How Competitive Do You Want It To Be? - Page 5 - OzChess

**Firegoat7** · 12-29-2009, 11:29 AM

Bloody nora Grant,

This is Moz's baby the infamous competitive index! It has all sorts of measuring and hidden statistical number thingys And then you jump in with your high falutin opinion about the swiss system. Take it to your own thread buddy! Leave Moz to his own devices, as he espouses the merits of a competitive index!

Remember don't make eye contact and back away slowly.

cheers,

Moz* edit....Too late, I have a response to Grant's post on my TO-DO-OVER list.

**MOZ** · 01-01-2010, 10:41 PM

Originally Posted by MOZ

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

Round 4 Competitive index is 490
Round 5 Competitive index is 417
Round 6 Competitive index is 376
Round 7 Competitive index is 449

**Il cavaliere inesistente** · 01-02-2010, 03:07 PM

Originally Posted by MOZ

Round 4 Competitive index is 490
Round 5 Competitive index is 417
Round 6 Competitive index is 376
Round 7 Competitive index is 449

Wow! and we did all that?

**MOZ** · 01-05-2010, 09:21 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.

**Just2Good** · 01-05-2010, 09:31 PM

Originally Posted by MOZ

Round 4 Competitive index is 490
Round 5 Competitive index is 417
Round 6 Competitive index is 376
Round 7 Competitive index is 449

So, this question is probably a little late - but how exactly does this competitive index work?

**CarrierPigeon** · 03-11-2010, 09:32 AM

The old 'round 1 moves to round 3 comment'' as good today as it was in yesterday.

In what is clearly a good sign for Australian chess, the traditional Ballarat Begonia Open attracted a record field of 123 players. This 7 round event is still run in a single section, meaning that determining an outright winner can be a bit tricky in an unmodified swiss. Therefore it was run as an accelerated swiss, although as the last Olympiad showed, acceleration often moves the round 1 mismatches up to round 3.
One player who received a harder than expected first round pairing was WFM Emma Guo. Passing on the ACT Championships (she had committed to Ballarat before the ACT Champs details wear announced) she had to play top see IM Stephen Solomon in round 1.

Solomon,Stephen - Guo,Emma [B42]
Ballarat Begonia Open, 06.03.2010

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6 5.Nc3 Qc7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Bd3 Be7 8.f4 d6 9.0-0 Nc6 10.Qf3 h5 11.e5 Ng4 12.Nxc6 Qxc6 13.Bd4 Qxf3 14.Rxf3 dxe5 15.fxe5 0-0 16.Ne4 Bd7 17.Rg3 Kh8 18.Rf1 Bc6 19.c3 Rad8 20.Rf4 g6 21.Nd6 Bxd6 22.exd6+ e5 (D)
23.Rfxg4 exd4 24.Rxd4 Rd7 25.b4 Rc8 26.Rg5 Kg7 27.Bf5 1-0

Even with acceleration, the winning score was still 6.5/7, acheived by FM Erik Teichmann. There was a 3 way tie for second between IM Stephen Solomon, IM Leonid Sandler and FM Bobby Cheng, all on 6.

^source: chessexpress

**antichrist** · 03-12-2010, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

Bloody nora Grant,

This is Moz's baby the infamous competitive index! It has all sorts of measuring and hidden statistical number thingys And then you jump in with your high falutin opinion about the swiss system. Take it to your own thread buddy! Leave Moz to his own devices, as he espouses the merits of a competitive index! Remember don't make eye contact and back away slowly.

cheers,

Moz* edit....Too late, I have a response to Grant's post on my TO-DO-OVER list.

How would you compare it to Axiom's conspiracies?

And how with Jono's fanaticism about the Bible?

And Bill and KB's obsession about this place?

And mine with Serena Williams?

And Pauline Hanson's about the Asians?

I forgot this is supposed to be about chess??

And with Bill's Glilcko 2?

**MOZ** · 03-12-2010, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by antichrist

How would you compare it to Axiom's conspiracies?

And how with Jono's fanaticism about the Bible?

And Bill and KB's obsession about this place?

And mine with Serena Williams?

And Pauline Hanson's about the Asians?

I forgot this is supposed to be about chess??

And with Bill's Glilcko 2?

We can measure some of these a/c.

Let us take them 1 by 1.

Q. How would you compare it to Axiom's conspiracies?
Ax's are always ahead of the pack. Whereas CI's are always after the event.

Q. And how with Jono's fanaticism about the Bible?
Jono only preaches to the converted, Whereas Ax and I have topics that are debatable.

Q. And Bill and KB's obsession about this place?
You are on the wrong track on this one. Neither stood for MOD elections.

Q. And mine with Serena Williams?
Your attraction grows bigger each year.
...

I forgot this is supposed to be about chess??

