Alternative Tournament Formats

[Brad Fox]

The recent bull-board posting by UglinessMan has got me thinking about the recent burst of regional tournaments that the society has seen this year.

While it is absolutely invigorating to see the sport growing, I'd be interested on people's thoughts whether (to date) the insistance on single-elimination tournament play is actually harming the development of tournament-level RPS players.

A breif summary for those unfamiliar with various tournament bracketing schemes; In a "single elimination" tournament a competitor only has to lose once in order to be eliminated such as:

Player A   Player B   Player C
Player B

Player C   Player C
Player D

In this situation, Players B & D lose in the first round and are eliminated. Player B loses in the second round and is eliminated.

The advantages of this format are that is allows the largest number of competitors to compete in the smallest amount of time. For the highest level national and international events, this is absolutely required without full-day (or multi-day) events.

The downside to this though is the statistically large number of club, and amateur players who only compete at the occasional open event and have come to see single elimination play as synonymous with competitive RPS.

To a developing player (or even a seasoned pro who is "off their game", which certainly happens) it can be very disheartening to have months of practice, and preparation end in one mis-played match and (as an investment of time and effort by the player) could hypothetically be seen as "the sport" offering a poor return on that investment.

This is why many/most competitive sports use double elimination  or round robin play bracketing where you are guaranteed at least two, or a series of matches respectively no matter how poorly you play (there are a few exceptions - such as pro-tennis, where the sheer time requirement of a single match makes any other format unfeasable as tournaments already require week(s) to complete).

Of course the benifits of playing more than one match in a tournament-level setting are many. The ability to play against more than one player, and therefore more than one playing style. The possibility to revise one's game plan or technique "on the fly" to fix faults in previous execution. Even the simple fellowship of an increase in direct exposure to more competitors, whose progress you can analyze as the tournament progresses.

While these "alternative" formats are, again, only practical for smaller tournaments (say <256) they actually allow new players to actively develop their RPS skills and have a better chance at creating lifelong fans of the *sport* or RPS, not just the pagentry and high-stakes of an RPS tournament event (which unfortunately could be easily appropriated by a new-fangled "extreme" event such as odds-n-evens, or (god forbid) tiddly-winks).

The question then to the group is why new tournament organizers seem reluctant to look at alternative bracketing for their smaller tournaments ? The official strategy guide on tournaments has a robust section on alternative bracketing (although I feel that "round robin" play, which I feel is demonstrably the best tournament system for both developing players and seasoned-pros alike, gets short shrift) yet, to the best of my knowlede, almost every "modern era" tournament has been single-elimination.

Should this be a concern?

Would such a reliance ever be a barrier to more participation in the sport?

As an old throw jockey, am I just tired of sending crushed rookies to the showers after one match?

As we all know part of the complexity of RPS is how different the game plays under different conditions and terms. I see great potential for a wide range of tournament formats, each with their own distinct syle (all while maintaining, of course, official society tournament rules) - yet worry that "single elimination" is becoming synonymous with "RPS tournament".

Warmest etceteras,

[James Hagherty]

You raise some excellent points, Mr. Fox. As you are well aware the World Championships with over 600 people and only four hours to play in uses single-elimination as it is the only means possible within the time frame. While another format is conceivable it would likely require people to show up for the event earlier (which is difficult at best).

I heartily agree with you that double-elimination or Round-robin is a much less cut-throat style of play and better suited to league or club style tournaments. There is a bigger commitment for the grand marshal or organizer in managing the flow, but with 128 competitors (as most such regional tournaments seem to be) this should be quite manageable given sufficient referee support.

That is the big issue though. It is difficult to find referees and time-consuming to train new ones. If there were more referees available and willing for many of these tournaments I am sure other formats would be viable options for them.

[Brad Fox]

Absolutely, and I hope I emphasized the same in my post. Further I think you could make a strong argument that even if time were not a factor, the Worlds - of all tournaments - *should* be a single elimination event as the "winner take all" nature,  raises the profile, excitement, and marketability of the event.

There are few out there foolish enough to believe they could go 1-on-1 with one of our illustrious legends of the sport in a round-robin pool and advance... but a single match? There's always the remote possibility.

I have no doubt that the colour and variety the grand sport has bred in it's players will eventually be reflected in events and venues as well, but at a time when many are considering potential tournaments for 2005 I felt it was worth pointing out that there are many options to the smaller tournament organizer outside of "single elimination".

