The tie-break system for Ponte del Diavolo tournaments has a major flaw. ... P.d.D. is a scored game and the tie-break system for tournaments uses this to calculate the "score difference", which is the sum total of the final score difference for each game played. (Example: round 1 you win 15 to 5; your score-difference is now 10. Next round you lose, 6 to 11, your score-difference goes down and is now 10-5 = 5.).
This is a very good system, in theory. It can take into account not just wins and losses, but the magnitude of each win and loss.
Unfortunately, the flaw is resignations. It's basic P.d.D. strategy to leave guaranteed islands and bridges for later in the game while continuing to fight for additional points elsewhere. So, it's possible and fairly common for a game that is a big win, points-wise, to be resigned by the loser while the current score is still very close. (And, though I don't have an example, it's possible for a player in a lost position to resign while the current score is tied or even showing him ahead.) As in most games, it is entirely a matter of personal preference as to whether a player in a lost position desires to play it to the end or to resign once the result is clear.
In a tournament, where score difference is used for the tournament tie-breaker, this is extremely problematic. It gives players the power to help an opponent by playing out a lost game to the end, or to hurt an opponent by resigning a game while the current score is still close. I don't suspect anyone of that sort of abuse of the system. But, even when no players are attempting to "game" the tie-break system, this system ends up being much too arbitrary. If you get one or two opponents who resign early and your tournament rival does not, you could lose a tie-break. (... And, worse than arbitrary, it could even work to the opposite of its intended purpose, as a very big win (with many unrealized, but guaranteed points available to the winning player) may more often cause an early resignation -- and smaller score difference -- than a closer game, that is more likely to be played to the end.)
Like I said at the outset, I admire the intent of this tie-break system. But, it is deeply flawed and I think it must be replaced with another, more standard system as soon as possible.
This is a very good system, in theory. It can take into account not just wins and losses, but the magnitude of each win and loss.
Unfortunately, the flaw is resignations. It's basic P.d.D. strategy to leave guaranteed islands and bridges for later in the game while continuing to fight for additional points elsewhere. So, it's possible and fairly common for a game that is a big win, points-wise, to be resigned by the loser while the current score is still very close. (And, though I don't have an example, it's possible for a player in a lost position to resign while the current score is tied or even showing him ahead.) As in most games, it is entirely a matter of personal preference as to whether a player in a lost position desires to play it to the end or to resign once the result is clear.
In a tournament, where score difference is used for the tournament tie-breaker, this is extremely problematic. It gives players the power to help an opponent by playing out a lost game to the end, or to hurt an opponent by resigning a game while the current score is still close. I don't suspect anyone of that sort of abuse of the system. But, even when no players are attempting to "game" the tie-break system, this system ends up being much too arbitrary. If you get one or two opponents who resign early and your tournament rival does not, you could lose a tie-break. (... And, worse than arbitrary, it could even work to the opposite of its intended purpose, as a very big win (with many unrealized, but guaranteed points available to the winning player) may more often cause an early resignation -- and smaller score difference -- than a closer game, that is more likely to be played to the end.)
Like I said at the outset, I admire the intent of this tie-break system. But, it is deeply flawed and I think it must be replaced with another, more standard system as soon as possible.
