SO WHO'S GOING TO SHEFFIELD? I AM!

[Nigel Short]

Accelerated pairings make no sense at all - they just screw up the natural order of the tournament. Quite honestly they should be banned.

[Roger de Coverly]

Accelerated pairings make no sense at all - they just screw up the natural order of the tournament. Quite honestly they should be banned.

With the entrants standing at the nice number of 64, it seemed worth a bit of copy and paste to take a look at hypothetical first round pairings.

First if they accelerate

1 ADAMS, Michael, 2715gm; v LEDGER, Andrew, 2435im;
2 SUMMERSCALE, Aaron, 2415gm; v SHORT, Nigel, 2687gm;
3 HOWELL, David WL, 2625gm; v ANSELL, Simon, 2410im;
4 RENDLE, Thomas,2386im; v JONES, Gawain, 2606gm;
5 PERT, Nicholas, 2555gm; v BUCKLEY, Graeme, 2380im;
6 BATES, Richard A, 2373im; v GORDON, Stephen, 2533gm;
7 HEBDEN, Mark, 2533gm; v KOLBUS,Dietmar, 2335im;
8 EGGLESTON, David, 2318fm; v WILLIAMS, Simon K, 2528gm;
9 CONQUEST, Stuart,2519gm; v BEAUMONT, Christopher,2313im;
10 WEBB, Laurence, 2306fm; v GORMALLY, Daniel, 2519gm;
11 WELLS, Peter, 2489gm; v GRIFFITHS, Ryan-Rhys, 2301;
12 CONSTANTINOU, Peter, 2292fm; v PERT, Richard,2459im;
13 HAWKINS, Jonathan, 2457im; v RUDD, Jack, 2278im;
14 LALIC, Susan, 2277im; v PALLISER, Richard JD, 2454im;
15 ZHOU,Yang-Fan, 2444im; v LEDGER, Dave, 2277fm;
16 CHAPMAN, Terence PD, 2242; v HUNT, Adam, 2436im;
17 MASON, Don, 2237; v FRENCH,Angus, 2103;
18 PLEASANTS, Allan J, 2092; v ROSS,Chris N, 2234;
19 BIRTWISTLE, Nigel, 2214; v YURENOK, Maria S, 2090wf;
20 COATES,David H, 2080; v ADAIR, James, 2212;
21 KHANDELWAL,Ankush, 2211; v DE COVERLY, Roger, 2080;
22 HARIA, Ravi, 2073; v HARVEY, Marcus R, 2206;
23 HOLLAND, James P, 2196; v HEGARTY,Sarah N, 2065wf;
24 LENIER, Jude, 2065; v WALTON,Alan J, 2172;
25 SREEVES, Clement, 2169; v MELLOR, Stephen D, 2048;
26 RABBITTE,Liam F, 2034; v SHAW, Peter HC, 2162;
27 JONES,Victor GL, 2153; v YAP, Abel J, 2029;
28 WATERFIELD, John W, 1992; v JENKS, C Bruce, 2146;
29 MACQUEEN, Calum, 2139; v LALIC, PeterD, 1978;
30 PHILLIPS, Owen S, 1967; v BROWN,Martin, 2130;
31 JONES, William EG, 2121; v MAGEE, Ronan, 1953;
32 FARRALL, David J, 1869; v KEMP, Paul R, 2114;

and then if they don't

1 ADAMS, Michael, 2715gm; v MASON, Don, 2237;
2 ROSS,Chris N, 2234; v SHORT, Nigel, 2687gm;
3 HOWELL, David WL, 2625gm; v BIRTWISTLE, Nigel, 2214;
4 ADAIR, James, 2212; v JONES, Gawain, 2606gm;
5 PERT, Nicholas, 2555gm; v KHANDELWAL,Ankush, 2211;
6 HARVEY, Marcus R, 2206; v GORDON, Stephen, 2533gm;
7 HEBDEN, Mark, 2533gm; v HOLLAND, James P, 2196;
8 WALTON,Alan J, 2172; v WILLIAMS, Simon K, 2528gm;
9 CONQUEST, Stuart,2519gm; v SREEVES, Clement, 2169;
10 SHAW, Peter HC, 2162; v GORMALLY, Daniel, 2519gm;
11 WELLS, Peter, 2489gm; v JONES,Victor GL, 2153;
12 JENKS, C Bruce, 2146; v PERT, Richard,2459im;
13 HAWKINS, Jonathan, 2457im; v MACQUEEN, Calum, 2139;
14 BROWN,Martin, 2130; v PALLISER, Richard JD, 2454im;
15 ZHOU,Yang-Fan, 2444im; v JONES, William EG, 2121;
16 KEMP, Paul R, 2114; v HUNT, Adam, 2436im;
17 LEDGER, Andrew, 2435im; v FRENCH,Angus, 2103;
18 PLEASANTS, Allan J, 2092; v SUMMERSCALE, Aaron, 2415gm;
19 ANSELL, Simon, 2410im; v YURENOK, Maria S, 2090wf;
20 COATES,David H, 2080; v RENDLE, Thomas,2386im;
21 BUCKLEY, Graeme, 2380im; v DE COVERLY, Roger, 2080;
22 HARIA, Ravi, 2073; v BATES, Richard A, 2373im;
23 KOLBUS,Dietmar, 2335im; v HEGARTY,Sarah N, 2065wf;
24 LENIER, Jude, 2065; v EGGLESTON, David, 2318fm;
25 BEAUMONT, Christopher,2313im; v MELLOR, Stephen D, 2048;
26 RABBITTE,Liam F, 2034; v WEBB, Laurence, 2306fm;
27 GRIFFITHS, Ryan-Rhys, 2301; v YAP, Abel J, 2029;
28 WATERFIELD, John W, 1992; v CONSTANTINOU, Peter, 2292fm;
29 RUDD, Jack, 2278im; v LALIC, PeterD, 1978;
30 PHILLIPS, Owen S, 1967; v LALIC, Susan, 2277im;
31 LEDGER, Dave, 2277fm; v MAGEE, Ronan, 1953;
32 FARRALL, David J, 1869; v CHAPMAN, Terence PD, 2242;

