English Chess Forum

You notice that many counties no longer run "Open" teams. You can speculate as to why this is but 140 v 180 several seasons running isn't much fun for either player.

This is a quote from Roger de Coverley on the ECF meeting thread but I found it very interesting as a lot of weekend congresses are having perhaps just 3 sections with 40 point splits between them. If you are just above a boundary you could be faced with the prospect of playing several games with people 30 to 40 points above yourself. I don't think this is going to encourage many entires from people in that position.

Hi Michelle - How wide apart do you think that grading limits between sections should be?

At a standard weekend congress, you tend to get an entry of 100 players around here. It splits into 4 sections, so you end up with roughly 25 players in each section. If you continue subdivide too much, you'll have very small sections. You'd also have a lot more prize money to pay out as the organiser! If you have more sections, but a grading prize, you could probably get away with a grading prize which is much less than if it were a section in its own right.

Oops I meant to put this on the general board. Is there any way I can move it? There doesn't seem to be anything on the edit section.

Well 30 would be better then with luck you aren't likely to face anyone more than 25 or so higher. Any more than that can be very demoralising. I realise that small congresses might struggle to run another section to accommodate this.

michele clack wrote:Oops I meant to put this on the general board. Is there any way I can move it? There doesn't seem to be anything on the edit section.

I can

Thanks Carl.

A lot of smaller congresses are running just 3 sections giving these big spreads, thats my point. I've heard people say they've changed their mind about going to particular congresses when they have found that they would be facing ths type of spread.

If a Congress has three sections, it's generally because that's the most they can justify given the potential entry numbers. I bet that in most cases, the only way they could run four sections is to rise the entry fee accordingly, probably by about 20-25%. So instead of £20 to enter a Congress, it'd be about £25. Would that put more people off than the gap between the grading boundaries?

Alex Holowczak wrote:If a Congress has three sections, it's generally because that's the most they can justify given the potential entry numbers. I bet that in most cases, the only way they could run four sections is to rise the entry fee accordingly, probably by about 20-25%. So instead of £20 to enter a Congress, it'd be about £25. Would that put more people off than the gap between the grading boundaries?

Or of course, one could spread the prize money out more thinly. For example last weekends Uxbridge event paid out £1850 in prize money in 3 sections. We could have paid out £1850 across 4 sections instead with a pro rata reduction in individual prizes in each section.

I also think that having 4 sections is not the way forward, as Sean points there prize fund per section would be reduced, but you also end up playing the same players as there seems to be a small "core" of players playing in every event

michele clack wrote:If you are just above a boundary you could be faced with the prospect of playing several games with people 30 to 40 points above yourself.

In the Open perhaps. Keith or Mark will be paired against 180 opposition for a couple of rounds at least. In the lower sections less so because of seeded pairings - so if the sections are under 160 and under 120, the typical first round is 159 v 138 and 139 v 109. After that the lower rated players will only get + 30/40 opposition if they outperform.

Players at the boundary of the Open and the Major sometimes elect for the Open to get "higher quality" games.

Personally I think I would much rather be at the bottom of a section gradewise than the top. I'm just reporting what I've heard quite a few people say recently. I wonder if it is restricting entries to some tournaments. It would be interesting if a few tournament organisers were able to do an analysis of the grades of players in each section. If a significant number of people were thinking this way and not entering then you would expect a higher proportion of players in the lower sections to be graded above the halfway point than below. I take Rogers point that some players might play up for the experience so you would have to exclude players graded below the cut off point with the next lower division to get a meaningful answer.

also think that having 4 sections is not the way forward, as Sean points there prize fund per section would be reduced, but you also end up playing the same players as there seems to be a small "core" of players playing in every event

Well it depends whether changing to 4 sections would increase the entry numbers. If it did then you might have slightly smaller numbers in each section but not perhaps as bad as you fear.

michele clack wrote:A lot of smaller congresses are running just 3 sections giving these big spreads, thats my point. I've heard people say they've changed their mind about going to particular congresses when they have found that they would be facing ths type of spread.

In my experience, Michele has a good point. More sections with smaller spreads = larger entries, and I have had experience of the improvement. However as has been pointed out by others, this means that prize money has to increase to cover more sections. [yes, You might end up playing the same core of players - but in practice that would happen anyway. You can always play up a section! That option becomes more attractive and less risky the more sections you have.]

If you are lucky enough to have a large venue, this is more than worth it. You can have modest prize funds and balance this with increased entries.

If you have a venue that is limited to X number of players, you have to cut your cloth to suit! Sometimes the number of sections is also limited by the availability of controllers and arbiters to cover the weekend.

When I look at the ECF Calendar I am impressed by the range of tournaments available; I would hate to standardise all events so that they had the same grading sections. It means that sometimes you are the favourite in a section - and sometimes the bunny! There is also the Berks & Bucks model - sections are only determined on the weekend, based on the entries divided into quartiles!

michele clack wrote:Personally I think I would much rather be at the bottom of a section gradewise than the top. I'm just reporting what I've heard quite a few people say recently. I wonder if it is restricting entries to some tournaments. It would be interesting if a few tournament organisers were able to do an analysis of the grades of players in each section. If a significant number of people were thinking this way and not entering then you would expect a higher proportion of players in the lower sections to be graded above the halfway point than below. I take Rogers point that some players might play up for the experience so you would have to exclude players graded below the cut off point with the next lower division to get a meaningful answer.

I've just analysed the e2e4 Uxbridge event held in Feb 2009 which had 4 sections which comprised of an Open, U155, U125 and U95. Of course, these were old grades.

U155

Entrants : 26
Graded Entrants : 22
Mean : 134
Median : 134
Mid-Point : 140

U125

Entrants : 26
Graded Entrants : 25
Mean : 106
Median : 108
Mid-Point : 110

U95

Entrants : 15
Graded Entrants : 12
Mean : 64
Median : 68
Mid-Point : 80 (Based on a notional 30 point spread).

I have no idea if this is representative, but there is no evidence here to support the hypothesis “a higher proportion of players in the lower sections to be graded above the halfway point than below”.

Roger de Coverly wrote: In the lower sections less so because of seeded pairings - so if the sections are under 160 and under 120, the typical first round is 159 v 138 and 139 v 109. After that the lower rated players will only get + 30/40 opposition if they outperform.

That's correct. And of course with a 30 point spread the first round pairings (which should always have the widest spread overall) is likely to feature players graded just 15 points apart.

I recall someone trying several events where there were two sections, the grading split of which was decided after he got the entries. This seemed a great idea. You maybe had 32 in the Open and 30 in the Major, but he found that some players who were graded 150-159 (who would expect to be at the top of a normal Major), didn't enter, presumably in case they accidentally found themsleves at the bottom of the Open. Maybe some who wanted to play good players didn't enter as their grades were too low, as obviously this system prevents lower-graded players playing "up" a section.

I think Adam is right - different types of tournament suit different people.