Sets, legs, and maps: how darts and Counter-Strike matches are decided

Luke Littler’s 6–5 victory over Luke Humphries in the 2026 World Masters final required all 11 available sets. His opening win against Mike De Decker finished 3–2. Both reached a deciding set, yet the winning totals were different. The distinction becomes clearer when the score is read alongside the match format: it identifies what is being counted and how many units a competitor must win.

At the World Masters, those units operate on two levels. The tournament’s results and format show that every set was best of three legs, while matches required different numbers of sets as the main draw progressed. Winning a leg advanced the set; winning a set advanced the match. The winning margin within a set did not change its value in the match score.

Counter-Strike 2 has a comparable distinction between winning part of a match and completing it. At the IEM Beijing 2026 tournament in November, teams will contest a series of maps. A map is one game within that series, and the match score counts maps won. Its place in the overall score resembles a darts set, although the two are different competitive units.

ESL’s 2026 tournament details specify best-of-three matches before a best-of-five final. In each case, the series brings map results together into one match result. The number following “best of” refers to maps, whereas the equivalent number in a Masters match description refers to sets.

In the Masters, a set ended when a player won two legs. Each new set had its own leg score, while completed sets remained on the match score. Leg victories were counted within their sets, rather than added to one continuous race across the whole match. The scoring structure grouped them into separate contests, each contributing one set towards victory.

The World Masters increased that target through its main draw. First-round matches were best of five sets, requiring three to win. The second round and quarter-finals moved to best of seven, requiring four. In the semi-finals, best of nine meant five sets to win; the best-of-11 final required six. Each individual set still ended when a player won two legs.

A longer match can still consist of short sets. The final required six set wins, twice the opening round’s target, but each set remained short. A player still had to secure it within the same limited number of legs. Extending the match did not turn each set into a longer contest; it increased the number of successful sets required.

Beijing changes the target at its final. Before that stage, a team must collect two maps; the finalists need three. The comparison concerns the number of completed units needed for victory. It does not establish that a map takes as long as a set, or that the two sports impose equivalent demands.

Nor does “best of” specify a fixed duration. It describes the permitted length in sets or maps, with the actual number played depending on the result. A longer winning distance and a longer running time are different measurements, so the format alone cannot supply a finishing time.

Qualification operates separately from those match rules. The 32-player World Masters main draw combined 24 automatic entrants with eight preliminary qualifiers. Beijing’s allocation combines 13 ranking invitations with three qualifying places. These routes determine who reaches the event; the published match format determines what those entrants must win once competing at a particular stage. Entry through a qualifier does not create a different winning target in the same round.

Beijing’s ranking places include 10 global invitations and one each from North America, South America, and Asia. Its qualifying places comprise two from the global qualifier and one from the Asian qualifier. The regional allocation means the invitation list is not simply the first 13 teams in one global ranking.

The event also separates admission from seeding, which determines placement in the draw. ESL’s published plan uses the first available monthly ranking publication in August 2026 for invitations and the October 2026 publication for seeding. Those snapshots serve different decisions: the earlier one governs ranking-based entry, while the later one is used to arrange the entrants. A team’s position in October therefore cannot be read as the position that originally determined its invitation.