The winners in the 3rd quartile v 4th quartile match are likely to face the losers in the 1st quartile v 2nd quartile match. So in round 2 and possibly round 3, they get the pairing that was avoided in round 1.

Last year's first round pairings (accelerated) are here
http://www.britishchess2011.com/2010/ev ... onship.htm

As a speculation, you might suppose that entries still to come would be from the 3rd and 4th quartile players, so it's unlikely in practice that a 2400+ IM will be top of the second quartile.

Adams will have White because he had Black last year and they follow an alternation rule.

[IM Jack Rudd]

I think they should have unaccelerated pairings just so that pairing #19 shows up.

[Roger de Coverly]

I think they should have unaccelerated pairings just so that pairing #19 shows up.

It's also one board away from mother v son. I doubt that's ever happened in the British.

[Simon Ansell]

3 HOWELL, David WL, 2625gm; v ANSELL, Simon, 2410im;
--
19 ANSELL, Simon, 2410im; v YURENOK, Maria S, 2090wf;

Is there a possible third system??

[LozCooper]

Accelerated pairings make no sense at all - they just screw up the natural order of the tournament. Quite honestly they should be banned.

Agreed.

[LozCooper]

3 HOWELL, David WL, 2625gm; v ANSELL, Simon, 2410im;
--
19 ANSELL, Simon, 2410im; v YURENOK, Maria S, 2090wf;

Is there a possible third system??

I'm sure Maria will give you a draw if you have the white bits

[Simon Ansell]

3 HOWELL, David WL, 2625gm; v ANSELL, Simon, 2410im;
--
19 ANSELL, Simon, 2410im; v YURENOK, Maria S, 2090wf;

Is there a possible third system??

I'm sure Maria will give you a draw if you have the white bits

Not sure, I haven't won for ten games

Seriously, I also dislike accelerated pairings. Especially in an eleven round tournament with a reasonably consistent spread of players from top to bottom.

[harrylamb]

As an arbiter with a good understanding of pairing systems and who needs an excellent knowledge of statistics in my professional life I do not understand why in an 11 round tournament you need to use an accelerated pairing system unless you have more that 2000 entries

[Paul Dargan]

Seriously I thought this was a done deal and that they accelerated full stop ... is it really worth discussing if the decision has been made?

I know Alex pops by from time to time .. perhaps he could enlighten us.

Paul

[Alex Holowczak]

Seriously I thought this was a done deal and that they accelerated full stop ... is it really worth discussing if the decision has been made?

I know Alex pops by from time to time .. perhaps he could enlighten us.

Paul

In fairness, Alex did so in this post.

Alex H

All play alls were the norm at one time. Things progress. Accelerated swisses in various forms are becoming more common (and not just in this country).

Your logic of 2^n fails if you want more than the winner to be accurate. With 32 players in a 5 round Swiss you should only pay out a first prize as no other prize is accurate. That is the conclusion to the logic you use. I would therefore contest that your logic is flawed.

There are a variety of reasons for using acceleration that have been discussed elsewhere.

My logic - which Alex contested - was the same as Harry's; i.e. you don't have 2^11 players (which Harry puts a specific number to), so you don't need accelerated pairings.

[Richard Bates]

In the real world chess has a concept of a thing called a "draw", lower rated players don't always lose to higher rated players, and the rating system anyway doesn't take account of things like differing strengths between playing white and playing black. Considering all the above variables and others, I am slightly surprised to hear the use of accelerated pairings in a long international tournament (as opposed to, say, a short weekender) being justified on the grounds of ensuring "correct" finishing positions down the field - when previous debates have always tended to focus on the effects or otherwise on potential norm seekers (arguments which have far less value in an eleven round tournament like the British compared to, say, a 9 round event like Hastings - especially one of the strength this one is looking to be).