Q. And with Bill's Glilcko 2?
Just the best rating system there is.

**MOZ** · 01-25-2011, 10:29 PM

Code:

1 Zhao, Zong-Yuan       AUS   2586 [0]      1:0    Davis, Justin        NZL   2023 [0]  
 2 Dordevic, Ivan        NZL   2019 [0]     .5:.5   Smerdon, David C     AUS   2531 [0]  
 3 Xie, George           AUS   2478 [0]      1:0    Fuatai, Fuatai       NZL   2015 [0]  
 4 Safarian, Alek        AUS   2013 [0]      0:1    Lane, Gary W         AUS   2373 [0]  
 5 Cheng, Bobby          AUS   2335 [0]      1:0    Kumar, Manoj         FIJ   2011 [0]  
 6 Kempen, Leon          AUS   2003 [0]      0:1    Ly, Moulthun         AUS   2321 [0]  
 7 Illingworth, Max      AUS   2311 [0]      1:0    Ansell, Alan         NZL   2001 [0]  
 8 Guo-Yuthok, Sherab    AUS   1975 [0]      0:1    Smith, Robert W      NZL   2287 [0]  
 9 Reilly, Tim           AUS   2276 [0]      1:0    Bennett, Hilton      NZL   1974 [0]  
10 Flitney, Adrian       AUS   1973 [0]      0:1    Morris, James        AUS   2270 [0]  
11 Ikeda, Junta          AUS   2262 [0]      1:0    Nyberg, Michael      NZL   1969 [0]  
12 Lynn, William         NZL   1962 [0]      0:1    Feldman, Vladimir    AUS   2262 [0]  
13 Lukey, Stephen G      NZL   2244 [0]      1:0    Wang, Oscar          AUS   1942 [0]  
14 Deen-Cowell, Nicholas AUS   1917 [0]      0:1    Steadman, Michael    NZL   2242 [0]  
15 Oliver, Gareth        AUS   2210 [0]      1:0    Forster, William     NZL   1908 [0]  
16 Setiabudi, Allen      AUS   1906 [0]      0:1    Brown, Andrew        AUS   2175 [0]  
17 Tan, Justin           AUS   2161 [0]      1:0    Voon, Richard        AUS   1904 [0]  
18 Goundar, Sanmogam     FIJ   1904 [0]      0:1    Schon, Eugene        AUS   2157 [0]  
19 Ogada-Osir, Ibrahim   AUS   2152 [0]      1:0    Shaw, Robin A        AUS   1903 [0]  
20 Dolejs, Dan           NZL   1892 [0]      0:1    Johnson, Quentin J F NZL   2128 [0]  
21 Marcos, Joselito      PNG   2095 [0]     .5:.5   Gloistein, Bruce     NZL   1817 [0]  
22 Bishop, Joshua        AUS   1797 [0]     .5:.5   Jones, Brian A       AUS   2067 [0]  
23 Press, Shaun P        PNG   2067 [0]     .5:.5   Cooper, Nigel        NZL   1769 [0]  
24 Antoniazzi, Francesco AUS   1685 [0]      0:1    Pinic, Noel          NZL   2058 [0]  
25 Stevens, Tristan      AUS   2050 [0]      1:0    Mitchell, Robert S   NZL   1672 [0]  
26 Bennett, Matthew      AUS   1650 [0]     .5:.5   Milligan, Helen      NZL   2048 [0]  
27 Zulfic, Fedja         AUS   2024 [0]      1:0    Qin, Tomson          AUS        [0]  
28 Yao, Winston          NZL        [0]     .5:.5   Fitzpatrick, Andrew  AUS   2023 [0]

A wonderful competitive index for this event

R1: 328

**MOZ** · 02-22-2011, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by Garvinator on chesschat

I think it is also about cost benefit analysis. Trent, and others would rather play in events where they feel they are playing people of similar ability and have even chances to win, rather than playing in events where they are bottom seeds and will spend the first three or four rounds getting crushed most of the time.

It is one of the oddities of the sport that throws players of all standards into the same tournament in the same division, or at least only divides them minimally.

I can think of no other sport that does this.

Well, well, well.

Two more declare themselves for events structured so that a high proportion of the games are personally competitive.
(Has only taken about the best part of a decade for some.

).

Now, let us see if they can turn to the solution...the divisionalised intermingling Swiss.

**antichrist** · 02-22-2011, 09:12 PM

Originally Posted by Garvinator on chesschat
I think it is also about cost benefit analysis. Trent, and others would rather play in events where they feel they are playing people of similar ability and have even chances to win, rather than playing in events where they are bottom seeds and will spend the first three or four rounds getting crushed most of the time.

