Is this fair?

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Is this fair?

Post by Alex Holowczak » Mon Apr 22, 2013 6:44 pm

Ray Sayers wrote:It seems the biggest problem was it wasn't clearly enough stated what the rule was. Maybe it will be next time.
To quote the entry form:

Prizes
The following prizes will be awarded: 1st place – £400, 2nd place – £200, 3rd place – £100. There will be grading prizes of £50 each for players graded under 160 and 120. There will be a £50 prize for the leading junior player. These prizes may be increased in value, or additional grading prizes may be awarded, if there are sufficient entries. Prize money will be transferred after the event, and not on the day. The title of British Blitz Champion will be awarded. In the event of a tie, the Champion will be the player with the highest TPR. See the technical regulations for more information.

This was a copy and paste from the printed entry form. Out of necessity: There were space constraints on the printed entry form, for obvious reasons. If players entered online, then they could simply click the link and read them. I think it was clear enough.

I've just checked the e2e4 website, and their regulations on rating prizes (as I probably could have more accurately called them) are in the terms and conditions, and not the entry form.

Sean Hewitt
Posts: 2193
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:18 pm
Contact:

Re: Is this fair?

Post by Sean Hewitt » Mon Apr 22, 2013 6:47 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:Surely the players at the bottom of a grading band have a much better chance, as they will always outperform those above them in rating for the same results?
No, because their chance of getting the required score is that much lower. The chance of any two players scoring W-We=+1.00 is the same.
Roger de Coverly wrote:It hasn't arisen in tournaments like Hastings, the London Classic or the British, but I would agree with the original poster that there's something not quite right about a player scoring 5 winning a grading prize ahead of one scoring 6.5.
I haven't checked, but I'm pretty sure it has.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Is this fair?

Post by Alex Holowczak » Mon Apr 22, 2013 6:49 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:It hasn't arisen in tournaments like Hastings, the London Classic or the British, but I would agree with the original poster that there's something not quite right about a player scoring 5 winning a grading prize ahead of one scoring 6.5.
(Now that Roger has amended his post...)

That didn't happen in the Blitz, either. The winner of the prize for which James was eligible scored 6, not 5.

Sean Hewitt
Posts: 2193
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:18 pm
Contact:

Re: Is this fair?

Post by Sean Hewitt » Mon Apr 22, 2013 6:50 pm

James Friar wrote:What I said was that after the U160 winner had amassed 3.5 points then james couldn't have beaten him with his 6.5. He did finish with 6 points but the prize had been won long be that.
I don't think you've understood the basis on which the prize was awarded because this statement is just plain wrong. Had the U160 winner amassed 3.5 points but then proceeded to lose every remaining game to a player rated 200 points below him, his W-We would have been decimated (-0.75 per game) and he would have been nowhere near the rating prize.
James Friar wrote:I will carefully consider entering any tournament that uses this system in future...and will spread the word.
Hopefully the above example is helpful in understanding the calculations before you spread the word. Once you do, I'm sure people will see that it's a much fairer way of allocating grading prizes!

Sean Hewitt
Posts: 2193
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:18 pm
Contact:

Re: Is this fair?

Post by Sean Hewitt » Mon Apr 22, 2013 7:01 pm

Ray Sayers wrote:It seems the biggest problem was it wasn't clearly enough stated what the rule was.
Perhaps - although a mistaken assumption is also a big contributory factor. After all, it didn't say on the form that it would be awarded to the player with the most points in the grading band either.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Is this fair?

Post by Roger de Coverly » Mon Apr 22, 2013 7:04 pm

Sean Hewitt wrote:No, because their chance of getting the required score is that much lower.
Only if you continue to pay attention to the prior rating. All tournaments use rating to seed players, having done that some then award rating prizes based on the resulting quartiles. Within the quartiles, two players with equal performance will have the prize awarded to the player with the lower initial rating. There could be as little as 10 Elo points between them, so the practical effect is limited
Sean Hewitt wrote:Had the U160 winner amassed 3.5 points but then proceeded to lose every remaining game to a player rated 200 points below him, his W-We would have been decimated (-0.75 per game) and he would have been nowhere near the rating prize.
I think the comment might refer to the winner of the lower rating band. He got to three points with something like 0.90 per win. Because of always being paired to higher rated opposition, he was only ever losing 0.10 per loss. He did win one or two more which kept him away from low rated players.

James Friar

Re: Is this fair?

