OzChess - Australia's Chess Forum - View Single Post

**MOZ** · 06-18-2011, 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by MOZ

Players choose to enter tournaments where 'seek competitiveness' is a criterion for GO or NO GO.
The above quote indicates the reservations felt by the lowest seeds in an all-in Swiss. Long term readers of this thread and its antecedent on chesschat have patiently watched as we have developed a metric that measures the over-all competitveness of a particular round.

But of course there is another way of examining whether a particular tournament was competitive' for individual players.

For example, over the long weekend, a 7 round all-in Swiss had a top seed rated at 2335 (ACF). He tied for 3rd place overall on 5.5/7, and met not one of the top 14 players. In fact he played seeds 43, 22, 41, 33, 23, 19, 15.

I leave you to judge if this was the competitive field sought by the entrant.

From the feedback to me at the Club I know how many of you are following avidly this examination into one of the factors (i.e. perceived competitiveness) that influences top players to enter any given chess tournament.
We see from my post quoted, 14th June, that the top seed picked up a share of 3rd prize but met no opponent in the top 14 seeds.
I asked the question for you "to judge if this was the competitive field sought by the entrant". The field he actually met is the core of the question, not the incidental question of whether the pairings were made consistent with the logic of the advertised rules of the tournament.

Many tournaments obviously aim to increase the competitiveness of pairings for top players, and do this through various tournament design decisions.
For example, we have the near-Closed SWISS design element in the Doeberl Cup and the recent NSWCA OPEN weekender. By clever advertising and prize structures, players rated below 1600 are near-Closed out of the Main event; leaving the top players with a much more competitive profile of opponents.
Another example is accelerated Swisses with the aim (misguided or not) of limiting the top players outings against the unseeded players.
A final example is the divisionalised intermingling Swiss currently running in the Box Hill Chess Club A Grade and B Grade championships. (See another thread for detail on this innovation).

Clearly, tournament organisers are creative in their tournament design to try to give the perception of competitive games. And so they should as 'bums on seats' is a necessity to achieve break-even in tournament finances.
I think we should judge the first player examined above "He tied for 3rd place overall on 5.5/7, and met not one of the top 14 players. In fact he played seeds 43, 22, 41, 33, 23, 19, 15." as not having his competitiveness pairings achieved by the design of the 2011 Vic Open.

Let us move progressively down the seeding list to see the detail on other top 10 players. And then finally I will list all those Vic top players who stayed away from the offering.

Number 2 seed: Well, he went home with an $1000 as equal share of 1st and 2nd prize. We don't need to look at a competitiveness measure for this guy. He will probably be back next year to collect again.

More analysis to come.

ps. Some readers miss the thread title.
This is essentially a marketing thread.
Performance is not part of this particular radar.

06-18-2011, 04:25 PM	#74 (permalink)
MOZ Volunteer Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Ozchess is the marginalised cyber-spot where cc-Mods choose to engage with cc-banned posters. Posts: 3,541	Originally Posted by MOZ Players choose to enter tournaments where 'seek competitiveness' is a criterion for GO or NO GO. The above quote indicates the reservations felt by the lowest seeds in an all-in Swiss. Long term readers of this thread and its antecedent on chesschat have patiently watched as we have developed a metric that measures the over-all competitveness of a particular round. But of course there is another way of examining whether a particular tournament was competitive' for individual players. For example, over the long weekend, a 7 round all-in Swiss had a top seed rated at 2335 (ACF). He tied for 3rd place overall on 5.5/7, and met not one of the top 14 players. In fact he played seeds 43, 22, 41, 33, 23, 19, 15. I leave you to judge if this was the competitive field sought by the entrant. From the feedback to me at the Club I know how many of you are following avidly this examination into one of the factors (i.e. perceived competitiveness) that influences top players to enter any given chess tournament. We see from my post quoted, 14th June, that the top seed picked up a share of 3rd prize but met no opponent in the top 14 seeds. I asked the question for you "to judge if this was the competitive field sought by the entrant". The field he actually met is the core of the question, not the incidental question of whether the pairings were made consistent with the logic of the advertised rules of the tournament. Many tournaments obviously aim to increase the competitiveness of pairings for top players, and do this through various tournament design decisions. For example, we have the near-Closed SWISS design element in the Doeberl Cup and the recent NSWCA OPEN weekender. By clever advertising and prize structures, players rated below 1600 are near-Closed out of the Main event; leaving the top players with a much more competitive profile of opponents. Another example is accelerated Swisses with the aim (misguided or not) of limiting the top players outings against the unseeded players. A final example is the divisionalised intermingling Swiss currently running in the Box Hill Chess Club A Grade and B Grade championships. (See another thread for detail on this innovation). Clearly, tournament organisers are creative in their tournament design to try to give the perception of competitive games. And so they should as 'bums on seats' is a necessity to achieve break-even in tournament finances. I think we should judge the first player examined above "He tied for 3rd place overall on 5.5/7, and met not one of the top 14 players. In fact he played seeds 43, 22, 41, 33, 23, 19, 15." as not having his competitiveness pairings achieved by the design of the 2011 Vic Open. Let us move progressively down the seeding list to see the detail on other top 10 players. And then finally I will list all those Vic top players who stayed away from the offering. Number 2 seed: Well, he went home with an $1000 as equal share of 1st and 2nd prize. We don't need to look at a competitiveness measure for this guy. He will probably be back next year to collect again. More analysis to come. ps. Some readers miss the thread title. This is essentially a marketing thread. Performance is not part of this particular radar. __________________ FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.