How Competitive Do You Want It To Be? - Page 4 - OzChess

**MOZ** · 06-10-2009, 10:25 PM

Rather than directly answering the question MOZ has engaged in more of his silly word-games, this time complaining about the presence of a triple negative.

No.
I just thought your original wording was clumsy.
If you wanted the question debated I think you had an obligation to improve the wording.

As has been discussed many times there was a statement issued that the arbiter reserved the right to accelerate the first two rounds if the field size made it to three figures.

Yes, this is close to exactly what he asked for.

This implies that he would not do so if it didn't,

No. I did not see that implication in print, nor in the discussion I listened to.

whereas MOZ (2006 edition) would clearly have done so based on his comments about acceleration threshholds.

You need to clarify by quoting a post.
Basically, I am against acceleration, so I am intrigued by which post you will dig up.

Another way of asking my question to MOZ is:

If you were running a Swiss with 94 entrants, and the CI for the first round without acceleration was over 700, would you accelerate the first round if this had been pre-announced as an option and assuming a divisional option was not available?

See, the question is much easier to read after your rewrite.

It is hypothetical of my experience. I have not been called on to make the call.
I clearly said twice above that I think the NSW tourney design is superior to the VIC.
I have long argued that a third option is better than all these...
viz 'divisionalised intermingling'.

I will answer your question when I have seen what you table for this.

**MOZ** · 06-11-2009, 12:58 AM

I have been asked
...

Actually on checking the past record of this ancient thread carefully I find that MOZ's position is indeed, as he says, one of general hostility to true acceleration.

So your memory was faulty on this ^.

Indeed it was so much so that he repeatedly suggested that acceleration for two rounds produced a round 3 that was as bad as round 1, and had to be threatened with a goosemaster norm after repeating such a claim in the face of mathematical evidence to the contrary which he was completely unable to refute.

And probably faulty on this. But I am not interested to explore.

However as post 1 of this thread shows, he used the "junk round" argument to argue for what he explicitly called "permanent acceleration (of 2 bonus points) for the A division players in a large all-in SWISS."

It was later argued that this is not real acceleration and he accepted this, and so do I.

Yes, it uses the acceleration functionality of SP, but there was agreement to change the tag-name.

On that basis I retract my previous question and instead replace it with this one:

Still persisting even though you have made multiple misjudgements?

What I am trying to show here is that while MOZ has lambasted me for disagreeing with an acceleration proposal made by an IA, MOZ himself most likely does not really agree with that proposal either, and was just having a disingeneous go at me over it to try to score some points.

No.
I objected to you insinuating the IA had not read the manual.

Thus making the next two quotes irrelevant.

If there had been 100 or more entrants in the Vic Open and the arbiter had decided to employ acceleration for the first two rounds only, would MOZ have been in favour of such a decision and if so why?

NB Any placement of any condition whatsoever upon the answering of this question, or any failure to answer it, will be taken as an answer of "no" on the basis of his previous comments.

Instead, of course, he kicked a number of own goals on the matter of "wherewithall".

On OZCHESS it is permissable to use dictionary definitions from the Urban D.

**MOZ** · 06-11-2009, 03:33 PM

The old ACF Bulletin Board has previously debated the merits and demerits of 'junk' rounds in SWISS tournaments.
Junk rounds have the drawback of discouraging stronger players from entering all-in SWISS tournaments.
Strong players are more likely to be attracted to those SWISS tournaments where modification is made to the structure such as holding a Championship and Reserves. In this way the effect of junk games is reduced by separating the field into two distinct tournaments. However, the separation of the B-quartile from the top players creates its own resentment in the underclass. You only have to read the vigorous debate in firegoats “Championship qualifier criteria” to see that B-quartile players like to have the chance to play against

quartile players.
So this is the dilemma for the tournament designer: how to create a pairings arrangement that pairs players of comparable ratings without going to the extreme of shunting the B-quartile and

quartile players into a separate tournament.

Box Hill Chess Club experimented for a couple of years with a permanent acceleration (of 2 bonus points) for the A division players in a large all-in SWISS.
These SWISSes have mainly been 7-evening events at (about) 90 minute time controls for 80-100 players.
The all-in field is split into 2 divisions. Prizes are available in each division; but the bottom division players cannot win a top division prize is set as a tournament condition.

There are two benefits of this system
1) Junk games are reduced dramatically.
2) Prizes for

quartile winners (that is the top players in the bottom division) are much fairer as these players are scoring 5 points out of 7 instead of 3 out of 7 in a normal SWISS. Fluke results and cinchy pairings are reduced in their effect on the prizes.