Post by James Friar » Mon Apr 22, 2013 7:06 pm

Sean Hewitt wrote:
Ray Sayers wrote:It seems the biggest problem was it wasn't clearly enough stated what the rule was.
Perhaps - although a mistaken assumption is also a big contributory factor. After all, it didn't say on the form that it would be awarded to the player with the most points in the grading band either.
So why wasn't the whole thing won by the U160 winner? After all he performed the best. As you said it didn't explicitly say it would be awarded to the one with the most points. It didn't say that for the winner either.

Sean Hewitt
Posts: 2193
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:18 pm
Contact:

Re: Is this fair?

Post by Sean Hewitt » Mon Apr 22, 2013 7:13 pm

James Friar wrote:So why wasn't the whole thing won by the U160 winner? After all he performed the best. As you said it didn't explicitly say it would be awarded to the one with the most points. It didn't say that for the winner either.
You're really reduced to running with that argument?

Brian Valentine
Posts: 574
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 1:30 pm

Re: Is this fair?

Post by Brian Valentine » Mon Apr 22, 2013 7:17 pm

Sean Hewitt wrote: The chance of any two players scoring W-We=+1.00 is the same.
.......if all competitors had unbiased estimates of their blitz rating.

I doubt the system has settled down yet.

James Friar

Re: Is this fair?

Post by James Friar » Mon Apr 22, 2013 7:24 pm

Sean Hewitt wrote:
James Friar wrote:So why wasn't the whole thing won by the U160 winner? After all he performed the best. As you said it didn't explicitly say it would be awarded to the one with the most points. It didn't say that for the winner either.
You're really reduced to running with that argument?
It is a compelling argument though....

......why is it one rule for the grading and another for the winner?

I just noticed that one player hadn't got a grade which would put the performance rating down.....sigh

Tanya Jones
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 10:32 am

Re: Is this fair?

Post by Tanya Jones » Mon Apr 22, 2013 7:28 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Alan Walton wrote:I would say going off rating performance is a fairer system for grading prizes
Another problem is that no performance is calculated for games against unrated players.
Thanks very much for explaining that - has cheered me up immensely. I've just started playing - have played in the Irish women's championships and Minors in Bunratty and Cork and scored 8/18 altogether. The trouble is that only a half point of that eight was against a rated player, so my tournament performances are highly comic. :wink:

Sean Hewitt
Posts: 2193
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:18 pm
Contact:

Re: Is this fair?

Post by Sean Hewitt » Mon Apr 22, 2013 7:58 pm

James Friar wrote:
Sean Hewitt wrote:
James Friar wrote:So why wasn't the whole thing won by the U160 winner? After all he performed the best. As you said it didn't explicitly say it would be awarded to the one with the most points. It didn't say that for the winner either.
You're really reduced to running with that argument?
It is a compelling argument though....
Not to a...how did you put it?...sane person.
James Friar wrote:......why is it one rule for the grading and another for the winner?
I think the answer to that was given earlier
Sean Hewitt wrote:Why not do this for the first prize? Well, Swisses are actually pretty good at sorting out the top places. They are really bad at sorting players in the middle of the field, as Alan Walton describes.
The organisers stated how they would allocate rating prizes both on their website and by posting a notice above the pairings at the event on the day. That seems reasonable to me, though it's unfortunate if anyone assumed without checking that the prize would be calculated differently.

Ray Sayers

Re: Is this fair?

Post by Ray Sayers » Mon Apr 22, 2013 8:05 pm

Sean Hewitt wrote:
Ray Sayers wrote:It seems the biggest problem was it wasn't clearly enough stated what the rule was.
Perhaps - although a mistaken assumption is also a big contributory factor. After all, it didn't say on the form that it would be awarded to the player with the most points in the grading band either.
I think though, that it is normally a reasonable assumption that you have won a prize by outscoring your competition. As I said in my original post:
'If I was playing for a grading prize and I had more points than anyone else in that band, I would naturally assume I would win it.'

You could say the player involved should have read all the terms and conditions, but who does that for a chess tournament? I don't, although this is a good case to prompt people into doing so in future.

Sean Hewitt
Posts: 2193
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:18 pm
Contact:

Re: Is this fair?

Post by Sean Hewitt » Mon Apr 22, 2013 8:15 pm

Ray Sayers wrote:'If I was playing for a grading prize and I had more points than anyone else in that band, I would naturally assume I would win it.'
Even though the notice at the venue said otherwise?!

James Friar

Re: Is this fair?

Post by James Friar » Mon Apr 22, 2013 9:03 pm

..the small print did, not the entry form.

Post Reply