It is one of the oddities of the sport that throws players of all standards into the same tournament in the same division, or at least only divides them minimally.

I can think of no other sport that does this.

AC
from Dec ratings on CC:
Trent Parker - 35 1611!!
antichrist - 0 1477??

now last time I met Trent I said: now trent I know your rating has gone up over mine but I am going to kick your butt like I have always done, and lo & behold, that is what I did. And contrary to Trent I appreciate being in the lower end of the top group and taking on the big names in first round, and giving them a fright.

**antichrist** · 02-22-2011, 09:25 PM

But on ACF list I am still 1515?? ???

maybe one is a rapid rating but on ACF list rapid rating list I am not mentioned

**MOZ** · 06-14-2011, 08:56 PM

Originally Posted by antichrist

Originally Posted by another poster on chesschat
"I think it is also about cost benefit analysis. Trent, and others would rather play in events where they feel they are playing people of similar ability..."

It is one of the oddities of the sport that throws players of all standards into the same tournament in the same division, or at least only divides them minimally.

I can think of no other sport that does this.

AC

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.

**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.

**Iconoclast** · 06-19-2011, 05:50 PM

Originally Posted by MOZ

More analysis to come.

..........

12-29-2009, 11:29 AM	#61 (permalink)
Firegoat7 Moderator Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Getting owned by White in the Dragon and trying to recover lost positions from shock paralysis OTB Posts: 1,903 ICC Handle: guest	Bloody nora Grant, This is Moz's baby the infamous competitive index! It has all sorts of measuring and hidden statistical number thingys And then you jump in with your high falutin opinion about the swiss system. Take it to your own thread buddy! Leave Moz to his own devices, as he espouses the merits of a competitive index! Remember don't make eye contact and back away slowly. cheers, Moz* edit....Too late, I have a response to Grant's post on my TO-DO-OVER list. __________________ "...What I meant? Dear Mr Ian Rout (ACF news publisher) could you please put Ozchessforum in the next news letter! There is no reason to hide this forum from the Australian chess public. What they meant? Sorry, No english!- Amir Karibasic Last edited by MOZ : 12-29-2009 at 03:00 PM

01-01-2010, 10:41 PM	#62 (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: 3,492	Originally Posted by MOZ Round 1 Competitive index is 516 Round 2 Competitive index is 371 Round 3 Competitive index is 643 Round 4 Competitive index is 490 Round 5 Competitive index is 417 Round 6 Competitive index is 376 Round 7 Competitive index is 449 __________________ FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

01-02-2010, 03:07 PM	#63 (permalink)
Il cavaliere inesistente Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 196	Very Competitive Originally Posted by MOZ Round 4 Competitive index is 490 Round 5 Competitive index is 417 Round 6 Competitive index is 376 Round 7 Competitive index is 449 Wow! and we did all that?

01-05-2010, 09:21 PM	#64 (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: 3,492	Still my position. 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.

01-05-2010, 09:31 PM	#65 (permalink)
Just2Good Tin Cup Champ 2004 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Cairns Posts: 6,039 ICC Handle: Advantage FICS Handle: Advantage	Originally Posted by MOZ Round 4 Competitive index is 490 Round 5 Competitive index is 417 Round 6 Competitive index is 376 Round 7 Competitive index is 449 So, this question is probably a little late - but how exactly does this competitive index work? __________________ . "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." ~ Buckminster Fuller ~

03-11-2010, 09:32 AM	#66 (permalink)
CarrierPigeon Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Flying All Over The Place Posts: 106	You have got mail from Australia's premier CHESS BLOG^ The old 'round 1 moves to round 3 comment'' as good today as it was in yesterday. In what is clearly a good sign for Australian chess, the traditional Ballarat Begonia Open attracted a record field of 123 players. This 7 round event is still run in a single section, meaning that determining an outright winner can be a bit tricky in an unmodified swiss. Therefore it was run as an accelerated swiss, although as the last Olympiad showed, acceleration often moves the round 1 mismatches up to round 3. One player who received a harder than expected first round pairing was WFM Emma Guo. Passing on the ACT Championships (she had committed to Ballarat before the ACT Champs details wear announced) she had to play top see IM Stephen Solomon in round 1. Solomon,Stephen - Guo,Emma [B42] Ballarat Begonia Open, 06.03.2010 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6 5.Nc3 Qc7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Bd3 Be7 8.f4 d6 9.0-0 Nc6 10.Qf3 h5 11.e5 Ng4 12.Nxc6 Qxc6 13.Bd4 Qxf3 14.Rxf3 dxe5 15.fxe5 0-0 16.Ne4 Bd7 17.Rg3 Kh8 18.Rf1 Bc6 19.c3 Rad8 20.Rf4 g6 21.Nd6 Bxd6 22.exd6+ e5 (D) 23.Rfxg4 exd4 24.Rxd4 Rd7 25.b4 Rc8 26.Rg5 Kg7 27.Bf5 1-0 Even with acceleration, the winning score was still 6.5/7, acheived by FM Erik Teichmann. There was a 3 way tie for second between IM Stephen Solomon, IM Leonid Sandler and FM Bobby Cheng, all on 6. ^source: chessexpress

