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?NickFaulks wrote: ↑Sun Apr 08, 2018 8:22 pmSo would open tornaments with players of all strengths and no handicap work?
Tournament Structures
-
- Posts: 21315
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: Tournament Structures
-
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 12:30 pm
Re: Tournament Structures
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)
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)
-
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 12:30 pm
Re: Tournament Structures
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 12:30 pm
Re: Tournament Structures
"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.
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.
-
- Posts: 115
- Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:42 am
- Location: Hull
Re: Tournament Structures
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?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)
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.
-
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 12:30 pm
Re: Tournament Structures
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 21315
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: Tournament Structures
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.Alison Bexfield wrote: ↑Sun Apr 08, 2018 8:49 pmFor 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.
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
-
- Posts: 9085
- Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
- Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Re: Tournament Structures
Fair enough - thanks. I didn't realise you could set the komi to something that wasn't x.5!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.
-
- Posts: 211
- Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:22 pm
- Location: Wakefield
Re: Tournament Structures
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!).Alison Bexfield wrote: ↑Sun Apr 08, 2018 8:49 pmSo 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.
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/britishRoger 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.
-
- Posts: 21315
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: Tournament Structures
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 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 08, 2018 9:13 pmAs far as I understand it, only the top band can actually win the tournament so this wouldn't be an issue.
-
- Posts: 211
- Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:22 pm
- Location: Wakefield
Re: Tournament Structures
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 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 08, 2018 9:20 pmI 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 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 08, 2018 9:13 pmAs far as I understand it, only the top band can actually win the tournament so this wouldn't be an issue.
-
- Posts: 21315
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: Tournament Structures
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.Peter Shaw wrote: ↑Sun Apr 08, 2018 9:36 pmI'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!
-
- Posts: 2720
- Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:16 pm
- Location: NW4 4UY
Re: Tournament Structures
I have always thought that this was a much more sensible way of organising a tournament. Lots of food for thought here!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.
Adam Raoof IA, IO
Chess England Events - https://chessengland.com/
The Chess Circuit - https://chesscircuit.substack.com/
Don’t stop playing chess!
Chess England Events - https://chessengland.com/
The Chess Circuit - https://chesscircuit.substack.com/
Don’t stop playing chess!
-
- Posts: 2074
- Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:23 pm
- Location: Harrogate
Re: Tournament Structures
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.
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
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own
-
- Posts: 1838
- Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 12:16 am
Re: Tournament Structures
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.
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.