Tiebreaker is total points from the 5 games.

You get to see your name with "won!" added if you win a tourney, that isn't enough? You can keep stats by yourself to see how you are doing overall. And I think we can assume that if some kind of rating system is applied later, the games that have been played before that will also count towards it. I agree though, some kinds of stats/ratings would be nice at some point, but probably not a huge priority atm, fixing bugs a lot more important.

Speaking of bugs, there seems to be something weird in The Magnificient Seven (http://triplechain.net/tournaments/84).


Iirc, those first three games were played earlier, the last two completed today. Donk also still has the ineligibility bug in another tourney (triplechain.net/tournaments/32).

In something something 8 (http://triplechain.net/tournaments/133), I have to try to uphold the honour of higher seeded players in round 1 of 8-player tournaments. So far all 8-player tournaments have been won by those seeded higher in the first round matches (1-4), and only one player has previously even made the final from a lower seed in first round matches (5-8).

Get'em Kama!

This, basically.

Ah, this is an artifact resulting from the hack I used to lift the time limit. They will be visible in about 3 weeks. :-)

Should be good to go now.

OK.

Probably shouldn't have played all my tournament games when ridiculously tired last night then!

After all those years of triplechain, sometimes new plays occur to me in standard situations that just never ever occurred to me before.

If you want to fully snake the minor inner chain in Dynasty setup, the last place where you want to put a number is where most people would put it first.

That way you can snake it without needing 5 of the number in rack 5-8, but can do it with 4 and another one in rack 9.



Probably totally standard for TH10 and Paul and a bunch of others, but for me today it was the first time I ever played it like this

For the record, my play here on Gaby's board would be 5 to bottom of centre zone, 5 to the left square of the right zone and not play the 4 in just yet (probably 4 left sq of top zone, 2 in left zone and 3 to the left of bottom zone).

This leaves your board flexible and you end up with the best possible setup a very high percentage of the time. Importantly, you can still end up with a Dynasty or an advanced setup.

It's not as good with TH's board because if you do exactly the same thing you end up with 4s as your dominant chain, not 5s, which is not ideal. If you do the other flexible play on TH10's board (TH10's play but just not playing in the 4 in Round 2) to get 5s as the dominant chain, you then can't play both a 5 and a 6 in Round 3, which is pretty horrible.

I feel like I'm not articulating myself well.

Just a precision, with "no red-orange-purple" i don't want to create a thrend of no top-dogs in our tourneys, us little dogs. I just want to see if some people don't play in 4-8men tourneys because yeah lets be honnest, we have no to little chance to win or if there's just no interest at all, beside 16-man. For one, i don't care to lose 90% of the time but maybe it's not the case for everyone. But yeah, a bad idea anyway, sorry for that.

HAHAHHAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Don't worry about it

I have no problem with it, i have previously tried to avoid TH10, but he did not comply (link)

I do that all the time, can't help myself! Idk how I've won as many games that I have, especially the last few days. It has seemed like I just keep failing game after game, yet I keep winning a decent amount. Does not compute. Well except today, when everything I do is wrong, I don't think I've played a single game even remotely well yet. I've also done some testing with new plays, which has caused some problems with unusual situations and confusion, I just don't seem to be sure about any plays anymore.

Also, before I thought about the early games being considered for rating/stats, I used to pretty much not try properly in games when the match result had been decided, but it is probably better to try even in the games that don't matter, if for nothing else than stats. Idk if that maybe-some-day-applied-rating only considers matches, or games as well. Some others have thrown meaningless games as well, going for goose egg instead of a high score!

I've got some news for you, probably best to sit down before reading this.


I realised this was what you were trying to accomplish once I read the name, and then unregistered. I think it is fine to have some tourneys like this.

I thought you were trying to get me to play it using reverse psychology. I think the tournament name and me winning it is a pretty funny combination.

I should stop playing 4-player tourneys, have done horribly in them compared to everything else.

OMG RACK 8

Why do you choose to set up 6s as the minor chain in rack 2?

Because 16% of the time you get no 6s in Rounds 3-4 and you're completely screwed. You also have to option to turn them into a major chain with another 6 and it only makes a difference anyway when there are EXACTLY four 6s in Rounds 5-8, which happens 20%.

That isn't the only situation where it makes a difference. What do you do with a third rack with 5 AND 6? That is something you don't want to see, especially if there isn't the other (one you don't choose to play in rack 3) in rack 4. Not that the setup is awful even then.

Won this one, now I have another similar spot in Ask the magic 8-ball (http://www.triplechain.net/tournaments/147). Thanks for the help other higher seeds!

If I win that as well, it would be 4th 8-man tourney win in a row, and there is one before them still in progress, could even make it five in a row!

Today's results:
1-4
3-2
2-3
1-4
3-2

One match still open. Not good at all, and I don't know how I even have that many games won.

This is a good idea. It's fun to play against different people too; if you're a low-ranked player then every match in a tournament is gonna be against the highest-ranked players because of how the seedings work.

What Paul said.

Compare with this, which is less obvious, but still the same story, you have after rack 1:



And now you get a rack 2 with 6-5 and 3 irrelevant numbers.
Also in this case I make 6s the minor chain, because too often have I placed the 5 in the bottom and 6 in the middle to end up getting no 5s and having a suckerchain of 3-4 6s trapped in the middle

You mean if you play it Gaby's way then get a 5 and 6 in Round 3? You obviously play the 5 in. Obviously.

This is one of the many reasons why that Round 1 play is suboptimal.

Yea, but then 6s aren't a major chain, which was the point. Not saying the play is wrong, just that there are differences in more situations.

I think it is optimal. You can still easily create a 6-chain that 5-zones with 3 6s and you are 3 numbers ahead of 5s, so unlikely will the 5-chain ever beat the 4-chain

But interesting statement. I wish some university would put some brute force calculating power into this game. It would be awesome to have some program optimize all puzzle scores and break a decent amount of them back open.

Oh well, GGs.

GGs.

I almost didn't play it today, since I had been playing so poorly. But then just thought whatever, first game I played horribly and thought here we go. But then found some WIM and rest of games were better.

13 straight matches won in 8-player tourneys (thinking tourneys completed in chronological order, since that is easiest), and one tourney open in both ends.

TH10 you are a whiner

Just look at the collection of tournament titles that you created

FYP

Don't take the titles too seriously.

2K!

Just in, after a really good battle in semi-final between Alex(4) and Kokirixx(8), we finally have our first ever 16-players final between TH10(3) and Kokirixx in "Looking for trouble" . Good luck to both!