Current tournament score system IS interesting...but...why not keeping a "normal" score system as well, at least as an "alternative" option, for the ones who want to participate in a tournament with "standard" scoring system?

That's largely how the Swiss system works. It's just Swiss is a more robust and better understood system.

I agree with NoTimeWasters; keeping a 1 min/game with 8 or 10 players max in a round-robin (or even double round-robin) would be quite acceptable option. For a, say 8-players round-robin (Berger) it means max 112 min per tournament, which sounds ok 4 me.

And, btw, what's there to "not to be well understood" in a round-robin? Everyone plays everyone, and that's all aht has to be understood.

CvileChess is right... I can't understand why Swiss is 'more robust' and 'better known' when round robins are used in virtually every team sport in the world, from 8ball pool to rugby. It also seems fairer, especially on the sort of scale we're talking about at lichess, where there aren't pools of 50 people and so on.

I really can't see why Round Robin would be preferred over the Swiss system. The Swiss system deals with the natural constraint that players don't have all day. Tournaments don't usually attract as many as 50, but 20-30 is not uncommon.

As has just been explained, Round Robin is fairer in that all the players play against one another. Also, as Clarkey showed, 16 people in 1+0 half RR would take about half an hour to complete.

It might also attract a few more people - while at the moment the pools appear to be putting people off.

The pool system we have would be far better, obviously, if there were more players. The round robin would work better with smaller numbers of players.

I don't see where it was explained why Round Robin is "fairer". And yes, not that many players at a very fast time control might be just about manageable. At other time controls, it would almost certainly not be manageable.

And I don't see why using this tournament format would attract more people to tournaments over Swiss. I really don't see any good arguments for it in this thread so far.

I think the message has been very clear over the last couple of weeks: the higher ranked players like the pools very much and approve of the current system. The lower ranked players have been put off playing and clearly aren't so enamoured of the current system.

Perhaps claymore and co. don't like the idea of round robin because of the potential for shock results, and the fact that a 2000+ player might be considered a 'scalp'? :D

No, I actually just didn't see what you were getting at. I think I see the appeal now... in round robin, lower-rated players will get the chance to play high-rated players. In Swiss, with a more limited number of rounds, you have to really earn the right. As it happens, I personally don't see the appeal of playing lots of players at a vastly lower level. Obviously the pool players don't mind it.

Swiss-style tournaments try to pair players with people they haven't played before anyway. So you could just make the tournament longer, if that's what you want.

Upvoting the Swiss system idea