If any such person considering a sub-132 competitor tournament is interested in the grueling "iron-man battle-royale" bracketing I am currently developing, I would be happy to discuss it further. It would be well suited for a more relaxed "endurance" venue such as a picnic field, campground, or all-night truckstop.

As for the challenges in recruiting, training, and retaining referees - you are, I believe, "preaching to the choir".

[custardchuk]

Player A   Player B   Player C
Player B

Player C   Player C
Player D

In this situation, Players B & D lose in the first round and are eliminated. Player B loses in the second round and is eliminated.

Brad,
I consider myself a reasonably astute RPS player, one who has seen most the game can throw up. I know you to be meticulous in establishing what should and shall not be.
I've spent the last week pondering this post and I've got to say I have no idea what you are on about.
As usual, with referees, I will assume you are right and I am ignorant.
If your point is that players should have an opportunity to settle in to the championships, to play a loosener, to feel out the venue, to gauge the opposition then I have to agree.
The Canadian Short Form may be the format of the moment however WRPSS should not forget that the game endured the last few centuries in the best of seven, fifteen or twenty one. Formats that allowed the cream to rise to top.
Don't for one minute think that this is sour grapes. After a few barren years as Chairman of RPSOZ, I can't tell you how happy I was to see the booths six deep.
One thing I did notice and consider worth discussing is the idea of the "buyback".
While Master Pete and I were moving from competition to Outreach we heard a rumour that some had disguised themselves and bought back in. It was suggested that it was a possibility for us. As dissapointed in our early exclusion, as we both were, we took the view that, as high profile players, we could have compromised the night. Pete had more to lose than I, he'd already conceded his first round failure in an on stage interview. I think I went in the first minute and no would have noticed except the kid who beat me. I couldn't spoil his big night.
I think WRPSS needs to look at an official policy with regards "buyback". Certainly, it wil increase revenue. Moreso it will raise the standard of play, allowing good players a chance to measure the competition rather than firing from the hip.[/color]

[Brad Fox]

A pleasure as always, 'chuck.

My theme was simply to encourage folks thinking of running smaller local tournaments this year to consider a different bracketing system than single-elimination. Any other format would allow the players more guaranteed matches before being eliminated - and would help to distinguish these events from the Worlds.

The Worlds format was not selected (as far as I know) because anyone considered it a superior format for the competitors, it's simply the only feasable one given the number of competitors and the time required.

I wasn't aware of the concept of "Buyback"ing and I have to admit it grates with me on a purely ethical level. From a simple logistical viewpoint though, it creates a problem of adding more and more waves to the first round of competition which then exponentially push back the time frame for later rounds. As well it would give an unfair statistical advantage to early competitors who would have a chance to "buy back in" before registration is closed.

The only fair way I could see such a formalized system working is if competitors eliminated in the 1st round were all given a chance to  "buyback" into a "repecharge" tournament which functioned completely seperately of the "main" bracket and the ultimate winner (or top few) were given seeding back into a higher level of the main bracket (such as the top 64 or top 16). This way the regular tournament would not be delayed, and everyone eliminated in the first round would have a fair and equal second chance. It would also minimize the need for additional officials as more become available as the rounds progress. Adding an additional surcharge would also (hopefully) keep the number of competitors in the "repecharge" down to a reasonable level and add an additional revenue stream for the society.

It would certainly be a unique championship format.


Adopting such a system (or condemming the underground practice, if it is indeed rampant) is a society issue far above my station, but I guess I have trouble relating the concept to what I, personally, belive the championships are "about."

I certainly believe that the elements that define a "master" player have little (if anything) in common with a players performance in a single match. As such, some of the players I respect the most have had very mixed competitive success. On the other side of the coin there have been players who have made it into the upper rounds that I don't feel are particularly skilled at the game - but this is one of the exiting aspects of the championship format - and I don't think anyone should correlate a fun championship experience with overall lifetime skill at the sport itself (which is an entirely different beast).

[martinburley]

I agree with Brad and others that this is an important topic. At the Strategic Forces Department, we have been considering the logistical and logical issues involved in depth. And we have come up with a new and innovative system - we call it the 'Tri-Cut Tournament' (tm). We believe this tournament structure resolves many of the issues raised above.


This is how a Tri-Cut Tournament works:

Firstly, the number of players is ideally of order 2^n, (2, 4, 8, 16, etc.), just like a normal knock-out tournament, though the Tri-Cut format can be adapted for other numbers. The following example is based on a tournament of 32 players.