While debate on the merits of these various tournament formats has been spirited, we lacked a measure of the relative competitiveness of various tournament formats. The design of events is a major influence on whether players are attracted to the event. (The other major factor is obviously the rewards by way of prizes and titles).
After further BB debate it emerged that the metric that serves the purpose of measuring competitiveness is the calculation of the mean of absolute differences of ratings for all pairings. This is calculated on a round by round basis.

Who knows...one day we might be able to advertise a tournament as
“Guaranteed for this tournament the mean of absolute differences of ratings for all pairings is less than 200” and this could attract strong players. Implicitly this is why Victorian INTERCLUB was always so attractive at the A grade level. It had a very low mean of absolute differences of ratings for all pairings.

Edit

This post has appeared on three bbs to date. Cut-and-pasted here with a few minor edits.
Curiously the Ozchess software treats (A -) as a smilies, and C - also.
I left them in the text because they became rather appropriate anyway.
<Original version is here>

**Just2Good** · 06-11-2009, 04:51 PM

Originally Posted by MOZ

No.
I objected to you insinuating the IA had not read the manual.

Might I suggest that the reason Kevin Bonham suggested this was because he thought the IA was someone other than who it actually was?

**MOZ** · 06-11-2009, 05:25 PM

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

Might I suggest that the reason Kevin Bonham suggested this was because he thought the IA was someone other than who it actually was?

I think that goes without saying, because there was an apology
"I have made the only edit justified to my original post and of course I apologise for any unintended impression given that IA Bekker would not have read documentation about how to do acceleration properly at some stage or other of his career." in this post.

**Just2Good** · 06-11-2009, 07:16 PM

Originally Posted by MOZ

I think that goes without saying, because there was an apology

"I have made the only edit justified to my original post and of course I apologise for any unintended impression given that IA Bekker would not have read documentation about how to do acceleration properly at some stage or other of his career." in this post.

Can we surmise who Kevin Bonham was targetting with his insinuation? Is it too much to hope that Kevin himself will have the courage to simply admit who?

**MOZ** · 06-16-2009, 11:21 AM

When the concomitant thread on chesschat began to drift away from the thread-starters original thesis, I began to regret the action of the redivivus necromancer in posting #700 after an hiatus of 5 years or so.

Sadly the discussion turned to the pros and cons of various types of acceleration in Swiss tournaments. If posters wish to occupy their time on that issue give them their own thread I wish.

But, that paragon on Mexican logic has got cc.org back on track with

Originally Posted by Igor_Goldenberg

On one hand I do not particularly like so called "junk rounds" (that dislike lead to losing some important half-points and on one occasion even a whole point ).
On the other hand I realise that lower rated players subsidise higher rated players. For that they entitled at least to have a go at higher rated/titled players. Without "junk rounds" of open swiss they might not have this chance.

Well done Igor.
The essential question is whether the obvious down-sides of the bog-standard Swiss system are so off-putting that we should continue to present tournaments without divisions.

**Simon** · 06-16-2009, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by MOZ

When the concomitant thread on chesschat began to drift away from the thread-starters original thesis, I began to regret the action of the redivivus necromancer in posting #700 after an hiatus of 5 years or so.

Sadly the discussion turned to the pros and cons of various types of acceleration in Swiss tournaments. If posters wish to occupy their time on that issue give them their own thread I wish.

But, that paragon on Mexican logic has got cc.org back on track with

Well done Igor.
The essential question is whether the obvious down-sides of the bog-standard Swiss system are so off-putting that we should continue to present tournaments without divisions.

I am not sure I understand what alternatives there are to the Swiss format.

**MOZ** · 06-16-2009, 12:59 PM

Originally Posted by Simon

I am not sure I understand what alternatives there are to the Swiss format.

Post #48 above

**MOZ** · 06-19-2009, 12:13 PM

Competitive Index for round 1 of the Zonal in QLD is 411.5

Code:

