Note: The following concept is still in the idea stage - problems are not to be pointed out and laughed at, merely pointed out.

The "Three Day Battle" system would be a sort of minitournament that runs at all times (or nearly so), done round-robin style. Contestants would be paired up for each round against the person whose score is closest to theirs that they have not played against yet.

Pairings for each round are announced six hours before the round begins.

At the beginning of a given three-day period, for twelve hours (0000 GMT to 1200 GMT Monday and 1200 GMT Thursday to 0000 GMT Friday), each pair of players is to determine which game they will play, such that neither player has played that game already in the tournament. These submissions are then sent to the 3DB Tournament directors (a board, most likely, of either 3 or 5), who will judge on the game choices. [I would suggest, if the 3DB system does start, sending in your top five choices for games when you start a round so that you don't have the directors choosing one for you at the last moment.] Then, for the next 60 hours (until 0000 GMT Thursday or 1200 GMT Sunday), each pair of players tries to achieve the highest score in their pair. The winner is given 3 points, and the loser 1 point; if there is a tie (somehow), both players are given 2 points.

Players may come and leave as they like; any game you sit out of gives your opponent all four of the game's points. Players who join this system after the first game will be given 0 points for each of the rounds they have missed.

If there are an odd number of players, the player with the highest current score will be given a bye, worth 2 points.

Judging: The board of directors will watch the last recordings done by a pair and are given twelve hours to confirm these recordings and generate pairings for the next round (from 0000 GMT to 1200 GMT Thursday and 1200 GMT Sunday to 0000 GMT Monday).

If anyone has any questions/issues/complaints about this (aside from "we already have two tournament systems going, why do we need a third" - this is meant to fill in the time between tournaments, mostly), e-mail me or reply to this.

-- Matt Denham (peng@demongate.ath.cx), March 22, 2001

Answers

This is a very interesting idea. I wouldn't wiew it as a tournament, but rather it could become an ongoing event at MARP to keep things fun. For example, if we treated this as a "ladder" then all the players of MARP are ranked, (we could use existing LB and/or final ranking of K2 to start). Each week (I think 3 days is too short to get players schedules to line up), a new game is announced on say Monday 0:00 GMT. All players play this game for one week and are essentially competeing against the player above them and the player below them (groups of 3) for position. At the end of the week, based on the scores new rankings are determined for the following week. A loss within your group of three drops you to that last spot within your grouping. Example: player 2 is grouped with 1&3, player 3 is grouped with 2&4, player 4 with 3&5, etc. Looking at players 3 group: 2 could drop to 4 if he finishes third, 4 could move to 1st if he wins, 3 would stay at 3. A player who doesn't play or loses would drop 2 positions at most. A player who wins can only advance 2 spots. Ties and people hold their positions. I really like this idea, what do you guys think?

-- Pat (laffaye@mail.com), March 23, 2001.

I like the idea too, essentially the chess competition system, based on matches between two players with same number of points. I agree with Pat with the playing time which should be one week instead of 3 days. I see things like that : I take some ideas from Matt, from Pat and ... from myself, of course :)

* Every Monday at 0.00 GMT, a game is announced ( same for all matches, otherwise it's way too complicated ! ) along with pairs of players based on the current ranking. You play against player with same number of points than you if possible, near form you if not. ( THIS is the chess competition system )

* Initial rankings could be taken from MC2 final positions but with players all with 0 point of course. Or why not pairs randomly constituted ?

* A predetermined number of rounds should be decided, like 10.

* Each one who want to enter the tournament can do it, even if he didn't play the first matches. In this case, he enters the ranking with 0 point.

* If one ( or both players of one match ) player doesn't play, he just gets 0 point.

* The winner gets 3 pts, the loser 1 pt. Ties should be exceptional but award 2 points.

Anyway, an interesting idea to explore ... In my opinion, the existence of the knockout and the regular tournament ( BTW, what about t6 ? ) is not an inconvenient. With the knockout, lots of players are eliminated soon and want to have their chance in another competition. And everyone is free to play or not, choosing the kind of competition he prefers.

-- Lagavulin (darre@noos.fr), March 23, 2001.