There are nine rounds, which can be divided into four stages, as follows:

First Stage

Round 1: Each player plays one other player. (Seeding is useful, but not necessary.)

Round 2: Each winner from round 1 plays another winner, each loser plays another loser.

After the second round: players are divided into four groups according to their results. Group A - 2 wins (8 players), Group B - 1 win, 1 loss (16 players), Group C - 2 losses (8 players). This is the first 'cut'.


Second Stage

Rounds 3 and 4: In Group B, players play each other as described above. In Group C, players also play each other as above. Their tournaments are then over, their final placings determined by these games. This is the second cut.

Group A players sit out rounds 3 and 4, and are able to spend the time preparing for their quarter-final matches.


Third Stage

Round 5: Group A players play in the quarter-finals.

Round 6: Quarter-final losers play each other. Their tournaments are then over, their final placings determined by these games. This is the third cut.

Quarter-final winners sit out round 6, and are able to prepare for the semi-finals.

Finals

Round 7: Semi-finals.
Round 8: 3rd/4th place play-off.
Round 9: Final.

The Tri-Cut Tournament might sound complicated initially but it's very easy to run in practice. Players have no difficulties understanding it. After the tournament is completed, the players have been neatly classified into 12 groups as follows:

Winner: Won rounds 1, 2, 5, 7, 9
Runner-Up: Won rounds 1, 2, 5, 7
3rd place: Won rounds 1, 2, 5, 8
4th place: Won rounds 1, 2, 5
5-6: Won rounds 1, 2, 6
7-8: Won rounds 1, 2
9-12: Won either round 1 or 2, and rounds 3, 4
13-20: Won either round 1 or 2, and either round 3 or 4
21-24: Won either round 1 or 2
25-26: Won rounds 3 and 4
27-30: Won either round 3 or 4
31-32: No wins

In a Tri-Cut Tournament, all players play four matches, except the eventual winner and runner-up, who play five matches. There are 66 matches in total for a 32-player tournament. This is double the number for single-elimination knock-out (31), but far fewer than for a round-robin tournament (496), and also fewer than a standard Swiss tournament (80).

Why use the Tri-Cut Tournament format? Here are just some of the positive features:

* Extra matches - all players are guaranteed at least four matches. Players love to turn up knowing they have the maximum opportunity to shine. As Brad rightly notes, it's important that RPS tournaments don't leave players feeling short-changed. Not many tournaments can guarantee players four matches. Tri-Cut Tournaments can.

* Experiential learning - if the tournament is seed, it's to be expected that weaker players up against the top seeds in the first round will probably lose to them. But the weaker player can then show they've learned from the defeat - if they use their new-found knowledge to win their later games. It's always heart-warming when, after a youngster loses to the Urbanus defense for the first time in the first round, you then see them play it themselves to win one of their later matches.

* Ranked results - each player has a very clear idea of where he or she stands, compared to standard knock-outs, where if you lose the first round, you could be anywhere from 17th best player to weakest. In Swiss tournaments, the middle rankings are often fairly imprecise. In the Tri-Cut Tournament results, only one group has more than four players in it.

* Fair rankings - If you think players should be ideally ranked according to their total matches won (as in Swiss format or round-robin), the rankings produced by the Tri-Cut Tournament format are very fair. Only four players could be said to be misplaced (7th and 8th won 2 matches, while 9th to 12th won 3; 25th and 26th won 2 matches, while 21st to 24th won 1). This is at most a minor quibble.

* Meaningful matches - in some ways, the Tri-Cut Tournament format echoes the 'Cup and Plate' approach, where first-round losers play in a separate tournament to see who wins the Plate (though this still only guarantees two matches minimum). However, using a Cup and Plate tournament for rakings results in a 'Christmas tree' look, with (for a 32-player tournament) one winner, down to a group of eight players ranked 9th-16th, and then one player ranked 17th, down to a group of eight players ranked 25th-32nd. Tri-Cut rankings have better symmetry, with the largest groups in the middle, and accurate ranking of the worst players as well as the best.

* No humiliation for losers - because two players are in the very lowest results band, they can take some comfort from the fact that neither of them is officially the very weakest player, and they may well develop solidarity in defeat. If you lose all your matches, but you make a friend, you come away a winner.  