1  Zhao, Zong-Yuan 	NSW 2583 [0] : Fitzpatrick, Andrew 	VIC 2022 [0]
2  Kumar, Manoj 	FIJ 2017 [0] : Smerdon, David C 	ACT 2489 [0]
3  Solomon, Stephen J 	QLD 2455 [0] : Yuan, Yi 		ACT 2010 [0]
4  Stevens, Tristan 	SA  2006 [0] : Xie, George 		NSW 2402 [0]
5  Ambrus, Endre 	ACT 2375 [0] : Spiller, Paul 		NZL 2005 [0]
6  Weller, Tony 	QLD 1987 [0] : Lane, Gary W 		NSW 2371 [0]
7  West, Guy 		VIC 2343 [0] : Milligan, Helen 		NZL 1985 [0]
8  Muller, Jonas 	QLD 1981 [0] : Ly, Moulthun 		QLD 2340 [0]
9  Bjelobrk, Igor 	NSW 2332 [0] : Jones, Rupert 		PNG 1962 [0]
10 Tan, Kevin 		NSW 1956 [0] : Canfell, Gregory J 	NSW 2327 [0]
11 Garbett, Paul 	NZL 2319 [0] : Liu, Yi (1997) 		QLD 1938 [0]
12 Canfell, Mike J 	NSW 1932 [0] : Rej, Tomek 		NSW 2308 [0]
13 Feldman, Vladimir 	NSW 2298 [0] : Jule, Alexandra 		QLD 1928 [0]
14 Grigg, Sam 		QLD 1927 [0] : Rujevic, Mirko 		VIC 2282 [0]
15 Smith, Robert W 	NZL 2274 [0] : Selnes, Hamish 		QLD 1921 [0]
16 Juszczynski, Mathew  SA  1914 [0] : Steadman, Michael 	NZL 2262 [0]
17 Scott, Ronald 	NSW 2261 [0] : Prasad, Calvin 		FIJ 1912 [0]
18 Goundar, Sanmogam 	FIJ 1903 [0] : Illingworth, Max 	NSW 2243 [0]
19 Levi, Eddy L 	VIC 2216 [0] : Jule, Sebastian 		QLD 1847 [0]
20 Rachmadi, Herman 	NSW 1842 [0] : Marcos, Joselito 	PNG 2200 [0]
21 Oliver, Gareth 	ACT 2187 [0] : Encel, Benjamin 		NSW 1838 [0]
22 Hernandez, Roberto 	PLW 1830 [0] : Schon, Eugene 		VIC 2186 [0]
23 Pyke, Malcolm L 	VIC 2156 [0] : Lester, George E 	QLD 1801 [0]
24 Stahnke, Alexander 	QLD 1795 [0] : Norris, Damian 		QLD 2142 [0]
25 Morris, James 	VIC 2114 [0] : Egan, Bill 		ACT 1795 [0]
26 Ford, Daniel 	QLD 1792 [0] : Cheng, Bobby 		VIC 2103 [0]
27 Stead, Kerry 	VIC 2087 [0] : Searle, Zachary 		SA  1791 [0]
28 Meydan, Arie 	VIC 1757 [0] : Krstev, Mario 		NZL 2086 [0]
29 Brown, Andrew 	ACT 2085 [0] : Sannidhanam, Anurag 	VIC 1705 [0]
30 Karibasic, Amir 	QLD 1573 [0] : Nakauchi, Gene 		QLD 2076 [0]
31 Vlietstra, Marc 	WA  2075 [0] : Raicar, Gaurav 		FIJ 1560 [0]
32 Hughes, Harry 	QLD 1554 [0] : Jones, Brian A 		NSW 2062 [0]
33 Krstev, Antonio 	NZL 2056 [0] : De Vere, Cameron 	QLD 1468 [0]
34 Lapitan, Daniel 	QLD 1287 [0] : Chan, Jason 		NSW 2056 [0]
35 Kempen, Leon 	VIC 2050 [0] : Eriksson, Caleb 		QLD 1257 [0]
36 Aguilar, Fernando 	SOL 	 [0] : Bennett, Hilton 		NZL 2028 [0]

**MOZ** · 06-25-2009, 12:40 AM

Code:

