Tournament Structures

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
Post Reply
Roger de Coverly
Posts: 16718
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Tournament Structures

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sun Apr 08, 2018 8:27 pm

NickFaulks wrote:
Sun Apr 08, 2018 8:22 pm
So would open tornaments with players of all strengths and no handicap work?
Without acceleration but using the usual Swiss pairing methods, you get a lot of mismatches by rating in the early rounds. That's well established surely? Or are you wondering whether "chess" methods would work in Go?

Alison Bexfield
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 12:30 pm

Re: Tournament Structures

Post by Alison Bexfield » Sun Apr 08, 2018 8:29 pm

Eric wrote
Thanks for the information about Go Alison. I looked quickly at the Britgo site and couldn't see any mention of cash prizes. Do players generally just play for trophies? Also, do players of widely differing standards mix much or do they tend to stick with others of similar ability?


Eric, The top tournaments have cash prizes (eg London Open) but in general these will only be for players above the bar. Everyone else is playing for a token prize such as trophy, bottle or wine or chocolates. The reward for most players is testing themselves against others of s simlar strength and seeing if they can improve their rating.

(sorry if this comes out twice. I am having problems in understanding how to respond to someone using quote)

Alison Bexfield
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 12:30 pm

Re: Tournament Structures

Post by Alison Bexfield » Sun Apr 08, 2018 8:33 pm

NickFaulks
So would open tournaments with players of all strengths and no handicap work?


I am not sure if this question is addressed at chess or go tournaments. For chess it sounds like a disaster or mismatched pairings in early rounds. In go it only works if you use the McMahon system as previously described. Then you can do it with no handicaps with a reasonable spread of entry grades. To see how it works in go look at the results tables on the britgo.org website.

Alison Bexfield
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 12:30 pm

Re: Tournament Structures

Post by Alison Bexfield » Sun Apr 08, 2018 8:35 pm

"Alex Holowczak" post
The other question I'd have is - how would you suggest a chess-based McMahon system handle draws? Given you can't draw in Go due to the komi, this isn't currently catered for by the McMahon system.
[/quote]

Alex
McMahon can handle draws. The McMahon score just goes up half a point for a draw as opposed to a whole point for a win. You can have a draw in go - either because the komi was set as a whole number (eg 7 rather than 7.5) or because someone has asked for a bye in one round.

Eric Gardiner
Posts: 52
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:42 am
Location: Hull

Re: Tournament Structures

Post by Eric Gardiner » Sun Apr 08, 2018 8:43 pm

Alison Bexfield wrote:
Sun Apr 08, 2018 8:29 pm

Eric, The top tournaments have cash prizes (eg London Open) but in general these will only be for players above the bar. Everyone else is playing for a token prize such as trophy, bottle or wine or chocolates. The reward for most players is testing themselves against others of s simlar strength and seeing if they can improve their rating.

(sorry if this comes out twice. I am having problems in understanding how to respond to someone using quote)
Thanks - this sounds desirable to me as it gives the top tournaments/stronger players bigger rewards and presumably motivates players to improve. As several posters in this thread have indicated, the problem with trying this in chess is that the weaker players who are in a majority probably won't like it and the tournament/congress might make a loss. Presumably Go tournaments have a means to be financially viable?

Btw to quote a post, I just click on a " icon at the top right-hand corner of a post. That's on a laptop - I've no idea whether you can do this on a smartphone.

Alison Bexfield
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 12:30 pm

Re: Tournament Structures

Post by Alison Bexfield » Sun Apr 08, 2018 8:49 pm

So what I am really suggesting for chess (in a rather long winded way - sorry) would be to start people all in the same tournament but in potentially 7 McMahon bands as follows:
181-200+
161-180
141-160
121-140
101-120
81-100
under80

So the 145 player who aspires to be more could potentially play someone from the 161-180 pool in round 2 if they win their first game and that player had lost their first game. It would stop the sandbagging issue that people report with the separate section boundaries as if players keep winning they have the potential to meet harder opposition.

For prizes you could then award either for those scoring 5 or 6 wins (in a 6 round tournament) or for the highest scoring person(s) in the different grade bands.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 16718
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Tournament Structures

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sun Apr 08, 2018 9:03 pm

Alison Bexfield wrote:
Sun Apr 08, 2018 8:49 pm
For prizes you could then award either for those scoring 5 or 6 wins (in a 6 round tournament) or for the highest scoring person(s) in the different grade bands.
Most weekend tournaments are 5 rounds these days. As soon as you go above 32 players plus half point byes, there's the danger of two or more players making 100% without meeting.

The pairing system formerly used at the Southend Congress used to work somewhat that way in that even in the last round if you weren't in the running for a major prize, you played someone of the same grade as yourself.

Being a seven round event, it could be operated as one single Swiss of around 80 entrants.

http://www.chessarbitersassociation.co. ... _jack.html

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 8261
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Tournament Structures

Post by Alex Holowczak » Sun Apr 08, 2018 9:08 pm

Alison Bexfield wrote:
Sun Apr 08, 2018 8:35 pm
"Alex Holowczak" post
The other question I'd have is - how would you suggest a chess-based McMahon system handle draws? Given you can't draw in Go due to the komi, this isn't currently catered for by the McMahon system.

Alex
McMahon can handle draws. The McMahon score just goes up half a point for a draw as opposed to a whole point for a win. You can have a draw in go - either because the komi was set as a whole number (eg 7 rather than 7.5) or because someone has asked for a bye in one round.
Fair enough - thanks. I didn't realise you could set the komi to something that wasn't x.5!

