English Chess Forum

Wouldn't it be ideal if a complete pairing schedule could be generated before the tournament starts, regardless of the number of players and rounds? In fact, this is possible by introducing the concept of a rating budget:

• Rating budget = number of scheduled games × the average rating of the player's group.

Each player is assigned a personal rating group consisting of players with similar ratings in ranking order, covering roughly one-third of the field. The primary objective of the algorithm is to fulfil each player's rating budget as closely as possible by keeping the average rating of their opponents close to the average rating of their rating group.

The system aims to give each player at least half of their games against opponents from their own rating group, although this cannot be guaranteed in every individual case. The result is a fully predefined schedule for the entire tournament that closely emulates a Swiss tournament. Unlike the Berger system, this method scales well and can be used even in tournaments with well over a hundred participants. For blitz and rapid chess events, this means shorter waiting times between rounds and significantly less administrative work for tournament organizers.

Rating-Budget Tournament System - free online pairing system

Er, why? How would an underdog win through to play the favourite in the final round in this sort of set up? If those on 4/4 in a 5-round event were in different rating pools, they would not end up meeting. The whole point of a Swiss is that you don't know who you will play as the tournament progresses. It is a feature, not a bug.

EDIT: I may have misunderstood, but to be fair it is not easy to understand what you are proposing here!

It sounds almost like once all the entries have been received then players are broken up into mini all play all sections of similar terms ratings with all the pairings immediately listed rather then a traditional Swiss where pairings are based on who won previous rounds.
Not sure what the "rating budget" part is all about but I'm sure that players would be relatively happy to be facing similarly graded opposition and no bottom feeders who aren't ever in contention for top places and are only there to try and nick some points

Christopher Kreuzer wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 29, 2026 9:31 pm

Er, why? How would an underdog win through to play the favourite in the final round in this sort of set up? If those on 4/4 in a 5-round event were in different rating pools, they would not end up meeting. The whole point of a Swiss is that you don't know who you will play as the tournament progresses. It is a feature, not a bug.

EDIT: I may have misunderstood, but to be fair it is not easy to understand what you are proposing here!

(Thank you for acknowledging my contribution.) In that respect, it works much like a Berger system: two players on 4/4 are not necessarily paired against each other in the next round. The Swiss principle, whereby players with the same score are paired from the very start of the tournament, is essentially an algorithmic convention designed to simplify pairings. It is based on the same underlying idea as ladder systems or King of the Hill.

Today, however, there is little reason to adhere rigidly to this principle. As I have already demonstrated with my Berger-Swiss system, modern computing allows us to create tournament formats that are far more dynamic and engaging. Many players find the traditional Swiss "climbing the ladder" mechanism stressful. At a given rating level, a player will typically defeat a lower-rated opponent only to face a stronger opponent in the next round and lose, repeating this cycle from round to round.

In the Rating-Budget Tournament (RBT) System, the tournament leaders will typically be paired against one another regardless, because they are the strongest players. Their rating budgets are always higher than those of lower-rated players. To minimise the remaining budget for each player, the algorithm is naturally drawn toward such pairings. Moreover, because it seeks to schedule roughly half of a player's games within their own rating group, encounters between the leaders become even more likely.

Competing against players of comparable strength is far more engaging than the familiar Swiss pattern of defeating an opponent who is too weak in one round, only to lose to an opponent who is too strong in the next. Many players find this constant up-and-down movement through the field less satisfying than sustained competition among their peers.

Nevertheless, there is no requirement that the two tournament leaders meet. In that respect, RBT is no different from the Dubov Swiss, where the leading players are likewise not guaranteed to face one another.

The obvious advantage of RBT, especially with classical time controls, is predictability: players know both their opponent and their colour in advance. This is a highly valued feature that RBT shares with the Berger system.

That said, it is evident that the system is particularly well suited to rapid and blitz tournaments. It offers a much smoother playing experience, since there is no need to wait for all games in a round to finish, results entered and the next round paired. The entire schedule is already determined in advance, which greatly reduces both delays and administrative workload. As there are typically more rounds in rapid and blitz tournaments, the leaders are almost certain to meet.

Joey Stewart wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 30, 2026 3:01 am

It sounds almost like once all the entries have been received then players are broken up into mini all play all sections of similar terms ratings with all the pairings immediately listed rather then a traditional Swiss where pairings are based on who won previous rounds.
Not sure what the "rating budget" part is all about but I'm sure that players would be relatively happy to be facing similarly graded opposition and no bottom feeders who aren't ever in contention for top places and are only there to try and nick some points

You can use my program to simulate a tournament with 50 pre-programmed sample players and verify that this is not how the system works. The players are not divided into separate mini-tournaments; rather, the entire field remains interconnected throughout the event. If a player has already spent a large portion of his rating budget on higher-rated opponents, he will typically be scheduled in advance to face a lower-rated player, since his remaining budget is insufficient to accommodate another expensive high-rated opponent.

That said, the system is unlikely to produce perfect pairings. But does such a thing as a perfect pairing system even exist? RBT is intentionally non-deterministic and can generate different pairings for exactly the same field. In a club setting, however, this is arguably an advantage rather than a drawback.

Note that it can also run locally, by downloading the page. The only downside is that one risks missing an update.

All my online pairing systems are described here: Chess Pairings: A Review of Monrad, Swiss, and Berger.

Mats Winther wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 30, 2026 4:19 am

In the Rating-Budget Tournament (RBT) System, the tournament leaders will typically be paired against one another regardless, because they are the strongest players.

I think too much is being expected of the rating system. It's not uncommon for ratings not to reflect current strength. A player with a low rating but comparable playing strength to other potential tournament winners would presumably get easier pairings.