Bo.	No.		Name	Pts. 	Result	Pts. 		Name	No.
1	1	GM	Zhao Zong-Yuan 	5½ 		6 	IM	Smerdon David 	2
2	3	IM	Solomon Stephen J 	5 		6 	FM	Bjelobrk Igor 	9
3	7	IM	West Guy 	5 		5 		Scott Ronald 	17
4	26		Cheng Bobby 	5 		5 	IM	Garbett Paul Anthony 	11
5	12	FM	Rej Tomek 	5 		5 		Oliver Gareth 	21
6	25	FM	Morris James 	5 		5 	IM	Feldman Vladimir 	13
7	4	IM	Xie George Wendi 	4½ 		4½ 	FM	Levi Eddy 	19
8	8		Ly Moulthun 	4½ 		4½ 		Schon Eugene 	22
9	16		Steadman Michael 	4½ 		4½ 	FM	Nakauchi Gene 	30
10	38	CM	Kumar Manoj 	4½ 		4 		Stead Kerry 	27
11	6	IM	Lane Gary W 	4 		4 		Krstev Antonio 	33
12	10	FM	Canfell Gregory 	4 		4 		Stevens Tristan 	40
13	14	IM	Rujevic Mirko 	4 		4 		Juszczynski Mathew 	52
14	15	FM	Smith Robert W 	4 		4 		Grigg Sam 	50
15	29		Brown Andrew 	4 		4 	CM	Prasad Calvin 	53
16	39		Yuan Yi 	4 		3½ 	FM	Ambrus Endre 	5
17	49	WIM	Jule Alexandra 	3½ 		3½ 		Marcos Joselito 	20
18	47		Liu Yi 	3½ 		3½ 		Krstev Mario 	28
19	54		Goundar Sanmogam 	3½ 		3½ 		Vlietstra Marc 	31
20	34		Chan Jason 	3½ 		3½ 		Selnes Hamish 	51
21	35		Kempen Leon 	3½ 		3½ 		Jule Sebastian 	55
22	60		Stahnke Alexander 	3½ 		3½ 		Muller Jonas 	44
23	18	CM	Illingworth Max 	3 		3½ 		Lester George E 	59
24	32	FM	Jones Brian 	3 		3 		Weller Tony 	42
25	37		Fitzpatrick Andrew 	3 		3 		Encel Benjamin 	57
26	41		Spiller Paul 	3 		3 		Karibasic Amir 	68
27	63		Searle Zachary 	3 		2½ 		Norris Damian C 	24
28	56		Rachmadi Herman 	2½ 		2½ 		Bennett Hilton 	36
29	62		Ford Daniel 	2½ 		2½ 	WFM	Milligan Helen 	43
30	67		Meydan Arie 	2½ 		2½ 	FM	Jones Rupert 	45
31	69		De Vere Cameron 	2½ 		2½ 		Tan Kevin 	46
32	73		Aguilar Fernando 	2½ 		2 		Canfell Mike J 	48
33	58		Hernandez Roberto 	2 		2 		Sannidhanam Anurag 	64
34	70		Lapitan Daniel 	2 		1½ 		Eriksson Caleb 	71
35	72		Cigelj David 	1½ 		1½ 		Egan Bill 	61
36	65		Raicar Gaurav 	½ 		1 		Hughes Harry 	66
37	23		Pyke Malcolm 	2 	0			not paired

Victorian Juniors to the fore.

**MOZ** · 12-22-2009, 02:30 PM

Because the question was asked elsewhere.

But I thought the answer was so 'numinous'
that
I pasted it in here.

Originally Posted by by she who has a very busy schedule

will any half point byes be allowed?

Originally Posted by Publicist

I had been hoping no one would ask.
The tournament organizer is a relic from the Purdy era. when it was unheard of to ask for a bye let alone asking for a half point for not playing.
The tournament organizer also recognizes that those days have long gone but he still believes there should be some limitation to the present tendency to give anyone who does not feel like turning up a 1/2 point
In this tournament the arbiter will be empowered to give a 0.5 bye [one only]
1 if there are special circumstances for a player needing a bye
2 if the request is for round 5 or earlier.
3 if the player has a reasonable expectancy for a 50% score in the tournament.

**MOZ** · 12-28-2009, 08:21 AM

Round 1 Competitive index is 516
Round 2 Competitive index is 371
Round 3 Competitive index is 643

For the cognoscenti #46 above "Indeed it was so much so that he repeatedly suggested that acceleration for two rounds produced a round 3 that was as bad as round 1, and had to be threatened with a goosemaster norm after repeating such a claim in the face of mathematical evidence to the contrary which he was completely unable to refute. ", \smirk

**MOZ** · 12-28-2009, 08:35 PM

I have been asked
...

Quote:
Actually on checking the past record of this ancient thread carefully I find that MOZ's position is indeed, as he says, one of general hostility to true acceleration.

So your memory was faulty on this ^.

And I have not changed.

**Grant Szuveges** · 12-28-2009, 11:23 PM

I dont normally post anything on chess forums that is not MCC related, but I feel very strongly about this particular issue.

Personally I think that accelerated pairings are ridiculous full stop. Regardless whether one accelerates 1 round, 2 rounds, 6 rounds or even the whole touranament, accelerated pairings simply violate 2 very important, fundamental principles of which the Swiss system is based:

1. In a Swiss system, one is supposed to play a player on the same score as oneself (if possible).

2. The Swiss system is based on the concept of top half vs bottom half. Acceleration completely violates this concept.

If people want to run a Swiss style tournament, then run a real Swiss - if not, then run tournaments of a different format (round robins, sectionalised tournaments, knockouts etc - there are lots of different formats to choose from).

My main reasons for liking the "real Swiss" type tournaments are as follows:

1. As Igor Goldenberg points out, weaker players subsidize stronger ones, and a Swiss allows weaker players the chance to play stronger ones. This is really important to many weaker players. I remember when I was rated about 1500 (top of the bottom half at the time), I used to love playing Johansen or players like that in the first round of tournaments. I was lucky enough to play Johansen in the first round of 2 tournaments in 3 months. Its a great experience for players of that level.

