New system in 3-moves Natl.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

It will be better to open new tread for this subject and leave ratings alone in other topic.

When we voted in 2006 (or 2004 ?) for new system in 3-moves National, we had two or three choices (don't remember, maybe Richard help us). One option was old system, Another option was - scoring each game and I am not sure if we had ballot scoring as option.

In fact, all good masters were very afraid of letting each game to be scored and voted for old system only ... including myself.

if we want new voting, we have to exclude scoring each game - this will be much better.

So ... I think as of now there are 3 options to be considered:

1) Old Swiss system with 8 rounds and 4 games in each round where winner takes all points.

2) Swiss system, 8 rounds, 4 games per round and score each ballot separately.

3) My proposal: play Robin Round 16 players, 2 games per round and score by ballot.

Your thoughts, ladies and gentlemens ?

Repectfully,

Alex Moiseyev

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Alex, does your system entail just taking the top 16 players by rating, or would there be a formal rating cutoff?

Great question, John ! To be honest - I don't have a clear mind and finalize everything, and any suggestions here would be very appreciated.

In general I though about something like ...

1) Real grandmasters / masters, 6-8, maybe 10 players
2) Majors players who is willing to volunteer and play in Masters, 4-6 players.
3) Rest to cover up 16 - players who is not willing to volunteer but have a high enough rating. Just executive order.

Hmmm ... any better ideas ?

We have to stick permanently into 16 and make it a tradition for years to come. First one-two times it will be challenging, but then people will adopt this system.

Robin Round is very attractive system and I beleive (am I wrong or too ambitious ?) we shouldn't have much problems with volunteers ... especially if we put more money into Masters Division Fund.

Alex

[Chexhero]

Alex, I know you want to keep this topic separate from the ratings, but we have a conflict if we use option number 1 and 3. Each round in the rating system counts as two games. If we use option number 1, winner take all, then it wont work because not only are there 4 games a round, too many for the system to handle, but not every game gets counted anyway. The ratings formula that is used is not meant to calculate rounds like that. It could be done, but it could cause the ratings to become highly inaccurate. Number 3 would be even worse because the ballot played would only count as one game in the system if I were to enter it that way. For example, if you beat me in a ballot, you get two points for the tournament, but when I enter that into the system, it will only read it as one game played and would mess everything up. John's idea which is option 2 would actually work best. If 2 ballots are played then we can count each ballot as a game played in the system. If you beat me in one ballot, you would get two points, and if we tie another we would both get one point and the score would be 3-1. This can be entered as the equivalent of two games in the system. Entering data that reads 2-0 would not work, which is why playing one ballot would not work well when it comes to the ratings. Now option 1 could be used, but like me and Eric said, seems to be a bit extreme. But option 2 would work perfectly. So in the end, of the 3 choices that you offer, I would go with option 2 because it makes my job A LOT easier. Honestly though, I don't want to be a dictator in all this, but would rather do what most players would prefer doing.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Joe, you brought interesting points but this is related only to ratings, so ... it's not really my problem as player I would not connect both these problems - it's separate independent issues.

System is system, rating is rating. System of course is on top, and rating just serve it. We cannot let ratings commend - how we should score points, this is absurd.

If we'll have voting - you can bring your considerations to players and endorse option #2 !

Regards,

Alex

[Alex_Moiseyev]

I forgot to say ... my preferences are in the following order (see list of options above):

3, 1, 2

And of course, as native Russian, I am most democratic person in the world and whatever people decide - so be it !

We can ask Richard to prepare announcemenets about voting in April and July ACFB issues, and we can publish all pro- and contra arguments. And you also can publish everything you said and deliver your message. It will be a right democratic process which just force people to think and make a right decision.

But ... players should not learn about voting when they come to event. If we fail with advertisement - no changes this year !

Alex

[Chexhero]

Joe, you brought interesting points but this is related only to ratings, so ... it's not really my problem as player I would not connect both these problems - it's separate independent issues.

System is system, rating is rating. System of course is on top, and rating just serve it. We cannot let ratings commend - how we should score points, this is absurd.

Alex these are not two independent issues. The scoring for the tournament will affect how the ratings are done and their accuracy. It can become your problem and other players problems if your ratings get really thrown off. I am not trying to be mean or pushy, I just want you and other players to consider that your ratings will be affected based on how the tournament scoring is done. You favor option 3, but like I said, it will not work well at all within the current rating system. I am just suggesting that option 2 would work best with the system. But anyway, everything I said in my last message I would like to be published.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

You favor option 3, but like I said, it will not work well at all within the current rating system.

