1. I would like to see 1 round of zcsq .....not 2 and pick the top players from that round to continue on to the zcs.
2. I would like to see the top 8 players from THIS zcs with seating in the next and all other players have to play in zcsq to qualify. As we know there is cheating in the rated rooms and also in the tourney rooms. So winning tourneys or having a good rating is no guarantee that that person has earned either slot.
3. I would like to see a new rule that kibitzers MUST be silenced when the game begins. The zcs is to me as much for the kibitzers as it is for the players. It's a fun, learning experience I believe for all and you can't do that with kibitzers talking in the middle of a non silenced game.
4. I personally would love to see the zcs forum closed once the rules have been set in place and play has begun. I see nothing but problems, backbiting and hate on that forum. It has turned into nothing much more then the old persona forum. I've stated it before "the zone DOES read this trash" and my own personal opinion is it makes the zcs look troubled. The problems between players , directors and host should be handled in private. NOT on a forum. The purpose of the forum I thought to begin with was to make suggestions for the zcs rules and regulations. Once that zcs is in play there is NO changes to the rules so why is it open?
   

1. A replacement player should not receive the benefits of a player that he/she replaced. If a player loses to a player who has had to leave the tournament, then the losing player should have a chance to replay that match. It SHOULD be hard as heck for a replacement player to make it to the next round as they should not even be in the current round. Wins by the non-replaced player should be kept in place as they beat the "better player."
   
   Example: I am 7-3 and I need to forfeit. The 7 people that I defeated will have an opportunity to reschedule a match with my replacement, but the 3 people who defeated me will not have to worry.
   
   Another possible idea is to give everyone (even the people who I defeated or I lost to) a half victory against me (for seeding purposes).
2. Create a set amount of players who will make the ZCS and do not alter that number to "avoid tiebreakers."
   

1. Suggest a link box to time conversion link
   http://www.timezoneconverter.com/cgi-bin/tzc.tzc
2. Also consider a rule when setting up a match date and time when no time zone is indicated it will be a default time zone. As some people make mistakes but some do this as a delay on purpose. ie (loop hole)
   

Any player who has not started playing promptly or has not played and completed at least one match per seven days thru out the tourneys entirety and no less than half completed at half way mark but not more then sixty-percent or the approximate may be replaced. Specific deadlines and games to equal sixty percent may vary from tournament to tournament and will be provided before the start of each round.

Requests for exceptions should be directed to the Host as soon as possible. A maximum of one request per event will be considered. All approved or rejected delayed play request will be posted on Delay Request Board containing only time and duration and decision of approval or rejection. All catch up matches must be played within seven days of returning.

Upon approval matches need to be scheduled with opponents that will be missed to conform to required match play. Scheduling in advance thru e-mail with 3 possible dates and times to choose from. Opponent that cannot agree on a submitted purposed date time must intern re-submit three different times and dates that are within seven days in which absence of play has been approved. It will then be up to player with approved absence to choose one of those dates and times. Holidays will be taken into consideration if player found in non-conformance of rules.

The Intent of the rule change is intended to lessen the impact and outcome of those who choose not continue to play when they cannot obviously advance and for those experienced player that take advantage of knowing and stall there games until the last moment getting maximum benefit wins thru those who choose to no longer play or the skill change in those that are substituted. By instating this rule I believe this will even out the time frames of played matches.

Note: This rule would require building an additional web page. Sry Hey_ abbot J

Thank you for your time.

Ice_Cuber

(Webmaster note : I enlarged the default font a little, and made the font sizable, so you can adjust it in your browser)

1. Most important one First - Get more qualifying Tournaments involved! There are plenty out there to choose from.
2. Up the minimum requirements for ladders and change the scope. I remember seeing Ladders Hosts say the minimum should be raised. I suggest the following qualifications:
   • Top 5 with best win/loss percentage that have at least 1000 matches that apply.
   • If they have qualified before, they must have played at least 150 matches since the last qualification.
3. Up the minimum for Ratings as follows:
   • Top 20 with best Ratings that have at least 1500 experience points, and have a experience/match ratio of no less than 75 and no more that 500.
   • Keep the 250 experience points and 27 matches the same for those who qualified before.
   • If Tournament Ratings are to be used as a qualifier, then apply the same requirements to them as well.
4. Minimum requirements for any qualifying tournaments :
   • Must be at least 5 rounds (32+ players) deep, and overall accumulated points for winning the tournament must be at least 20.
     Minimum for winner only. Higher numbers could be considered for adding the runner-ups as qualification.
   • TOC's must have as qualifiers only winners of Zone Tournaments. No "Lifetime" memberships for just being there.
5. Minimum requirements for any qualifying League play :
   • Minimum play of 14 matches, minimum of 7 opponents having been played, and a minimum of 98 overall accumulated match points.
   • Players must have been played through at least two "rounds"

While I believe many of the players who pre-qualify for the ZCS based on their zone ratings are very good players and people who are certainly capable of competing at a high level, the type of backgammon played to gain a high-enough rating to compete in the ZCS (one-point matches, 64-point matches) is not indicative of the type of backgammon played in the ZCS. Therefore, the backgammon players with the highest zone ratings are not necessarily the best backgammon players (as defined by the ZCS).

