for the people [Updated August 2001]

FTP  4 prizes Experienced Swiss Elim Continuous 
 
                                                                 9 Round 2 11 Round 3 14 Round 4 16  
 Round 5 9 Semi  Round 6 14 Final      

   Hunt

James Pei, TX

2001 Champion

2nd: Mark Giddings, NY

3rd: Daniel Hoffman, NC

4th: Rob Winslow, NY

5th: Tim Miller, GA

6th: John Firer, WI
Event History
1991    None      -
1992    None      -
1993    None      -
1994    None      -
1995    None      -
1996    None      -
1997    None      -
1998    None      -
1999    James Pei     22
2000    Trevor Bender     21
2001    James Pei     22

AREA Ratings:

GM: Steven Bucey

A Civil but Merciless Tournament

The WBC 2001 For the People tournament seemed to go well. I say 'seemed' because at the last minute (the day before, in fact), I was convinced to change the format rather substantially, and then I did not effectively communicate the new scoring method to people at the start of the first round. Hopefully everybody had fun regardless.

In the first three rounds all players could play in as many or few rounds as desired. The published one-year scenarios were played, 1862, 1863, and 1864 in order, though the victory conditions were ignored. Scoring was determined by comparison with all other players of the same side in that round, with the player having the highest difference between Union minus Confederate Strategic Will for that side getting the highest score (high score for Union with greatest positive difference, high score for Confederate with greatest negative difference). Special rules for rounds 1 through 3 were: 1) Only one campaign card could be played as an event by a given player in a single turn and 2) the events, and all special rules, of the Emancipation Proclamation and the Foreign Intervention were ignored.

The top four scoring players of the first three rounds advanced to the final two rounds, with the winners of round 5 playing each other for 1st and 2nd place and the losers playing each other for 3rd and 4th place. The final two rounds used the campaign game.

A total of 22 people played at least one round of the three preliminary rounds, for a total of 26 games played (counting the GM, who played only to prevent byes and did not otherwise compete). Actually, if I had thought about it I should have counted the two open gaming campaign games going on at the same time - I ended up answering questions for them and they both were nearby (one at one of the same tables we were using), so in theory there were 26 people playing.

It can safely be said that the 1 year scenarios, as published, are not suitable for tournament play. It's not that they are unbalanced (though they are), but that they are brittle given their length. There were very few 'close' games. Here are some statistics (Union Strategic Will, Confederate Strategic Will, Union minus CSA strategic will -- red numbers are averages):

1862
Union CSA Difference
116 34 82
104 67 37
89 64 25
91 86 5
77 89 -12
106 127 -21
34 74 -40
68 112 -44
43 97 -54
42 111 -69
77.00 86.10 -9.10

1863
Union CSA Difference
94 -8 102
74 1 73
79 9 70
49 36 13
54 46 8
61 58 3
64 63 1
37 89 -52
27 86 -59
59.89 42.22 17.67

1864
Union CSA Difference
67 -54 121
67 -45 112
58 -7 65
28 -18 46
55 30 25
-5 -2 -3
7 66 -59
39.57 -4.29 43.86

The final rounds used the campaign game. Given the skill levels of the opponents and the nature of the game, errors or slight card draw advantages proved decisive as very skilled players are able to capitalize on such situations and turn them into decisive advantages. None of these games lasted more than a few turns.

Lastly, I passed out a questionnaire asking people a few brief questions regarding what they look for in a tournament format.
Nine people returned the questionnaire.

James Pei (left) and Mark Giddings square off in the final game.

************************************************************************

World Boardgaming Championships For the People tournament format survey

All questions pertain to playing For the People at future WBC events. Assumptions are: a) A one-year scenario can be completed in less than two hours. b) A campaign game can be completed in less than eight hours. c) Any tournament format would allow any participant to compete in at least two rounds, ie, so variation of a Swiss format with finalist advancing to final rounds.

Survey Questions

1) Do you prefer playing scenarios or campaign games?
Choices were: 1 year scenarios, 2 year scenarios, 3 year scenarios, Campaigns
1 person said "1 year", while 8 people said "campaign".

2) Indicate the number of days you are willing to devote to playing For the People
Choices were: One, Two, Three, Four, Five
3 said "1 day", 4 said "2 days", 2 said "3 days".

There is some talk of extending the WBC to 9 days (Saturday to Sunday). One of the purposes of the extra 'early' days would be to allow expanded tournaments in the longer playing games such as For the People.

3) Would you attend the WBC specifically to play in a campaign game format tournament of For The People that started on Saturday, with all rounds completed by Tuesday?
Choices were: Yes, No
7 said "Yes" and 2 said "no".

4) Would you attend the WBC specifically to play in a campaign game format tournament of For The People that started on Saturday and ran through Tuesday, with finalists participating in final rounds played later in the week.
Choices were: Yes, No
7 said "Yes" and 2 said "no".

************************************************************************
The above responses would seem to indicate that there is a significant interest in attending an extended WBC with the expressed purpose of playing For the People using long scenarios or campaign game rounds.

 GM      Steve Bucey  [2nd Year]   1577 Autumn Dr, Lancaster, OH 43130
    cratex@earthlink.net    NA

2001 Preview Page
View the Icon Key