Peter Shaw
Posts: 163
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:22 pm
Location: Wakefield

Re: Tournament Structures

Post by Peter Shaw » Sun Apr 08, 2018 9:13 pm

Alison Bexfield wrote:
Sun Apr 08, 2018 8:49 pm
So what I am really suggesting for chess (in a rather long winded way - sorry) would be to start people all in the same tournament but in potentially 7 McMahon bands as follows:
181-200+
161-180
141-160
121-140
101-120
81-100
under80

So the 145 player who aspires to be more could potentially play someone from the 161-180 pool in round 2 if they win their first game and that player had lost their first game. It would stop the sandbagging issue that people report with the separate section boundaries as if players keep winning they have the potential to meet harder opposition.

For prizes you could then award either for those scoring 5 or 6 wins (in a 6 round tournament) or for the highest scoring person(s) in the different grade bands.
I think a system like this could work quite well. Of course we'll never know unless someone tries it out (which will probably never happen!).
Roger de Coverly wrote:
Sun Apr 08, 2018 9:03 pm

Most weekend tournaments are 5 rounds these days. As soon as you go above 32 players plus half point byes, there's the danger of two or more players making 100% without meeting.
As far as I understand it, only the top band can actually win the tournament so this wouldn't be an issue. Here is an example of a go tournament where someone lower down scores 6/6: https://www.britgo.org/results/2017/british

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 16718
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Tournament Structures

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sun Apr 08, 2018 9:20 pm

Peter Shaw wrote:
Sun Apr 08, 2018 9:13 pm
As far as I understand it, only the top band can actually win the tournament so this wouldn't be an issue.
I don't know about Go, but chess tournaments pre-date rating systems. Up to a point then, it should be a premise that no-one should be barred from winning by the existence of a rating system.

Peter Shaw
Posts: 163
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:22 pm
Location: Wakefield

Re: Tournament Structures

Post by Peter Shaw » Sun Apr 08, 2018 9:36 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Sun Apr 08, 2018 9:20 pm
Peter Shaw wrote:
Sun Apr 08, 2018 9:13 pm
As far as I understand it, only the top band can actually win the tournament so this wouldn't be an issue.
I don't know about Go, but chess tournaments pre-date rating systems. Up to a point then, it should be a premise that no-one should be barred from winning by the existence of a rating system.
I'm barred from winning the Minor at the 4ncl congress next weekend because the 'existence of a rating system' stops me entering it in the first place!

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 16718
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Tournament Structures

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sun Apr 08, 2018 9:51 pm

Peter Shaw wrote:
Sun Apr 08, 2018 9:36 pm
I'm barred from winning the Minor at the 4ncl congress next weekend because the 'existence of a rating system' stops me entering it in the first place!
Equally a player without a rating, or one not high enough, isn't precluded from entering the Open and winning it. It's possible in theory if limited in practice to get quite good at chess by playing on-line Blitz or even turn based pseudo postal without ever playing OTB and getting a grade or rating.

User avatar
Adam Raoof
Posts: 2248
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:16 pm
Location: NW4 4UY
Contact:

Re: Tournament Structures

Post by Adam Raoof » Sun Apr 08, 2018 10:10 pm

Alison Bexfield wrote:
Sun Apr 08, 2018 7:01 pm

My suggestion for an inclusive chess tournament would be to adopt the McMahon system by setting grade bands of 20 ECF rating points. This means that all players have competitive games right from the first round and those that keep winning get the chance to play up and meet stronger players.

By the way, on the subject of prizes, if everyone has entered at the 'correct' grade' then results should tend towards 50%. Go tournaments give the biggest prizes in the open section above the bar and reward those lower down who finish with a high % of wins with a smaller prize. Of course if someone wins 6/6 lower down in the grading system then their grade will certainly rise by the next tournament so they will start a band higher which curtails sandbagging.

I run a junior tournament each year and have abandoned rigid swiss draws in favour of the hybird swiss / McMahon system so that I pair players of equal strength right from round 1.
I have always thought that this was a much more sensible way of organising a tournament. Lots of food for thought here!

Andrew Zigmond
Posts: 1443
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Harrogate

Re: Tournament Structures

Post by Andrew Zigmond » Sun Apr 08, 2018 10:12 pm

I've generally been in pretty rotten form this season but the one exception was Hull Congress where I somehow managed to score 4/5 despite being the third lowest rated player in the section. Had that tournament been played on the McMahon system presumably I wouldn't have got within sight of the top seeds, including the highest rated player overall (who I beat in the final round).

It would be interesting to run a chess tournament on the McMahon system and see what pattern developed.
Controller - Yorkshire League
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own

Nick Grey
Posts: 760
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 12:16 am

Re: Tournament Structures

Post by Nick Grey » Sun Apr 08, 2018 10:19 pm

A few thoughts. Are tournament players trying to increase ratings? Many may be better of training than playing frequently?

Using excelerated/ or hyper pairings may be better to avoid mis-matches.
Having different grading limits on tournaments may help. To avoid the same pairings.

Organisers tend to structure on basis of what regular players want. Having one tournament but with some grading prizes can work from time to time

Sometimes weaker players want to enter stronger tournaments and be prepared to pay for it.

Organisers will not be able to please everybody all the time. And there could be all sorts of reasons for some players grades being lower than expected.

Post Reply