2. I actually like the "junk games". I firmly believe that if a player wants to play against strong players, then they should earn that right by beating weaker players first - and that also goes for the strong players themselves. Not only are they giving back to chess (see point 1), but they are also giving themselves a chance to work themselves into form or even test out new openings. Even calling them "junk games" is a bit odd actually. I remember losing my first round (as the higher seed), 3 tournaments in a row once! And Igor (amongst quite a few others) could only draw in round one of the MCC Cup Weekender (a "real" Swiss). In other sports (such as cricket), players earn the right to play strong players by moving up divisions. In chess, a Swiss system allows players to earn this "right" by beating weaker players first. I also like the fact that strong players still have to "prove" that they can beat the weaker players too.

3. Acceleration doesnt even eliminate the "junk games" anyway. Eg, in a field of 80 players, in a normal Swiss, 1 plays 41, 2 plays 42, 3 plays 43 etc. If we accelerate the first round then 1 plays 21, 2 plays 22 etc and 41 plays 61, 42 plays 62 etc:

Lets say that 1 is rated 2300, 2 is 2285, 3 is 2276 and 21 is 1750, 22 is 1743 and 41 is 1505, 42 is 1500, 43 is 1487 and 61 is 1280, 62 is 1275 etc. Now in a normal swiss 1 vs 41 (2300 vs 1505) is considered a junk game and so is 21 vs 61 (1750 vs 1280). So, if all the results go according to plan, then in round 2, the pairings will be basically the players from 21-40 who lost vs the players from 41 -60 who won. Therefore we have 21 vs 41 (1750 vs 1505) Some may even call this a junk game although I wouldnt say so. The problem is though, that inevitably there will be some upsets in round one of an accelerated tournament. In my hypothetical example, lets say that player 62 (1275) beats player 42 (1500) in round 1, and then in round 2, defeats player 38 (1530) who lost round one to player 18. Player 62 (1275) has beaten a few players 200 rating points higher - thats great but then the acceleration comes off, and then we have players rated 1275 playing 2200 players on the top boards in round 3!!! And we want to avoid "junk games"??????? Meanwhile, player 38 (rated 1530 - who lost to player 62 in round 2), is on 0/2 and playing someone rated 900 on the bottom boards - another "junk game"...... Acceleration doesnt avoid "junk games" at all, it simply moves them to more illogical times during a tournament.....

As I said earlier, why run a Swiss when it isnt being run like a Swiss?

In my opinion, the Swiss system is the best way to run a tournament of any individual sport or game that I have even seen - its even good for team games. But it is best for individual games. Imagine tennis was run as a Swiss - if Marat Safin lost the first round, he could still recover and play Leyton Hewitt in the final round for the first prize.... Its a great system full stop, not just for chess, and in my opinion, it is also the fairest way to run a tournament for all of the participants equally. Part of the success of this is the simplicity of it all - its based on principles which are simple and good (eg. play someone on the same score as yourself, top half vs bottom half on that score etc) and can be big or small and you will still get a winner. Eg, even if there were no draws at all in a 7 round Swiss with 128 players, it is still successful as follows:

After round 7, one player on 7
After round 6, 2 players on 6
After round 5, 4 players on 5
After round 4, 8 players on 4
After round 3, 16 players on 3
After round 2, 32 players on 2
After round 1, 64 players on 1

This means that even with no draws, a 128 player tournament can still get a single winner - but the reality is that draws will happen, therefore the number of players could be much higher.

The Swiss system is a great invention and is a fair and level playing field for all players. There is nothing wrong with it as it is, and if it is not broken, dont fix it.....

(these are my own views - not those of the MCC)

06-10-2009, 10:25 PM	#46 (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: 3,495	Rather than directly answering the question MOZ has engaged in more of his silly word-games, this time complaining about the presence of a triple negative. No. I just thought your original wording was clumsy. If you wanted the question debated I think you had an obligation to improve the wording. As has been discussed many times there was a statement issued that the arbiter reserved the right to accelerate the first two rounds if the field size made it to three figures. Yes, this is close to exactly what he asked for. This implies that he would not do so if it didn't, No. I did not see that implication in print, nor in the discussion I listened to. whereas MOZ (2006 edition) would clearly have done so based on his comments about acceleration threshholds. You need to clarify by quoting a post. Basically, I am against acceleration, so I am intrigued by which post you will dig up. Another way of asking my question to MOZ is: If you were running a Swiss with 94 entrants, and the CI for the first round without acceleration was over 700, would you accelerate the first round if this had been pre-announced as an option and assuming a divisional option was not available? See, the question is much easier to read after your rewrite. It is hypothetical of my experience. I have not been called on to make the call. I clearly said twice above that I think the NSW tourney design is superior to the VIC. I have long argued that a third option is better than all these... viz 'divisionalised intermingling'. I will answer your question when I have seen what you table for this. __________________ FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

