Big thousand tournament series

No, of course, Uncle Metsa. I will be grateful to you for the rest of my life that I got to spend a week in the company of the rich and beautiful. My only thought was that if it was advertised that ratings don't count, then they would still count in some way.

In the mist of an insect, my intelligence data proves that every third tournament win goes to gray chess players, so you are in special favor and the program belittles green, blue, black and red. I don't know if I should turn to the Constitutional Committee of the Riigikogu or the European Court of Human Rights. At the same time, Mr. Meikop may be able to mathematically prove that there are some small molecules missing in the brains of green, blue, black and red players, and that is why gray players win every third tournament in a thousand.

Mr. Mets. I know nothing about chess except pawns and a flag. The fact that the syst belittles people of color has been around for centuries. Once again, thank you and now I move on to my gray and fighting mass.

/My little thought was that if it is advertised that the rating is not taken into account, then it would still be taken into account in some way./ ... the rating should not be taken into account in this series and in tournaments in general. It should be based on the results of a specific tournament, i.e. whoever has more maximums or higher results in the tournament will get a better place. Already a very old topic!

Rather, first and second place should get the same number of points

Rather, first and second place should get the same number of points [/quote] This is also a possible option, as Björgen and Pärmakoski shared the medal nicely :D and that's how it is done in series, that the place points are added up and divided into two

In fact, for example, this series should not have a rating at all and the table order should be in random order. I specifically launched the raid to see how it works and if you can't move up in the first couple of rounds then there is no hope because there are so many who still put the lamp on and then complain that bunnies etc. No denying it, it's one thing whether the accounts will be deleted or not, but with another account where the rate is much higher, the story is completely different and I play the same way. Why doesn't it work because when using the split offer, others get 70 points, look at the tables and think, on the one hand that's good but it's not a THOUSAND. If I'm ahead then I just try to play, against the lampers to get 70 and the one coming from behind can't simply move up in the table. In short, ranking the table based on the rating is a goddamn lie. And why do black and red players see so few in the tournament series is because the point system doesn't satisfy them, because the difference between a thousand and tournaments is night and day. IT PISSED ME NO OPINION OR ANSWER EXPECTED. Thank you for your attention;

Starting from the second tournament of the 21st day of the tournament series, players who are no longer able to reach 30 tournaments played could be deleted from the table (or alternatively moved to the end of the table in a separate calculation) (after the second tournament of the 21st day, such players are those who have played less than 2 tournaments by that point, after the third tournament of the 21st day, those who have played less than 3, etc. until the last tournament, those who have played less than 29 tournaments). Then the table would be more adequate and this would be especially important for those who are really claiming the first places.

This series competition is a so-called beta variant anyway. If this outrageous ranking based on averages is to remain, then it would be elementary to compile the table in such a way that the average is calculated right from the start, so that the place points obtained are divided by 30, i.e. the minimum required participation. Example: You have played only 1 tournament and received 30 place points, then the average is 1, not 30; if you have played 15 tournaments, received a total of 300 place points, then your average is 10, not 20, etc., etc.! In its current form, the table will only really start to show something when a certain number of players complete 30 tournaments, but even then it will not be much. The table should still show the actual ranking at any given time. And then there is also this thirty limit. In my opinion, it is not suitable, to put it briefly - still this best card player syndrome! Some players can get a better result in 20 tournaments than another with thirty, but then they would not even fit into the calculation! Hence the pointlessness of this idea of calculating the average, you still have to do an absolute calculation and set the conditions exactly. Imagine, for example, a chess tournament where a player who played 5 out of 7 rounds and got three points is behind in the table than a player who played 7 out of 7 and got 1 point. The current system is something like this!

Since this is a so-called beta variant, you could have tried just 6 games in a row over 6 days, with 1 worse result deducted points only for the first 12, but the current one is still complete nonsense.