14-02-2012, 12:34 AM
I think it's great that players of a similar rating can play in a tournament and get good games against each other without any mismatches. And if it is the only financially viable way of running the congress then that's absolutely fine. But I'm just not convinced it's what the players want. Where is the evidence of this?
8, that is one third of players in the stars barred could have played in the major but were ambitious enough to play up. Don't you think these players (mostly juniors) would like a crack at a +2050 player?
And Is that number, 8, not the same number of expected +2050 players that would have played? I just find it hard to believe that the same number of players would not play if it was an Open.
I also like the idea of one large section with rating prizes if it is possible. Accelerating/hyper-accelerating the pairings should avoid any massacres early on.
8, that is one third of players in the stars barred could have played in the major but were ambitious enough to play up. Don't you think these players (mostly juniors) would like a crack at a +2050 player?
And Is that number, 8, not the same number of expected +2050 players that would have played? I just find it hard to believe that the same number of players would not play if it was an Open.
I also like the idea of one large section with rating prizes if it is possible. Accelerating/hyper-accelerating the pairings should avoid any massacres early on.