06-11-2009, 12:58 AM	#47 (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: 3,495	I have been asked ... Actually on checking the past record of this ancient thread carefully I find that MOZ's position is indeed, as he says, one of general hostility to true acceleration. So your memory was faulty on this ^. Indeed it was so much so that he repeatedly suggested that acceleration for two rounds produced a round 3 that was as bad as round 1, and had to be threatened with a goosemaster norm after repeating such a claim in the face of mathematical evidence to the contrary which he was completely unable to refute. And probably faulty on this. But I am not interested to explore. However as post 1 of this thread shows, he used the "junk round" argument to argue for what he explicitly called "permanent acceleration (of 2 bonus points) for the A division players in a large all-in SWISS." It was later argued that this is not real acceleration and he accepted this, and so do I. Yes, it uses the acceleration functionality of SP, but there was agreement to change the tag-name. On that basis I retract my previous question and instead replace it with this one: Still persisting even though you have made multiple misjudgements? What I am trying to show here is that while MOZ has lambasted me for disagreeing with an acceleration proposal made by an IA, MOZ himself most likely does not really agree with that proposal either, and was just having a disingeneous go at me over it to try to score some points. No. I objected to you insinuating the IA had not read the manual. Thus making the next two quotes irrelevant. If there had been 100 or more entrants in the Vic Open and the arbiter had decided to employ acceleration for the first two rounds only, would MOZ have been in favour of such a decision and if so why? NB Any placement of any condition whatsoever upon the answering of this question, or any failure to answer it, will be taken as an answer of "no" on the basis of his previous comments. Instead, of course, he kicked a number of own goals on the matter of "wherewithall". On OZCHESS it is permissable to use dictionary definitions from the Urban D. __________________ FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

06-11-2009, 03:33 PM	#48 (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: 3,495	How competitive do you want it to be? The old ACF Bulletin Board has previously debated the merits and demerits of 'junk' rounds in SWISS tournaments. Junk rounds have the drawback of discouraging stronger players from entering all-in SWISS tournaments. Strong players are more likely to be attracted to those SWISS tournaments where modification is made to the structure such as holding a Championship and Reserves. In this way the effect of junk games is reduced by separating the field into two distinct tournaments. However, the separation of the B-quartile from the top players creates its own resentment in the underclass. You only have to read the vigorous debate in firegoats “Championship qualifier criteria” to see that B-quartile players like to have the chance to play against quartile players. So this is the dilemma for the tournament designer: how to create a pairings arrangement that pairs players of comparable ratings without going to the extreme of shunting the B-quartile and quartile players into a separate tournament. Box Hill Chess Club experimented for a couple of years with a permanent acceleration (of 2 bonus points) for the A division players in a large all-in SWISS. These SWISSes have mainly been 7-evening events at (about) 90 minute time controls for 80-100 players. The all-in field is split into 2 divisions. Prizes are available in each division; but the bottom division players cannot win a top division prize is set as a tournament condition. There are two benefits of this system 1) Junk games are reduced dramatically. 2) Prizes for quartile winners (that is the top players in the bottom division) are much fairer as these players are scoring 5 points out of 7 instead of 3 out of 7 in a normal SWISS. Fluke results and cinchy pairings are reduced in their effect on the prizes. While debate on the merits of these various tournament formats has been spirited, we lacked a measure of the relative competitiveness of various tournament formats. The design of events is a major influence on whether players are attracted to the event. (The other major factor is obviously the rewards by way of prizes and titles). After further BB debate it emerged that the metric that serves the purpose of measuring competitiveness is the calculation of the mean of absolute differences of ratings for all pairings. This is calculated on a round by round basis. Who knows...one day we might be able to advertise a tournament as “Guaranteed for this tournament the mean of absolute differences of ratings for all pairings is less than 200” and this could attract strong players. Implicitly this is why Victorian INTERCLUB was always so attractive at the A grade level. It had a very low mean of absolute differences of ratings for all pairings. Edit This post has appeared on three bbs to date. Cut-and-pasted here with a few minor edits. Curiously the Ozchess software treats (A -) as a smilies, and C - also. I left them in the text because they became rather appropriate anyway. <Original version is here> __________________ FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game. Last edited by MOZ : 06-16-2009 at 01:01 PM

06-11-2009, 04:51 PM	#49 (permalink)
Just2Good Tin Cup Champ 2004 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Cairns Posts: 6,056 ICC Handle: Advantage FICS Handle: Advantage	Originally Posted by MOZ No. I objected to you insinuating the IA had not read the manual. Might I suggest that the reason Kevin Bonham suggested this was because he thought the IA was someone other than who it actually was? __________________ . "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." ~ Buckminster Fuller ~

