2009 Nationals, Day 5

[Alex_Moiseyev]

I am wondering who will get a bye in last two rounds ? Could this determine a winner of event ?

[Alex_Moiseyev]

In my opinion the top master players should be required to play the last few rounds, even if they haven't had byes yet, but the computer disagrees.

In my opinion - too, I agree with your impression. It was very big risk decision to run 13 rounds for 15 players.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

John, much better system would be - run Robin Round for 14 players. This simply means that my good friend Ron Bailey with whom I played in 1996 National in Danville can went to Major Division ... or someone else. Unfortunately, ACF is very kind at this point and never kick off anyone from higher Division.

In addition, there should be 6 playing days: 1 Day - 3 rounds, and 5 days - 2 rounds.

And, if number of players in Master Division some year would be below 14 - extra players from Major Division with high ratings can be added here.

Simple. Obvious. Clever.

I proposed this option to Dr. Beckwith some time in the beginning of this year, but ACF has the same problem as WCDF - they don't listen well experienced people ... and as result we are facing today in last two rounds very interesting situation !

Regards,

Alex

[rich beckwith]

A couple brief notes on the above....

Someone was asked to drop down to majors to make 14 people and round-robin in masters, but person refused. Another consideration,....it
would look bad if someone dropped down to majors, and then a master player later withdrew creating a new odd number in the middle of a round robin (although that didn't happen in this case).

There were three days where we played 6 games per day. Most every game ended well on time. (I had to do move-a-minute once, but time pressure did not impact this lost ending.) So, I'm not sure of the benefit to having a sixth day -- it would just make everyone pay for another night of a hotel room.
We tried 4-game rounds at GAYP in Dublin 2005, but we had some situations such as Ron King getting 8 points of my good friend Mr. Albrecht when fatigue set in, and no one could ever catch King after his 8-point bonanza. You also get to play fewer people with 8 rounds. Of course, we still do 8 rounds at 3-move Nationals because of unique tough deck concept.

As for the current business....Going into last round, Jim Morrison and Joe Schwartz have 32 points. I have 31 pts and Hallett 30, but I don't think (?) anyone else has enough honor points to catch Joe and Jim, even if there were a tie. So.....Joe and Jim will play off for National title soon!

[Eric Strange]

Couldn't you still do a round robin by just adding a bye? I think both John and Alex have very good points. I think 5 senior members should get together and come up with a few solid ideas and take votes on a system that will always work. That would prevent future stress for other tournaments. I would give an opinion myself but you all would know more than me about that topic.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Hi, Rich ! Good luck to you in last round.

Someone was asked to drop down to majors to make 14 people and round-robin in masters, but person refused.

This is not a problem at all, because this person shouldn't be asked, but should be told. It should be a straight and solid, inpersonal criteria of cut off condition - rating. S,o the person who has lower rating should be aware that there is always a chance that he/she can't stay in Master Division - due to exceeding limit (14) of players.

Format of National Master Division - 14 players, Round Robin, 5 (or 6) days must be permanent and unchangable for many years - as we had it before with 4 games round, 6 playable days. Time for experiments must be over !

if someone dropped down to majors, and then a master player later withdrew creating a new odd number in the middle of a round robin

Any withdrew is very unfortunate thing and hurt someone in one or other way. Not an easy solution anyway. Based on my Anglo-American checkers experience (more than 100 events in 13 years), mostly (not always, indeed) people withdrew from bottom of tournament, not from the top. In this case giving 3 points will not be a best option in all cases but acceptable.

There were three days where we played 6 games per day. Most every game ended well on time. (I had to do move-a-minute once, but time pressure did not impact this lost ending.) So, I'm not sure of the benefit to having a sixth day

OK, agree. I just proposed 6 days because of John remark about very tie format with small time for rest and entertainment. I am OK with either 5 or 6 days.

We tried 4-game rounds at GAYP in Dublin 2005, but we had some situations such as Ron King getting 8 points of my good friend Mr. Albrecht when fatigue set in, and no one could ever catch King after his 8-point bonanza.