I believe there is a solution to this problem.

To excel in the ZCSQ, one must have skills similar to what is needed in the ZCS - in other words, the ZCSQ is a good indicator of backgammon skill (as defined by the ZCS). So, instead of pre-qualifying 20 players (or 22 this past session) based on zone ratings, only pre-qualify about the top 4 players. Then, to ensure more rated players end up in the ZCS, segregate the ZCSQ brackets by player type. Have brackets for rated players, league/tournament players, ladder players, and general players.

Depending on the breakdown of pre-qualifiers and the proportions the directors wish to include in the ZCS, the segregated brackets could ensure the number of players the tournament wants in the ZCS based on player type (for example, if the directors want a total of 12 rated room players, they'd pre-qualify the top 4 and the top 8 from the ZCSQ rated player brackets would advance). This would help ensure the top rated players get into the ZCS, but the rated players with the best skills necessary to perform well in the ZCS also gain entry.

This same concept can be used for ladder players, league/tournament players, etc.

Combined, the directors would be able to specify the mix of players they wish to play in the ZCS.

Most rating formulas stop making experience point adjustments to a person's rating after he/she accumulates 400 experience points. The reason for this is simple - mathematically, it takes about 400 experience points to get an accurate reflection of a person's ability (when comparing the rating to people who play in similar leagues, similar strengths of schedules, etc.). (NOTE: I understand that win/loss percentage is used for ladder pre-qualifiers, but the point is, 400 experience points is enough to determine somebody's ability.)

Since most ladder players play one-point matches (or so I've been told), and Case's Ladder does not use experience points, 400 matches would seem to be a fair reflection of somebody's ability - especially if people are actually playing multiple-point matches.

I believe 48 players is more than enough people to have in a "best of the zone" tournament. Not everybody, especially not 80 or 90 people can be the best of the zone.

In addition, instead of taking an arbitrary number of people from the ZCSQ, and giving the appearance that the ZCS administration is trying to ensure certain people make the tournament, publish the number of people who will qualify from the ZCSQ in advance.

The process would be simple. Pick a total number of players to play in the ZCS (for example, 48); determine how many pre-qualifiers there are (for example, 29); then do the match and publish, for example, that a total of 19 players from the ZCSQ will qualify for the ZCS.

Once you know you need 18 players, you can make the determination of how many will qualify from each bracket (or group of brackets). You may need to throw in a wild-card position or two (for example, the top three players from each of the five brackets will advance, plus the top four remaining players with the best records).

First of all, if somebody isn't skilled enough to advance to the next round, they don't deserve to play in it. Look at the situation you have now with a director who was eliminated in round 2 playing in the elimination rounds now. Those were the rules and I'm not knocking her for taking the spot, but is it really fair to the person who would have finished fourth in the bracket had she not replaced the person who quit? That poor person didn't get a second chance, why should anybody else have gotten a second chance? If there was a replacement player who finished better than her in the previous round, would it be fair that person replaced somebody who was 1-6 and she gets to replace somebody who was 4-3? Conceivably, somebody could not sign up in time, but get in round 1 of the ZCSQ as a replacement player, be knocked out in round 1 of the ZCSQ, but make it to round 2 as a replacement player and advance to the ZCS; get knocked out of round 1 of the ZCS, but get put in round 2 as a replacement player, and then win the whole tournament. While it's far-fetched, does anybody really want the rules set up so that somebody who didn't even sign-up on time and got eliminated twice could actually win?

Second of all, the only way to include replacement players that is not completely unfair is to have them take over the record of the loser who quit in the first place, but even that isn't entirely fair since those who played their matches early are, theoretically, playing a more skilled opponent than those who get to play the replacement player.

The best way to deal with quitters is to give everybody a win against them and not let them back into the tournament for at least two sessions. I would make that rule effective immediately since you can't make it retroactive and be fair.

Cheers .....

gammonish (Ralph Byrns0

The first email attempt should be sent within the first 7 days of the tournament (this coincides with the replacements), 2 follow up emails must be sent to be granted a forfeit. All emails should be 1. Sent thru the brackets as emails are auto cc'd to the Host of the tournament or 2. All responses/emails should be CC'd to the host. All scheduling should be done before the last 5 days of the round. If there are any problems with Scheduling please contact the host for assistance.