06-11-2009, 05:25 PM	#50 (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: 3,495	Originally Posted by Arrogant-One Might I suggest that the reason Kevin Bonham suggested this was because he thought the IA was someone other than who it actually was? I think that goes without saying, because there was an apology "I have made the only edit justified to my original post and of course I apologise for any unintended impression given that IA Bekker would not have read documentation about how to do acceleration properly at some stage or other of his career." in this post. __________________ FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

06-11-2009, 07:16 PM	#51 (permalink)
Just2Good Tin Cup Champ 2004 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Cairns Posts: 6,056 ICC Handle: Advantage FICS Handle: Advantage	Originally Posted by MOZ I think that goes without saying, because there was an apology "I have made the only edit justified to my original post and of course I apologise for any unintended impression given that IA Bekker would not have read documentation about how to do acceleration properly at some stage or other of his career." in this post. Can we surmise who Kevin Bonham was targetting with his insinuation? Is it too much to hope that Kevin himself will have the courage to simply admit who? __________________ . "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." ~ Buckminster Fuller ~

06-16-2009, 11:21 AM	#52 (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: 3,495	Thread drift on chesschat. When the concomitant thread on chesschat began to drift away from the thread-starters original thesis, I began to regret the action of the redivivus necromancer in posting #700 after an hiatus of 5 years or so. Sadly the discussion turned to the pros and cons of various types of acceleration in Swiss tournaments. If posters wish to occupy their time on that issue give them their own thread I wish. But, that paragon on Mexican logic has got cc.org back on track with Originally Posted by Igor_Goldenberg On one hand I do not particularly like so called "junk rounds" (that dislike lead to losing some important half-points and on one occasion even a whole point ). On the other hand I realise that lower rated players subsidise higher rated players. For that they entitled at least to have a go at higher rated/titled players. Without "junk rounds" of open swiss they might not have this chance. Well done Igor. The essential question is whether the obvious down-sides of the bog-standard Swiss system are so off-putting that we should continue to present tournaments without divisions. __________________ FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

06-16-2009, 12:47 PM	#53 (permalink)
Simon Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 162	Originally Posted by MOZ When the concomitant thread on chesschat began to drift away from the thread-starters original thesis, I began to regret the action of the redivivus necromancer in posting #700 after an hiatus of 5 years or so. Sadly the discussion turned to the pros and cons of various types of acceleration in Swiss tournaments. If posters wish to occupy their time on that issue give them their own thread I wish. But, that paragon on Mexican logic has got cc.org back on track with Well done Igor. The essential question is whether the obvious down-sides of the bog-standard Swiss system are so off-putting that we should continue to present tournaments without divisions. I am not sure I understand what alternatives there are to the Swiss format.

06-16-2009, 12:59 PM	#54 (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: 3,495	Originally Posted by Simon I am not sure I understand what alternatives there are to the Swiss format. Post #48 above __________________ FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

12-22-2009, 02:30 PM	#57 (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: 3,495	This was posted elsewhere Because the question was asked elsewhere. But I thought the answer was so 'numinous' that I pasted it in here. Originally Posted by by she who has a very busy schedule will any half point byes be allowed? Originally Posted by Publicist I had been hoping no one would ask. The tournament organizer is a relic from the Purdy era. when it was unheard of to ask for a bye let alone asking for a half point for not playing. The tournament organizer also recognizes that those days have long gone but he still believes there should be some limitation to the present tendency to give anyone who does not feel like turning up a 1/2 point In this tournament the arbiter will be empowered to give a 0.5 bye [one only] 1 if there are special circumstances for a player needing a bye 2 if the request is for round 5 or earlier. 3 if the player has a reasonable expectancy for a 50% score in the tournament. __________________ FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

12-28-2009, 08:21 AM	#58 (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: 3,495	2009 Canterbury Summer Swiss...Competitive Indicies Round 1 Competitive index is 516 Round 2 Competitive index is 371 Round 3 Competitive index is 643 For the cognoscenti #46 above "Indeed it was so much so that he repeatedly suggested that acceleration for two rounds produced a round 3 that was as bad as round 1, and had to be threatened with a goosemaster norm after repeating such a claim in the face of mathematical evidence to the contrary which he was completely unable to refute. ", \smirk __________________ FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

12-28-2009, 08:35 PM	#59 (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: 3,495	And just so the important part of #46 does not get forgotten ... I have been asked ... Quote: Actually on checking the past record of this ancient thread carefully I find that MOZ's position is indeed, as he says, one of general hostility to true acceleration. So your memory was faulty on this ^. And I have not changed. __________________ FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