It was a bad business decision in 2005. If we play 4 games, it should be micro-match and player gets only 4 points - thats what we had in the past. if we switch to counting every game, we need only 2 games round.

As for the current business....Going into last round, Jim Morrison and Joe Schwartz have 32 points. I have 31 pts and Hallett 30

This is a little bit in conflict with information which John posted after 11 rounds. Anyway - good luck to all of you, guys.

Excellent tournament !

Yesterday the tournament referee Kim Wills, my secret agent, reported me confidentally on Kurnik, that there were no any serious conflicts or issues during the tournament. This is certainly great news and way to go !

Who gets a bye in last round ?

Regards,

AM

[BillyBoy]

Go Richard! Take it all the way

[Eric Strange]

That is a hard topic to discuss. I think if EVERYONE got a 1 bye or 2 bye it would be okay as long as it was even for everyone. forcing someone to move into a division (as long as they don't belong in that division in the first place) seems unfair. If you move someone to a lower division who belongs in a higher division based off of evening numbers it would be unfair for the players in that lower division. I think that would discourage the players who are learning and might be trying to compete for first in their division. If someone drops out in the middle we should just automatically give every player full point wins against that player whether they played him or not. That would discourage dropping out in the middle and also keep it fair. At the same time nothing would have to be done to adjust the tournament in case of situations like that. It still keeps the round robin fairness.

[Ingo_Zachos]

There is another possibility:

Use a group system:
It means to play the tournament in two stages:

1. preliminary rounds:
ALL entries play 7 round Swiss System.

2. group rounds:
then the field is divided into 3 divisions, determined by the ranking after 7 rounds.

The three groups then play another 6 rounds Swiss system.

In that way you can avoid byes in the masters, if you make it a group with an even number of players.
Also, there is no ranking needed ( except maybe to determine the first round pairings)to determine who plays in which group.

And there should be enough possibilities to have reasonable pairings.

A variation could be to let the best 7 players after the preliminary rounds (Masters) play a round robin to determine the Champion and majors and minors play Swiss System.

There is a rule of thumb for a Swiss System:
The number of players should be at least 1,5 times the number of rounds
In 13 Rounds that would be 19,5 i.e 20 players.
For 15 players 10 rounds should be okay, but 13 is too much.

Greetinx from hot Dortmund,

Ingo Zachos

[Eric Strange]

I've just never been a swiss fan myself. Just seems like good strategy would be to lose your first round and then smooth sailing from there.

[Ingo_Zachos]

In chess, Eric that is called a "Swiss Gambit".
Two draws in the first will do the same.
The setback is that your honour points remain low if you lose points too early, so you have to score a point advantage to your direct rivals, as their tie breaker is better.
Also it is more difficult to score full points the harder the opponet is in the last rounds...

Ingo

[jimloy]

Another solution is to have one big tournament (as is usually done in chess), not three. After five or six rounds, the Masters would be playing Masters and top Majors and the tournament would become mostly like the current three tournaments. But throughout the tournament, the byes would be given to the Minors and not to the Masters. Consider it. It works well.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

[jimloy]

Another solution is to have one big tournament (as is usually done in chess), not three. After five or six rounds, the Masters would be playing Masters and top Majors and the tournament would become mostly like the current three tournaments. But throughout the tournament, the byes would be given to the Minors and not to the Masters. Consider it. It works well.

Jim, in this setting would the initial pairing be ratings-based or random? In other words, if my performance rating is 2000, how long would it take for me to play others in that range?

I'm not sure how quickly you will play people of your division. A wild guess would be about the third round. If you are doing really well or really badly, you may play more players in the divisions above and below. It has been many years since I directed a chess tournament. Maybe someone else can make a better guess.

I assume it would be based upon ratings (top half playing bottom half), but that is up to the ACF. There is also something called accelerated pairings (with top quarter playing second quarter and third quarter playing fourth quarter) which usually pairs players from the same divisions faster. It was very pleasant in the one tournament in which I played that used that feature. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_syst ... d_pairings or various chess sites for an explanation. I assume all of the Swiss System computer programs have that feature.