03-12-2010, 11:23 AM	#67 (permalink)
antichrist Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Byron Bay, NSW Posts: 2,527	Originally Posted by Firegoat7 Bloody nora Grant, This is Moz's baby the infamous competitive index! It has all sorts of measuring and hidden statistical number thingys And then you jump in with your high falutin opinion about the swiss system. Take it to your own thread buddy! Leave Moz to his own devices, as he espouses the merits of a competitive index! Remember don't make eye contact and back away slowly. cheers, Moz* edit....Too late, I have a response to Grant's post on my TO-DO-OVER list. How would you compare it to Axiom's conspiracies? And how with Jono's fanaticism about the Bible? And Bill and KB's obsession about this place? And mine with Serena Williams? And Pauline Hanson's about the Asians? I forgot this is supposed to be about chess?? And with Bill's Glilcko 2?

03-12-2010, 01:37 PM	#68 (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: 3,492	Originally Posted by antichrist How would you compare it to Axiom's conspiracies? And how with Jono's fanaticism about the Bible? And Bill and KB's obsession about this place? And mine with Serena Williams? And Pauline Hanson's about the Asians? I forgot this is supposed to be about chess?? And with Bill's Glilcko 2? We can measure some of these a/c. Let us take them 1 by 1. Q. How would you compare it to Axiom's conspiracies? Ax's are always ahead of the pack. Whereas CI's are always after the event. Q. And how with Jono's fanaticism about the Bible? Jono only preaches to the converted, Whereas Ax and I have topics that are debatable. Q. And Bill and KB's obsession about this place? You are on the wrong track on this one. Neither stood for MOD elections. Q. And mine with Serena Williams? Your attraction grows bigger each year. ... I forgot this is supposed to be about chess?? Q. And with Bill's Glilcko 2? Just the best rating system there is. __________________ FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

02-22-2011, 10:19 AM	#70 (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: 3,492	Originally Posted by Garvinator on chesschat I think it is also about cost benefit analysis. Trent, and others would rather play in events where they feel they are playing people of similar ability and have even chances to win, rather than playing in events where they are bottom seeds and will spend the first three or four rounds getting crushed most of the time. It is one of the oddities of the sport that throws players of all standards into the same tournament in the same division, or at least only divides them minimally. I can think of no other sport that does this. Well, well, well. Two more declare themselves for events structured so that a high proportion of the games are personally competitive. (Has only taken about the best part of a decade for some.). Now, let us see if they can turn to the solution...the divisionalised intermingling Swiss. __________________ FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

02-22-2011, 09:12 PM	#71 (permalink)
antichrist Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Byron Bay, NSW Posts: 2,527	Originally Posted by Garvinator on chesschat I think it is also about cost benefit analysis. Trent, and others would rather play in events where they feel they are playing people of similar ability and have even chances to win, rather than playing in events where they are bottom seeds and will spend the first three or four rounds getting crushed most of the time. It is one of the oddities of the sport that throws players of all standards into the same tournament in the same division, or at least only divides them minimally. I can think of no other sport that does this. AC from Dec ratings on CC: Trent Parker - 35 1611!! antichrist - 0 1477?? now last time I met Trent I said: now trent I know your rating has gone up over mine but I am going to kick your butt like I have always done, and lo & behold, that is what I did. And contrary to Trent I appreciate being in the lower end of the top group and taking on the big names in first round, and giving them a fright.

02-22-2011, 09:25 PM	#72 (permalink)
antichrist Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Byron Bay, NSW Posts: 2,527	But on ACF list I am still 1515?? ??? maybe one is a rapid rating but on ACF list rapid rating list I am not mentioned

06-14-2011, 08:56 PM	#73 (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: 3,492	Originally Posted by antichrist Originally Posted by another poster on chesschat "I think it is also about cost benefit analysis. Trent, and others would rather play in events where they feel they are playing people of similar ability..." It is one of the oddities of the sport that throws players of all standards into the same tournament in the same division, or at least only divides them minimally. I can think of no other sport that does this. AC 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. __________________ FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

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: 3,492	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.

06-19-2011, 05:50 PM	#75 (permalink)
Iconoclast Immoderator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wollongong NSW Posts: 2,302	Originally Posted by MOZ More analysis to come. .......... __________________ The individual is hopeless without the group. The group is hopeless without its individuals.

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