League Tie Resolution Methods

[John Upham]

I am aware of a few methods of resolving ties in leagues such as

1 match points, game points, game points difference
2 match points, individual encounters
3 game points, match points, game points difference
4 match points, game points difference, game points

Does your league use a method not listed above?

#3 is very popular for table tennis leagues but less so for chess but it makes a lot of sense rewarding a team which is strong in depth.

[Gareth T Ellis]

Merseyside Chess association uses:

If two or more teams in a Division score the same number of match points the relative position of these teams shall be decided by the total number of games won by them in the Division, drawn games counting as half the value of won games. If there is still a tie the positions shall be decided by eliminating the game-points scored on all the bottom boards of the teams concerned and so on until a definite result is achieved.

[Gareth T Ellis]

Warrington League uses :

1.7 ALLOCATION OF AWARDS
For each division, two match points will be awarded to a team for winning a match, one point for drawing a match and zero points for losing a match.
The team with the most match points at the end of the season are the winners of the division.
In the event of a tie, the team which has the highest board difference are the winners.
In the event of a further tie, the team which has won the most boards are the winners.
In the event of a further tie, the team which scored the most board points when the tied teams met during the league season are the winners.
In the event of a further tie, board elimination from the latest match, and, in the event of each game being
drawn, the first match, between the teams will be used to determine the winners.

[Mike Truran]

4NCL:

13.1 End of season team placings in Divisions 1, 2 and 3 (North and South) will be decided in the first instance on match point totals in the final pool. If at the end of the season teams are tied on match points, the tie shall be broken in favour of the team having:

the greatest number of game points in the final pool;
the greatest number of match points including all matches played during the season;
the greatest number of game points including all matches played during the season;
the match points between the teams which remain tied;
the game points between the teams which remain tied;
board count;
elimination from the bottom board upwards;
the toss of a coin. Tie breaks shall be applied in order until all ties are broken.

13.2

End of season team placings in Division 4 South will be decided in the first instance on match point totals. If at the end of the season teams are tied on match points, the tie shall be broken in favour of the team having: (a) the greatest number of game points; (b) match points between the teams which remain tied; (c) the game points between the teams which remain tied; (d) board count among remaining tied teams; (e) elimination from the bottom board upwards; (f) the average rating of the opposition; (g) the toss of a coin. Tie breaks shall be applied in order until all ties are broken, but (b) to (e) only apply if all the teams involved in the tie-break have played each other.

It doesn't come much simpler than that.

[Roger de Coverly]

by the total number of games won by them in the Division, drawn games counting as half the value of won games.

Isn't that's just a way of describing game points?

In the distant past, Bucks went all the way to tiebreak schemes such as Sonnenborn-Berger.

It's now match points as the first, board points as the second and matches between the tied teams as the third. If that didn't give a result, Championships would be shared and promotion or relegation places split by lot.

[Gareth T Ellis]

Roger de Coverly » Fri Jan 22, 2016 6:54 pm

Gareth T Ellis wrote:
by the total number of games won by them in the Division, drawn games counting as half the value of won games.

Isn't that's just a way of describing game points?

It was easier to cut & paste that part of the rules, someone would only complain if I reworded them.

[J T Melsom]

Roger

Bucks league rules were not changed in the 'distant past' unless you count two or three years ago. We scrapped Sonneborn-Berger because it didn't come with chips. Or to put it simply nobody knew what it meant and over a league season it was outside the influence of any of the teams who might be split by such a rule. If game points or head to head can't decide an essentially amateur competition why go further?

Sorry just read the rest of the thread and realise that we are in agreement - although 'distant past' seems an odd turn of phrase for something in relatively recent memory.

[Martin Regan]

I have always found pistols at dawn sorts it out pretty quickly

[Roger de Coverly]

Sorry just read the rest of the thread and realise that we are in agreement - although 'distant past' seems an odd turn of phrase for something in relatively recent memory.

Distant past relates to a tie between Bourne End and Berkhamsted before your time as League Controller. I think it was Sonnenborg-Berger that was eventually used although it could have been alphabetic order for all that anyone understood it.

[Stewart Reuben]

In Britain we have favoured allowing a tie if two individuals scored the same. No difference for a league. But, if a tiebreak is insisted on when two teams get the same number of match points, the following seems fairly obvious as in individual events.
1. The result between the two teams concerned. But If that was a draw
2. The number of game points

3. If that fails, thre is no sensible solution. Sooneborn-Berger is somewhat less accurate than tossing a coin.
4. Eliminate the bottom scoring team and up, until a change is found. That is called the Koya System.

[Nick Grey]

John - thanks for the new website (like the others) - just a few tinkering issues which in no way were we expecting would pick up everything.
I also apologise for not being able to give you some quick responses this week 2 chess matches plus enormous hours at work, & playing tomorrow too.

Thames Valley Chess League - these have been the same for 20 or so years.

7. In the event of two or more teams having equal totals of match points, final placings shall be determined by total game scores. If this does not resolve any tie for first place, promotion, or for relegation, then the teams concerned shall play a deciding match at a mutually agreed venue. If this match is drawn, the team with the lower total of board numbers of games won shall be the winner. If these totals are equal, the elimination rule shall apply. Only those players who have played for the relevant team during the season and were still eligible for that team on the date of the team’s final match are permitted to play in any play-off match.

Kingston got relegated one season on 6.5/14 with lowest total game scores/points. Though got 1.5 match points against the runner way winners - Ealing. The excellent news is we bounced back with an embarrassingly high score the following season.

We get a new clock as well as keep a trophy for the year. That is a nice prize & our treasurer splashed out on digitals last season.

Like many leagues we have issues of teams dropping out a few days before a fixture meeting, at the meeting, & during the season. The main reason is lack of succession planning by clubs, too much reliance on individuals, no one else volunteering to captain teams, or take positions of responsibility at clubs or the league itself. At our club we lost 2 stalwart members with more than 100 years service to chess last season.

Nick

Thames Valley Secretary