12-28-2009, 11:23 PM	#60 (permalink)
Grant Szuveges Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 942	Acceleration just isnt Swiss cricket I dont normally post anything on chess forums that is not MCC related, but I feel very strongly about this particular issue. Personally I think that accelerated pairings are ridiculous full stop. Regardless whether one accelerates 1 round, 2 rounds, 6 rounds or even the whole touranament, accelerated pairings simply violate 2 very important, fundamental principles of which the Swiss system is based: 1. In a Swiss system, one is supposed to play a player on the same score as oneself (if possible). 2. The Swiss system is based on the concept of top half vs bottom half. Acceleration completely violates this concept. If people want to run a Swiss style tournament, then run a real Swiss - if not, then run tournaments of a different format (round robins, sectionalised tournaments, knockouts etc - there are lots of different formats to choose from). My main reasons for liking the "real Swiss" type tournaments are as follows: 1. As Igor Goldenberg points out, weaker players subsidize stronger ones, and a Swiss allows weaker players the chance to play stronger ones. This is really important to many weaker players. I remember when I was rated about 1500 (top of the bottom half at the time), I used to love playing Johansen or players like that in the first round of tournaments. I was lucky enough to play Johansen in the first round of 2 tournaments in 3 months. Its a great experience for players of that level. 2. I actually like the "junk games". I firmly believe that if a player wants to play against strong players, then they should earn that right by beating weaker players first - and that also goes for the strong players themselves. Not only are they giving back to chess (see point 1), but they are also giving themselves a chance to work themselves into form or even test out new openings. Even calling them "junk games" is a bit odd actually. I remember losing my first round (as the higher seed), 3 tournaments in a row once! And Igor (amongst quite a few others) could only draw in round one of the MCC Cup Weekender (a "real" Swiss). In other sports (such as cricket), players earn the right to play strong players by moving up divisions. In chess, a Swiss system allows players to earn this "right" by beating weaker players first. I also like the fact that strong players still have to "prove" that they can beat the weaker players too. 3. Acceleration doesnt even eliminate the "junk games" anyway. Eg, in a field of 80 players, in a normal Swiss, 1 plays 41, 2 plays 42, 3 plays 43 etc. If we accelerate the first round then 1 plays 21, 2 plays 22 etc and 41 plays 61, 42 plays 62 etc: Lets say that 1 is rated 2300, 2 is 2285, 3 is 2276 and 21 is 1750, 22 is 1743 and 41 is 1505, 42 is 1500, 43 is 1487 and 61 is 1280, 62 is 1275 etc. Now in a normal swiss 1 vs 41 (2300 vs 1505) is considered a junk game and so is 21 vs 61 (1750 vs 1280). So, if all the results go according to plan, then in round 2, the pairings will be basically the players from 21-40 who lost vs the players from 41 -60 who won. Therefore we have 21 vs 41 (1750 vs 1505) Some may even call this a junk game although I wouldnt say so. The problem is though, that inevitably there will be some upsets in round one of an accelerated tournament. In my hypothetical example, lets say that player 62 (1275) beats player 42 (1500) in round 1, and then in round 2, defeats player 38 (1530) who lost round one to player 18. Player 62 (1275) has beaten a few players 200 rating points higher - thats great but then the acceleration comes off, and then we have players rated 1275 playing 2200 players on the top boards in round 3!!! And we want to avoid "junk games"??????? Meanwhile, player 38 (rated 1530 - who lost to player 62 in round 2), is on 0/2 and playing someone rated 900 on the bottom boards - another "junk game"...... Acceleration doesnt avoid "junk games" at all, it simply moves them to more illogical times during a tournament..... As I said earlier, why run a Swiss when it isnt being run like a Swiss? In my opinion, the Swiss system is the best way to run a tournament of any individual sport or game that I have even seen - its even good for team games. But it is best for individual games. Imagine tennis was run as a Swiss - if Marat Safin lost the first round, he could still recover and play Leyton Hewitt in the final round for the first prize.... Its a great system full stop, not just for chess, and in my opinion, it is also the fairest way to run a tournament for all of the participants equally. Part of the success of this is the simplicity of it all - its based on principles which are simple and good (eg. play someone on the same score as yourself, top half vs bottom half on that score etc) and can be big or small and you will still get a winner. Eg, even if there were no draws at all in a 7 round Swiss with 128 players, it is still successful as follows: After round 7, one player on 7 After round 6, 2 players on 6 After round 5, 4 players on 5 After round 4, 8 players on 4 After round 3, 16 players on 3 After round 2, 32 players on 2 After round 1, 64 players on 1 This means that even with no draws, a 128 player tournament can still get a single winner - but the reality is that draws will happen, therefore the number of players could be much higher. The Swiss system is a great invention and is a fair and level playing field for all players. There is nothing wrong with it as it is, and if it is not broken, dont fix it..... (these are my own views - not those of the MCC) __________________ People who have nothing to hide post using their real names...

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread: