Well, I wanted to type it in the comments section, but the response proved too wordy…
The reason why I hinted that the prize system for the PRR was not fair was because of some reasons perhaps not explained fully enough. Here are my reasons for saying so:
1. When prizes are given based on the final grouping, it’s like giving prizes based on the last 3 rounds. If this was a longer tourney, the effect would have been much more obvious – imagine playing a 45 game tourney, staying low all the way, then making it up to group 1 in the last 2-3 round robins and winning the top prize.
2. At the same time, this allows manipulation, in the sense that better players are able to stay low (i.e. by purposely losing some games) and win prizes, rather than stay high and potentially miss out on the prize money, determined by the last 3 games.
3. The alternative, IMHO, would be giving prizes out based on initial grouping over a longer tourney (as suggested in my post), by wins and spread. This would include all 9 games played instead of the last 3 games. Since you’re facing up against people around your rating category, deliberately playing down won’t really help you against people who stay up winning.
4. If the prizes were given out this way during the tourney, I doubt I’d have gotten a prize as Kian Boon and Hubert (from my initial grouping) performed better than I did, based on wins and spread.
5. Another issue that was of concern was the groupings were not even, allowing greater manipulation. Take the case of the 4-player group wedged in the middle during the PRR. 2 of them, after playing the 3 rounds, will get “promoted”, the other 2 will get “demoted”. In terms of wins and games, if someone wants to get demoted on the borderline, it will not be easy, UNLESS he wins only 1 game (which will almost guarantee demotion). There is only one permutation where a player who wins 2 games gets demoted (that is if the 4 players win 2, 2, 2 and 0 respectively). There is also only one permutation where a player who wins 1 game gets promoted (that’s 3, 1, 1 and 1).
6. Now taking that into consideration, let’s look at the last 6-player group. In that group, winning 2 still might mean you don’t get promoted. In that case, “performance prizes” can be easily manipulated by players who win 2 games with not enough spread to promote, giving them another 3 games at the lowest group (and after all, the prizes are given based on the last 3 games). The suggestion that I got from external parties regarding this situation was to make the 6-player group the middle group instead of the last group (and making the middle two stay in the group).
Anyway, whoever you are, I’d appreciate if you asked me such questions in private or let me get back to you privately (hence leave your name). I didn’t really want to include this as part of my tourney report, and I think it would have been more appropriate if I’d sent my response to a single person (or a group of interested people). Well, I respect your privacy, but don’t expect me to provide responses to anonymous requests next time!
Something more refreshing – here’s quite an exciting game which I played vs Tony yesterday (or two days back, at the time of posting). This game was actually quite good for me as I didn’t really make any mistakes except one (big one, endgame doesn’t count). But that isn’t really impressive because most of my moves were either obvious or bingos (a total of 7 in this game!). The pre-endgame situation for I suppose both Tony and myself is also rather tricky and might need more analysis.
Feel free to examine and criticise!