Seriously I thought this was a done deal and that they accelerated full stop ... is it really worth discussing if the decision has been made?

I know Alex pops by from time to time .. perhaps he could enlighten us.

Paul

I imagine in recent years with the weaker fields accelerating has generally been the norm - however there is fairly recent precedent for not accelerating when there is a strong field. Take the first round pairings at Hove 1997 (first year of Smith & Williamson sponsorship) for example:

Adams, Michael (2680) - Sheldon, Ruth (2295)
Walker, David (2290) - Sadler, Matthew (2665)
Speelman, Jonathan (2630) - Cobb, Charles (2290)
Roktim, Bandyo (2275) - Miles, Anthony (2600)
Hebden, Mark (2575) - Thompson, Ian (2260)
Barnes, Michael (2260) - Emms, John (2530)
Kosten, Anthony (2530) - Ledger, David (2255)
Smith, Andrew P (2255) - Gallagher, Joseph (2525)
Parker, Jonathan (2510) - Hinks Edwards, Tom(2255)
Pert, Nicholas (2240) - Ward, Chris (2505)
Mestel, Jonathan (2500) - Jackson, Adrian (2250)
Vigus, James (2255) - Conquest, Stuart (2500)
Rowson, Jonathan (2490) - Greet, Andrew (2240)
Ryan, Joe (2245) - McDonald, Neil (2490)
Arkell, Keith (2480) - Storey, Charles (2240)
Graham, David (0) - McShane, Luke (2455)
Plaskett, Jim (2450) - Coleman, David (2230)
Jackson, Oliver (2230) - Turner, Matthew (2445)
Levitt, Jonathan (2440) - Ledger, Stephen (2230)
Anderton, Matthew (2240) - Sashikiran, Krish (2430)
Gormally, Danny (2425) - Dearing, Eddie (2210)
Hunt, Adam (2225) - Pein, Malcolm (2430)
Summerscale, Aaron (2420) - McFarland, Robert (2200)
McEwan, Ken (2210) - Martin, Andrew (2425)
Dunnington, Angus (2420) - Bisby, Daniel (2205)
Thurlow, Kevin (2205) - Ferguson, Mark (2420)
Kinsman, Andrew (2395) - Morrison, Chris (2195)
Williams, Simon (2310) - Ledger, Andrew (2415)
Mortazavi, Ali (2390) - Regan, Natasha (2170)
Rayner, Francis (2190) - Ansell, Simon (2390)
Crouch, Colin (2375) - Rudd, Jack (2170)
Barton, R Allan (2170) - Buckley, Graeme (2380)
Cummings, David (2370) - Houska, Jovanka (2155)
Botley, Gordon (2155) - Knott, Simon (2370)
Hunt, Harriet (2360) - Palliser, Richard (2125)
Cooper, Andrew G (2135) - Mah, Karl (2365)
Lee, Graham (2350) - Mitchell, Martin (2115)
Forbes, Cathy (2120) - Houska, Miroslav (2360)
Beaumont, Chris (2345) - Wall, Gavin (2330)
Spence, David (2070) - Bates, Richard (2345)
Law, Andrew (2330) - Simpson, James(0)

[cjdemooi]

584 entries so far and counting, 67 of which are in the Championship section including 12 GMs and 14 IMs

[Roger de Coverly]

I do not understand why in an 11 round tournament you need to use an accelerated pairing system unless you have more that 2000 entries

British arbiters love doing manual pairings. They tell us there isn't yet a satisfactory computer program to do accelerated pairings on the British rules.

The French have some new ideas. I noticed a tournament where they were using their dummy points system of acceleration for 7 of the 9 rounds and this was a tournament with about 100 players. Two of the players who later tied for second place met as early as round 2.

You need to know why you accelerate. A larger number of players than the theoretical limit is one reason, but I've noticed e2e4 have dropped acceleration for recent events. Maintaining norm chances is another, but if the first round matters, this favours second quartile seekers at the expense of third. You may do it to avoid rating mismatches, but more often than not, these are just postponed to later rounds. You may think it fairer, but that will depend on the acceleration method.

[Alan Walton]

If you did a "normal" draw, all the players eligible for GM & IM norms in the top half of the draw would automatically uplift their first round opponents rating to the lower limit, 2200 GM and 2050 IM, so the rating gap isn't theoretically as bad for norms. Also everybody in the bottom half, will have a excellent pairing in the first round to help their own norm ambitions.

And as others have pointed out you can normally drop a low-rated win if it is determental to a norm calculation

So if the argument for accelerated is for norms, it doesn't seem to matter that much