* Opportunity for surprise - with formats which use 'pools' or mini-leagues to guarantee players a certain minimum number of games, the better players are fairly likely to progress from their pool, since they can shrug off one upset. But audiences love the drama of upsets and shock results, love to see underdogs having a real chance of winning, and Tri-Cut Tournaments allow for that.  

* Knock-out 'feel' - in my experience, fans and plays are often dubious about double-elimination tournaments. They feel that once a player has lost, it's not 'really' fair if he or she can still go on to win the tournament thanks to their second life. In Tri-Cut Tournaments, players only have one shot at winning. If you lose, you can't win the tournament. That's simple. That's fair.

* Quality matches - giving players in the top group the chance to sit out rounds 3 and 4 (and again in round 6) reduces the risk of burn-out. In Tri-Cut Tournaments, the top players are fighting fit and fresh for their final matches. The players appreciate the chance to work on their game, take care of an injury, or otherwise prepare for their next match, without missing the chance to observe their potential future opponents (as would be the case if a player stops watching in normal knock-out events). Media also love this format as some Group A players are willing to be interviewed during the break. Very occasionally, Group A players have even provided guest commentary on rounds 3 and 4 Group B and C matches.

* Post-tournament match-up opportunities - For example, players in the 9th-12th group might want to take on each other in side-games to see which of them is the best. This gives these side-games some extra meaning and zing.

* Top billing for top matches - in Swiss format and round-robin tournaments, a game between two top players in the penultimate round will be followed by a bottom of the table final-round match. In Tri-Cut Tournaments the most important games all come at the end, preserving the exciting build-up of intensity that makes knock-out tournaments so special.

* Mark your progress - if your club or league holds regular Tri-Cut Tournaments, it's easy to judge your progress, with luck playing less of a factor than normal knock-out tournaments. And you can also set clear, achievable targets. 21st-24th last time? Learn not to get rattled by a defeat, and you might win those round 3 and 4 matches next time. You were top of Group B last time? Let's see if your extra training helps you reach Group A this time around!


Now the hard work of developing the Tri-Cut Tournament format is complete, we're happy to throw it open to discussion. Already, our test tournaments have received positive feedback. Some club tournament organisers have expressed strong interest in using this structure for their regular tournaments. What we like most about this tournament format, though, is that it's equally suited to one-off tournaments - with four matches guaranteed, it'll be a memorable event for every player!

[Jef Hallestone]

Why is it that every year around this time, blockbuster posts such as Martin's come out?

[Chad Leatherstep]

You dork Hallestone. I got one letter, one number and one word for you...Q4 Bonus

[custardchuk]

Fantastic work, Martin.

You have made my point far more elonquently than I have.

But it is not that simple. As a professional I grind  a living. I win more than I lose. There are any number of tournaments where I can do that.

The Miss Universe pageant does not actually award the crown to the best girl in the known universe, just a representation of that. Without fail, I think everyone knows a girl equal or superior to the current Miss Universe from their own solar system.

But does it have value?

Of course it does. You don't have to ask me, just look at the worldwide interest. No one wants to really debate, on any any  level, why one girl may be better than another.

The same can be said for one play knockout tournaments. No one is looking to see who is best. They are looking to see if they are lucky, to see if they are in the ballpark, to see how they rate. A win at the Worlds may give you respect, but does not guarantee that people will respect you. The good players enter with it and leave with it, no matter the result.


I have a great love for the Worlds. I am not there for the money or the fame. I lose no sleep when I lose and I can happily congratulate anyone good enough to win.

Would winning the plate or the spoon make things better? Superficially, yes, but realistically, no.

Stick with the winner takes all tournament. It is the public face that allows us good players a chance to shine, yet costs us nothing. Introducing Martin's format at the Internationals would alienate those who who would take a shot at stardom from a bed of sand. And if we alienate all those people then we are still only playing each other, knowing, as we do, who will win the cup, the plate or the spoon.

regards
custardchuk

[martinburley]

Don't fear, custardchuk! I'm *not* suggesting introducing this format for the Internationals. Like you, I think that the Internationals are the shining star of the RPS tournament circuit. The chance to meet a horde of RPS fans, play against and watch the top pros in action, and take a shot at stardom... no, the Internationals offer more than enough to attract competitors as it is. And with so many competitors, straight knock-out is pretty much the only realistic option. I totally agree that the Internationals are best left as they are.  

