You may want to check the section titled
Format at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_tournament for the format used Over-The-Board (OTB) chess tournaments. Correspondence chess (CC) tournaments are primarily round-robins as playing 15 or more correspondence games simultaneously is not as time consuming as it may first appear.
I will post additional comments this weekend.
One format you (pl) may wish to consider would be borrowed from duplicate bridge.
Determine N participants; pick N/2 scenarios; randomly select/determine side A and side B for each scenario (i.e. so that the Germans might be side 1 one time, but side 2 another); have half of the participants denoted as "side A" and half the participants as "side B" - each participant is always either side A or side B; then each set of sides rotates through the selection of scenarios. Players are competing against others on their own "side."
Points could be given for victory levels or what-have-you. Of course, there would be two "winners" one from each side, again, just like in duplicate bridge for N-S and E-W partnerships.
Just $0.02.
Is this like the Snowdrops versus Oldhands tournament format described here
http://en.chessbase.com/home/TabId/211/PostId/4008705 ?
This format is sometimes seen in chess with one side usually being all women or all young players, and the other side typically all veterans.
(03-23-2013, 09:11 AM)Shad Wrote: [ -> ]...will need to read up on this because I am not at all familiar with it!
Suppose you have eight players and four scenarios. Four players are assigned to side "A" and four players to side "B". Each of the four scenarios can have the two opposing forces assigned as side A or side B (to avoid any preference for having the Germans listed first in the OOB, for example).
Denote individuals as A1, A2 etc (first player using side A, second player using side A etc.). Denote scenarios as roman numerals.
A1 vs B1 sc i
A1 vs B2 sc ii
A1 vs B3 sc iii
A1 vs B4 sc iv
A2 vs B2 sc i
A2 vs B3 sc ii
A2 vs B4 sc iii
A2 vs B1 sc iv
etc.
Players A.1-4 will have each played all four scenarios as side A and can compare their results against one another. Players B.1-4 will have played all four scenarios as side B and can compare their results against one another.
If you wish to play "rounds" with no single scenario being played at the same time, there are schema based on whether one has even or odd numbers (odd being easier), see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duplicate_bridge_movements .
For what it's worth here are my thought's.
Has to be played on Skype, not sure about VASEL having never used it.
One session games, which means 1 or 2 maps, less than 15 Game turns and less than 20 counters per side.
All rules deemed to be "controversial" to be sorted out before the tournament starts.
No actual prizes but medals galore.
Round robin style would be ideal depending on numbers.
Leader selection by a third party.
I have real doubts though if a "Skype PG Tournament" is really viable given time differences, work commitments and issues over rules. However I applaud Andrew's efforts.
Saipan has several such scenarios, Wayne.
I would prefer the tournament be restricted to one box game to ensure players who want to give it a try do not have to buy more than one product. Saipan was well received, so why not?
Round robin style tournaments can be problematic if players drop out and it also precludes new players to join after the tournament is underway. A six rounds Swiss style tournament might work better, with a round every two months. New players joining in would get 1 point (Victory = 2 points, Draw = 1 point) per missed round. Players would get to choose their side in half the games.
I am OK with Skype or with VASSAL, or a combination of both.