added got tonkaed and also updated first post with rank insignias.
“In the beginning God said, the four-dimensional divergence of an antisymmetric, second rank tensor equals zero, and there was light, and it was good. And on the seventh day he rested.”- Michio Kaku
“In the beginning God said, the four-dimensional divergence of an antisymmetric, second rank tensor equals zero, and there was light, and it was good. And on the seventh day he rested.”- Michio Kaku
amazzony wrote:Welcome to organising, DIM (if you have done it before then sorry ).
I'm in to the group of lowest ranks if there's still room
this is my third but the first 2 were a long time ago last summer i think.
btw added.
“In the beginning God said, the four-dimensional divergence of an antisymmetric, second rank tensor equals zero, and there was light, and it was good. And on the seventh day he rested.”- Michio Kaku
“In the beginning God said, the four-dimensional divergence of an antisymmetric, second rank tensor equals zero, and there was light, and it was good. And on the seventh day he rested.”- Michio Kaku
GoVegan wrote:Dim, you caught me when i had dipped below 2000, i dont really care but if its easier for you feel free to bump me
don't worry mate. i'll be constantly checking ranks until the tournament starts and if somebody gains/loses points i'll put him in a higher/lower class, assuming there's room in that class.
that's why i made all the names clickable in the first post so i can easily check you guys.
“In the beginning God said, the four-dimensional divergence of an antisymmetric, second rank tensor equals zero, and there was light, and it was good. And on the seventh day he rested.”- Michio Kaku
“In the beginning God said, the four-dimensional divergence of an antisymmetric, second rank tensor equals zero, and there was light, and it was good. And on the seventh day he rested.”- Michio Kaku
no, not techincally, unless lack has coded a lower limmit, and if so i haven't heard of it. a score of zero could be achieved if a 20-point player beat another 20-point player. Then, the looser would loose 20 points and be at zero. technically, even a negative score is possible. say a guy with one point plays another guy with one point. Then the winner gets 20 points because points added = 20 times the loosers score divided by the winners score. And the looser looses 20 points and goes to -19. (unless lack has coded a lower limit to the scoring system that I'm unaware of) Once at a negative score, assuming it's possible, then this person would actually LOOSE points when they win and GAIN points when the loose because, when the win, with the current formula, they will gain a NEGATIVE amount of points... is there something wrong with my math here?