps.

A tournament thousand and a regular thousand cannot have exactly the same rules, otherwise 1 tournament would stretch for hours and hours! How does the rule affect the length of the tournament? At the same time, you even admit that it is played as the last end of a regular game. Each set must be taken as a separate game, at the moment the important nuances that make the game this game are left aside. 1 change must definitely be introduced: If those playing in the same position get 0 tricks or more, then this 14 point rule should not apply, especially if there are still the same bid winners at the tables! Those who still don't get a trick will of course get 0 trick points in the comparison, but a player in the same position who has taken even 1 trick and received even 2 points should be a step higher in the comparison. These examples occur in almost every tournament. Otherwise, the number of tricks really doesn't matter, whether it's 1,2 v. 3, etc., the points are important. There are even more of these little mistakes. My point is that the basis of a thousand is the bid. And if bidders are not "rewarded", then there is no point in making an effort and instead playing for another blow-up or betting on trick points and earning money from it. In my opinion, there should be a certain amount of points for a successfully completed bid a bonus for a higher bid. For example, 50 some steps up to 50 for others. At the moment, there is an absurd situation where the bidder does everything right but ends up with zero - I bid 150, I take it in full - others bid 140 but give away fewer points and get more points from me. And at the same time, opponents who did not bother to bid, but took trick points, get a smaller amount of points. The points of the blow-ups could then, for example, be the average score of the winners of a specific round, so that things would remain proportional in the grand scheme of things if the calculation of trick points is not suitable for blow-ups. But I emphasize again - the bid should be favored.

If we talk about a thousand, then it wouldn't last hours, but e.g. a week, and the game would still be played until a thousand, and there wouldn't be any comparison with the tables, the loser would be eliminated, and so on, the rounds would continue, the losers would play among themselves, etc.... And it would certainly be possible to make such a table, but wouldn't it be work and money? And then we could talk about a THOUSAND TOURNAMENT, not like the current one, a thousand....

I completely agree. The system is nonsense for a moment. This is what happens when I bid 150 and am forced to give up, for example, half to get this result. And the result is full, but I have given my opponent more points than the 120 bidder and I am left with zero. I also think that every point should be counted, not up to 15 gives the same result. And to this day, this last hand forced 60 still haunts me. I understand that if the last hand passes, he gets that 60, but why not let all positions bid?

/But I emphasize again - the offer should be favored./ Every game has its own character and nuances. The offer is certainly not the main thing and that is why I really appreciate the current tournament system in general, where the basis for comparison is still the balance! You can, Siim, offer, for example, 180, play full, but if you give half your hand to your opponent, let him also make a trump, you give away a lot, there was no great benefit from this offer; especially if the other tables played smarter. What is important is the overall balance, or how little you give to your opponents! In a regular game, of course, it often happens that when you need to make a critical decision, you deal good cards to the one who is further behind you. In a tournament system, a player who offers 150, gives away 30, is in any case smarter than a player who offers 180, but gives away 100! No extra points are awarded for pure mathematics and emotions (that oh, he did offer a lot)!