Just curious if any of you TD’s can provide an appx. distribution of classes at large Swiss tournaments. (i.e., what % of players are Unrated, U1200, U1400 … Open). I’m sure it varies based on location, prize fund, number of players, etc., but any general observations and estimates are appreciated.
Why, you ask? Initially, I started wondering about prize fund distribution at the big HB Open in Minneapolis next May (and my likelihood of getting a slice, of course ). Since I’m currently working on programming systems involving simulations, I decided it would be a good exercise to write a simulation of a chess tournament.
Each area of the United States can draw different kinds of players with different types of ratings. Since you’re state of Washington will draw different amounts and different rating levels then say the state of Wyoming. It would be best to look at the MSA with tournaments in the state of Washington. Check knowed tournament directors in you’re state of Washington in the MSA, see how many players did show up and what was the level of players that came.
After that call or email the directors in you’re state, find out what they understand as the type of players would show up for some type of prize fund, what level of players would show up for the longer time controls, or the type of players would show up for a two day or the one day tournaments.
The general rule for time controls, the longer the time controls the older the average age of the players at the tournament. Having a G/90 does not bring in that many scholastic players into a non-age limit tournament; on the other hand having a G/30 would bring in more scholastic players into a non-age limit tournament – having a fast time control does lower the average age of the players.
Having a G/30 is more designed for the scholastic players and players in there 20’s. Having a tournament with a time control of G/30 and a time control of G/90, could see a shift of adverage ratings around 200 or 300 points. As players within the class D and Class E would be less willing to drive to a city – that would make it a much longer day. It would drive the parents with scholastic children from going to a tournament with long time controls. It would bring in the stronger players, as some stronger players are not that active, say less then 20 games in a given year as being not that active. There are a number of personal reasons why adult players hate too play with a scholastic player in a non-age tournament.
You should be talking one on one with the directors in you’re state. Get the feeback as each state is a little different with the amount of players and the rating class of the players.
I have occasionally run calculations like this on my tournaments; one that I have lying around is the Western Pacific Open last April – M 20%, X 15%, A 24%, B 15 %, C 18%, D/below 7%, Unr 1%. I found it tedious and not very useful. Note that all the raw data you want is available in the crossstables at the MSA section. For what you are describing, you should probably look up the last few World Opens, and maybe Foxwoods. The High Roller player pool is not identical to the one that shows up at local tournaments, though whether they are statistically different is another question.
Having 59% with a rating over 1800 at a tournament is nice. Having a tournament designed for the stronger players only drives the average USCF players out of the factor. Having a high prize fund with a high entry fee only works to bring in the most stronge players in the nation. Just like the “Chicago Open” with a entry fee around $250 – only makes sure the stronger players are welcomed to the tournament.
If you really want to discuss this, you should start a different thread – it doesn’t belong here. It is a subject worth debating, though I am not interested in doing so myself (got tired of it a long time ago).
Thanks for the help. The tip on the crosstables available in the MSA was particularly helpful. I’m finding all kinds of useful information there I didn’t know was available. It’s also raised some questions, which I’ll post in a different thread.
I just wish they provided an easier to manipulate downloadable format so I wouldn’t have to do a lot of parsing to extract statistical data. Any ideas on that? Even if that’s not available, it’s still very useful. Thanks again.
I could send you rating-order crosstables for the major tournaments in S. CA (I keep the SwissSys backup files) if you really want them. Possibly Bill Goichberg could do the same for his tournaments, but I doubt he has the time. You’d have to ask Mike Nolan whether the MSA output can be resorted by rating.
). Since I’m currently working on programming systems involving simulations, I decided it would be a good exercise to write a simulation of a chess tournament.