With an odd number of rounds in the current US Championship, it would have been an opportunity to try a different scoring method I proposed years ago. Four points for a win with Black; three for a win with White; two for a draw with Black; and one point for a draw with White (Someone mentioned it would be better to have only one and a half points for a draw with Black-I’m sure the math inclined, like the baseball sabermetricians, can come up with a better system, but you get the idea). How would it affect this tournament? Would it not be better to ‘reward’ the player with an extra Black the chance to score more than the player with the extra White?
Michael Bacon
A similar system rewarding black was tried in Seattle a few years ago in a tournament that attracted some top name players (Akobian, Shabalov, Serper, Mikhalevski, Ftacnik). I’m sure a few people liked it, but the overall failure can be measured by the lack of any future events under similar scoring schemes.
Michael Aigner
When Clinton Ballard ran that event, he specifically made sure there was an even number of rounds so everyone would have color equalization. That flies in the face of nocab’s premise.
What would be the FIDE norm requirements under such a scoring system?
If it is sanctioned for FIDE norms, I could see some odd mathematical possibilities occurring in a Swiss or a Round-robin.
Say, a player four points short of norm with two rounds to go with a White then Black color assignments upcoming would want to “fold” an inferior endgame w/ the White pieces (say, defending R vs. R+B) in the next-to-last round, so that they would get paired down (or at the least, a long night’s sleep) so that they will have better chances scoring the full four points with the Black pieces in the last round. Or other unforseen drawbacks.
For FIDE purposes, including ratings, normal scoring would be used. Only the prizes would be based on the different point system.
I don’t believe the FIDE rating or norm requirements are affected by what point system (or really what pairing system) was used, just who played who, like the USCF rating system.
However, I’m unaware of any clamoring among top players for a radical change in the way the US Championship is paired.
I wouldn’t say that about pairing systems not affecting norm requirements. I know of at least one pairing system, Schiller System, not allowed by FIDE for norm purposes currently.
Now would the scoring system affect how pairings would be done or only for prize purposes? If they affecting pairings, then you could have two problems with norms - one that they wouldn’t get accepted, and two you could end up with players whose avg rating of opponents could be affected negatively thus making norm requirements more tight.
It would be interesting to see what percentage of players in typical tournaments have one color two more times after the 4th, or 6th(, maybe 8th or 10th) round. These can partially be fixed if followed by the next (odd) round, but not if this is where the tournament ends.
Of course a round robin will have an odd number of rounds in any event although the colors will even out with an odd number of players.
I’ve heard of the Schiller system but don’t recall any of the specifics. Presumably that’s because of FIDE regulation 1.42g:
BTW, Sevan, it’s generally thought that a player cannot achieve a norm with a win or draw in the last round of an event, though I cannot find anything in the FIDE handbook specifically saying that. Can you?
I’m not sure I understand your question here. Maybe you mean draw or loss but even that isn’t accurate.
The norm is based on a variety of topics such as the avg rating of your opponents, meeting the correct mix of titled players for the title being sought, the correct mix of total titled players, and the mix of foreign federations needed.
Foreign federation mix can be waived in a Swiss if a different provision exists.
Now if you are saying that a loss in the final round disqualifies a norm that’s incorrect assuming that a .5 or 1 pt were not needed. So if in a 9R event the person scored their norm requirement by Round 8, they need to play the round 9 opponent (can’t be a no-show forfeit win) but the result is truly meaningless because the norm score was achieved by the 8th round (or earlier). Now this can get a bit hairy in a Swiss if you don’t know who your 9th round player is because if it breaks the other rules of what you need (titled player, foreign federation, etc) then you can get hosed. Or if the rating of the player is so low that it increases your norm requirement.
Schiller System was used once in London I believe (and the only time). I find that Schiller System is a better solution than the typical RR norm event.
Schiller System you have 4 teams of 3 players each. You play all participants NOT on your team. So a 9R-Schiller would have 12 players in it.
You can place all of the IM’s together on the same team (so you avoid IM-IM draws) since to keep their rating intact they can’t take willy nilly draws with the norm seekers.
All other rules stay intact - foreign federation requirement, rating, etc.