Originally posted by cludi
I agree with your reasoning as far as the decisive championship games is a matter of the top x players playing against each other.
But why not have the lower rated players battle out the initial rounds against each other?
Why not have a sub 1500 round 1?
And a sub 1900 round 2?
And then let in all the big guns in the 3rd round?
I still think a site cham as many of the top players as possible, to increase the odds of finding the rightful champion?
your suggestion is not quite calculated correctly ... you would have a groupsize of 35 in the final round.
my thoughts for an ideal championship are:
first round time: 0/48 ... groupsize: 10,
second round time 0/60 ... groupsize: 8,
third round time 0/72 ... groupsize: whatever it takes.
the top 10 rated entrants, and the previous year's champ winner .... all get a bye in round 1.
the previous year's champ winner, and the highest rated entrant(when the second round begins) ... get a bye in round 2.
of course this is probably more hassle than it is worth to russ ... and so our present format is likely to continue.