Where I think the Tri-Cut Tournament format *would* be of great value is in boosting attendance at less established, medium-size RPS tournaments. While regular players will no doubt turn up whatever the format, it's the first-timers that the Tri-Cut format reaches out to. Newcomers and casual players, players who aren't sure whether they will make the trip. They have to get there and back, and that can be a hassle; there are other things they could do with their time; deep down they know it's a good idea, but in their conscious mind, they're not sure it's worth the effort to go; and for some, they fear the embarrassment of losing in the first round, their tournament over in a matter of minutes.

This is where knowing they're guaranteed at least four matches could be the factor that swings it. They decide to come... they play... they get hooked. Once they experience the buzz of the tournament atmosphere, they'll go to more tournaments, including straight knock-outs.

Also, Tri-Cut Tournaments are great as a regular (e.g. monthly) club tournament format. The structure allows players to easily and accurately assess how well they're climbing the ladder of tournament play, helping guide their training as mentioned above. And the unique Tri-Cut format is especially suited to RPS club tournaments: first up, everyone gets to play four games - much better training for the club's beginners than straight knock-outs where they get the *least* chance to experience tournament pressure, playing only one match compared to the four or five that the best players get to play. Second, in rounds 3 and 4, the better players are able to watch the Group B and C matches and offer valuable post-match advice and feedback to players who are keen to improve. Finally, it's the turn of the weaker players to gather round, and watch and learn from the finals matches between the day's top players. Seriously, what's not to love?

[Brad Fox]

I actually like this format a lot. It preserves the "lose once and you're done" aspect of a "major" tournament so that smaller events can *both* give practical experience to those looking to compete in "the big leagues",  while still allowing most beginner-to-intermediate players tangible results to work for no matter their results (ranking).

Improvement in overall ranking over time is a *huge* motivator for most hobbiest players. Way back in my college days I was on the varsity fencing team (it's actually how I got involved in officiating... long story). I was never going to be even an average athelete (my favourite weapon was the worst possible choice of the three given my height and weight... but it was the only form I actually enjoyed) so tournaments were never a question of "winning" (I actually don't recall ever advancing out of a round robin), but of playing against different competitors, and hopefully seeing improvement over time - all of which would be possible under a Tri-Cut system.

[martinburley]

Thanks, Brad. The Strategic Forces Department put a lot of work into developing this new system, so it's great to see it meet with your approval.

I agree with you that many players get motivated by the desire to improve their rankings. In fact, after reviewing the feedback our Department has received, I now believe that the Tri-Cut rankings should be adapted slightly, to resolve the 'minor quibble' mentioned above. The change means that Group B players ending with 3 wins are promoted above Group A players with only 2 wins, while Group B players with only 1 win are relegated below Group C players with 2 wins.

Why make this change to what's already a good format? To turn it into a great one!  As well as making the rankings absolutely fair, it introduces *even more* excitement into an already fantastic tournament structure. It removes any hint of anti-climax from the round 4 and round 6 matches. Rather than just playing out their final games, players have to cope with the pressure of facing relegation, or trying to secure promotion to the top 10 or top Group B.  

This would leave the final rankings:

Group A
Winner (5 wins)
Runner-Up (4 wins)
3rd Place (4 wins)
4th Place (3 wins)
5-6 (3 wins)
7-10 (promoted Group B players, 3 wins total)

Group B
11-12 (relegated Group A players, 2 wins total)
13-20 (2 wins)
21-22 (promoted Group C players, 2 wins total)

Group C
23-26 (relegated Group B players, 1 win total)
27-30 (1 win)
31-32 (0 wins)

I think club tournaments stand to gain the most from this change, as players try to gain ranking points, and it would encourage healthy competition. It combines the all-or-nothing pressures of a knock-out with the promotion and relegation pressures of a league. Also, by making Group B more fluid (half the players in Group B after round 2 are promoted or relegated), it helps instill Group C players with the belief that they have every chance of rising to Group A standard if they stay determined and practise hard, while Group A regulars can't rest on their laurels with the threat of relegation never far away.

For anyone planning to run a Tri-Cut tournament, I suggest that before each tournament, you put up a results board with the above classifications clearly distinguished. If you use thin solid lines to mark out the rankings, thick solid lines between Groups A, B and C, and thick dotted lines to show the promotion and relegation spots, this will help to ensure all players are clear about the format. (Some people learn through listening to instructions, but others find visual aids like this most helpful.)