2. I would like to see the final 8 pairings to be decided by the following means: Seed 1 picks from seed 2-8. The next highest seed then picks his/her opponent. The next highest seed picks his/her next opponent. The remaining two seeds play each other. I believe this modification will tend to result in the final 4 being the 4 strongest players from the final 8 which is a good thing.

3. To the extent feasible I would like to see all the final 8 rounds begin on a Friday, Saturday or Sunday to maximize the number of matches that can be "gotten out of the way" thus making future matches easier to schedule in addition to maximizing the number of matches that kibitzers will have the opportunity to watch.               

4. I would like to see round 1 of ZCS to be decided according to hierarchy of qualifiers instead of by random dice roll. If the hierarchy actually reflects the order of the strongest to the weakest players then what will happen is the brackets are evenly balanced according to strength instead of by random which will inevitably result in 1 (or more) very strong bracket (s) or 1 (or more) relatively weak bracket (s). This may require that the hierarchy be better thought out.

5. For round two of the ZCS I believe that instead of random dice rolls that the top 2 finishers from round 1 should pick (by alternating picks) who goes in which bracket from the advancing player pool. This should result in relatively balanced brackets instead of sometimes one bracket being considerably stronger than the other.

6. In the current ZCS in round one player withdrew after several matches were played and her opponents who did not play her yet were given forfeit wins instead of a replacement player coming in and playing the remaining matches. I would like the rules clarified to state when this would and would not happen.

7.  For clarification purposes I would like to see the rule for the tiebreakers stating

" third, if necessary, by total number of points won in the tie-breaking matches."

to be changed to a rule specifying that only the loser's points are counted.

8.  I believe the GammonCup and GZTOC are stronger than the Progressive TOC and the ZBGTOC and should therefore be included as prequalifiers.

9. Before the final tiebreaker for advancing which currently is decided by number of GAMES won in the tie breaking matches I would like to see a series of matches of descending length to be used in the event time is a critical factor. Ideally long ZCS type-length matches would be used but if necessary 7 points or 5 or even 1 seem to me to be much preferable to counting points won in matches.

happyjuggler0

Given that there is a new special round, and that the final 8 players are coming from that round, I would like to suggest that the top 8 players that come from Round 2 of this zcs be granted the zcs pass for the next zcs, rather than the final 8 of this zcs.

It would feel somewhat unfair if what you would normally have to do to get a spot in the next zcs - ie make the top 8 players after round 2 would not apply here. I do realise that it could be construed as you get the pass for the next zcs if you make the final 8 of the last zcs, but given the circumstances surrounding this one - with the added special round to incorporate all the final 8s from the zcs' leading up to this one, that it would only be fair to give the zcs passes to whoever the top 8 from round 2 are.

Also - I would like to see more qualifying tournaments for this event. I realise that that is up to the tournaments individually to ask for it, but it would be nice to have more opportunities to qualify for the zcs.

Finally, it would be nice to have an extra row for each player indicating their current average snowie rating from their matches played, it would just be a nice thing to see, I guess.

Keene aka FAR_kilted__

Regards Dim ( EU_BG_DimDragon )

I suggest that there should be a penalty if a player does not complete 90% of all their matches. Perhaps they are barred from playing in the next two ZCS events for example.

A player should not lose out on moving on because someone else gets credit for a match they did not play.

Also, if someone drops out I think it is better to keep the bracket closed once started. If a replacement player is better/worse than the original player it is not fair to the matches already played and the ones to be completed by the replacement player.

Thanks for listening!

Good idea?

I'd be willing to help with GNUBG running matches with GNUBG. --BrainLacko

I think that replacements should come first from bracket tiebreakers and then from the at large tiebreaker rounds. After that, use overall wins in the main round and then ratings. Whatever is done, POST THE LIST before play begins. Thanks,

Bruce (BrainLacko)

Here are my suggestions concerning ZCS format:

1. ZCSQ should be more tougher and last more than 1 single round. 2. In first round of ZCS 6 players should qualify for next round. 3. If needed add 1 more round in ZCS. 4. ALL the players should send the match log, ALL the matches should be snowied. 5. A certain number of players should qualify to next round, accordind to their snowie rating. This will allow very unlucky - but good players - to still qualify. This will oblige players to try their best to play backgammon, and not do whatever :). 6. The round of 16 and the one of 8 should remain like they are. Best regards. Zouky

Comment by SweetD - Let us keep in mind we do 16 players for the final rounds not just 8