The following relates to Quads. Which is clearly a concern for tournaments, but also a concern for many a club that runs quad events. For that reason I have put it in just this 1 forum, but please feel free to put it in other forums if you think it appropriate.
The USCF for years now has had the same standardized Quad sheets that are used in the US for Quad events. One feature of those sheets is a small pairing table for use in the Quad. Why do the higher rated players automatically get White in the first round and usually 2 Whites for the event?
I do understand that the Round Robin tables are taken from the FIDE Round Robin tables. However, this makes sense for a FIDE event as the player positions are determined by random drawing. In the US players are ranked by their rating and then the pairings are made. Without the random draw this gives the higher rated players in the Quads an advantage (of two Whites).
Now I do know that there are some out there who run Quads where colors are equal after 2 rounds, with the players drawing lots (or pawns) to determine the colors in the final round. Under this system I believe that only 1 of the 2 highest rated players in the Quad will have 2 Whites in the event. This is more like what would happen in a swiss with an odd number of rounds.
Why not like a swiss draw lots to see who has White in the first round for a Quad event? You could then continue in either of the above Quad procedures listed above. For that matter why not run a Quad where the lower rated players get the 2 Whites? Where is the equity and fairness in always giving the higher rated players the extra White in a Quad? Any other ideas or comments about this?
Actually, I believe the USCF recommends tossing for colors in the third round. I’ve never considered it worth the trouble, since there was already a “chance” determination of who the highest rated player in each section would be.
If you really don’t like giving the highest-rated players an automatic second White, another option is to randomize the pairing numbers in each section.
Most of my experience with quads dates back to the early seventies, when we might get ~80-100 players. The advantage of a quad was that you could start it quickly and it didn’t need much supervision. Drawing for colors in each section would have been, ah, counterproductive.
I ran a few about six years ago, but with computer parings/wallcharts, I found that a small Swiss was more flexible and hardly any more trouble.
This seems like such a tiny little tempest in a teapot. It may be a problem if the exact same people showed up all the time, but otherwise it makes little difference. Most tournament players don’t even notice or care. They just want the rounds to get started on time.
In most sports, higher rank confers at least a little bit of privilege (ex. tennis). But if you like, just randomly order the players in each quad or rank them in the order they turned in their entry.
After breaking the players into sections by rating order, we have always shuffled the entry forms for each section and written the players down in random order.
In the rulebook, p. 293 “Round Robin Pairing Tables”:
“Pairing numbers are assigned by lot at the beginning of the event, unlike Swiss tournaments in which pairing numbers are determined by rating.”
Though for quads, the rulebook mentions on p. 173 :
“The preferred pairing table for quads is as follows: (Players’ numbers are assigned in order of rating, not randomly as in larger round robins.)
Round one: 1-4, 2-3; round two 3-1, 4-2; round three: 1-2, 3-4 (colors by toss in this round)”
Much simpler than randomizing each quad, and equally effective in allocating colors fairly, is the following:
In the top quad, determine by lot whether to list the players in rating order (1-2-3-4) or in reverse rating order (4-3-2-1). If listed in reverse, the lowest-rated becomes player number 1 in the round-robin tables, etc.
In the remaining quads, alternate the above choice. If the top quad is listed in order, list the second quad in reverse order, etc.
This system has the advantage of having only one coin toss (at the start of the tournament), while still randomizing the number of whites (1 or 2) given to the highest-rated player, or to any other player.
There was a quad sent to the USCF office a couple of years ago that had 48 sections. It came from a scholastic affiliate, so it was probably some kind of in-school event.
The Saturday scholastic quads are hugely popular in Northern California. I can think of about a half dozen each year that attract well over 150 players. The record for entries is probably in the range of 300; with less space now, they sometimes reach the site capacity.
Why quads? They’re easy to run, easy to explain to novice players (and their parents), and maybe most importantly, everyone has a reasonable chance to win a prize. Including ties for 1st, 40% of players go home with a trophy.
I haven’t a clue. I was overwhelmed by the fact that the players got into the whole selection thing…sorta like shooting craps before the chess tournament…