WOW, i am learning more about rating system and am very curious. Option 3 is simple 0-1-2 scoring system and even more - these numbers from each round are written exactly in final standing cross table.

Never mind, everyone has a rights to deliver message. Option 2 has it's own points and backers, indeed, but obviously not because of rating.

BTW. Joe, I am very glad and want to thank you for supporting this conversation and trying to build arguments and discuss serious things. I am in favor to change system if it helps better to achieve it's main goal: proper real ranking players.

Rating only "reflects" performance, but system itself motivate it !

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Here is a deal ...

I am going to write an article for ACFB April issue to endorse and argue option #3 to get out of old 4 games system. I hope John, Ryan, Richard or someone else help me with editing my English

At the same I think it make alot os sense, if Joe also writes his article for publication in the same issue and endorse option #2 which is perfectly match and fit existing rating procedure.

And if someone else is in favor of option #1 - they also indeed can write and support their choice and arguments.

In this case voting in Lebanon will not be surprize for anyone who plans to play in Master Division.

Referee also must be ready for any result of vote and be prepared.

But before doing anything - ACF Executive Committee should approve voting, options and wording on election ballot.

Respectfully,

Alex Moiseyev

[Chexhero]

Thanks Alex for your support. I am really ok with whatever option is chosen. I just want players to know that certain tournament scoring methods will affect their rating differently. I acknowledge we have a slight conflict here and would hope ACF can vote for a reasonable solution.

Honestly, I still believe in game by game scoring the most, but if this is not an option due to it already being voted out years ago I will gladly argue for option 2.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Thanks Alex for your support.

And same thing on my end. Thanks for discussion and productive conversation. We both are on the same page - to improve the process of National, promote game, encourage players and give them a choice and options.

I will contact with ACF Execs on this matter, though Alan, Richard and Kim also can read this ... and we'll go from there. I know that Alan highly wanted to improve existing system and Richard also was in favor of scoring per ballot and could support option #2 or #3.

Option #3 which I suppot, has some complications because requires other changes around and is quite "revolutional" Option #2 has a good chance to win hearts. I am still thinking

Others opinion are highly wanted and appreciated.

Respectfully,

Alex Moiseyev

[Eric Strange]

1) Old Swiss system with 8 rounds and 4 games in each round where winner takes all points.

2) Swiss system, 8 rounds, 4 games per round and score each ballot separately.

3) My proposal: play Robin Round 16 players, 2 games per round and score by ballot.


1) winner takes all points out of 2 ballots is highly extreme and pretty much impossible and completely unfair to put in the ratings system.

2) This would be great for rating system because it would reflect skill level in 3 move for this large tournament very well in ratings.

3) This system would work fine in the ratings system scoring each half of the ballot as a max of 2 points and seems like a very fun system. I am a huge supporter of round robin and think it is by far the fairest system.
However there is one downfall to this. Being able to draw the strong side of a 3-move opening and losing the weak side rubs me the wrong way because even a mid to low major level player can often times draw a master
if the ballot is extremely lopsided.

!?!? Would a winner takes all on system #3 be a good way to handle this? It seems like a compromise between 1. 2. and 3. and I cannot see very many problems with it off of the top of my head. What are your opinions on this proposal?!?!

I would say this could even be a good way to score all tournaments in the future! It seems like the fairest and most accurate scoring method.

[Chexhero]

Well this is what I would actually propose then as the option I would want. I want option 3, as long as I can record every game in the ratings. We can score the tournament by round, but continue to rate players according to games. Considering it will only be two games per ballot, I don't think many players would reject this.

[Eric Strange]

counting both sides of the 3-move opening is fine, most openings are pretty equal anyways

[Alex_Moiseyev]

most openings are pretty equal anyways

OMG And this provi wants to play in Master Division ???

[Eric Strange]

Ha, I never claimed to be a master in 3-move, provie.

But Joe made a good point, if Joe loses one half and draws the other vs someone and Nick loses both sides vs someone and they had same opening for whatever reason. there should be some reward (or lack of punishment) for that.

When we meet in person Alex, we are setting up a board and I am going to show you who the provie is