For those who run scholastic events as individual events but give out team prizes, what tiebreak system do you prefer? Do most people just use the MSCO default for individuals?
I know that the scholastic regs use different tiebreaks for both individuals and teams. For teams, they use total individual median, solkoff, SB, Cumulative, and then coin flip. Anyone have insight into how these were selected and why they are viewed as superior to MSCO?
No right answers here but I am looking for insight.
Do we agree that use something other than MSCO is a rule variation? If so, thoughts on whether this is a a variation that should be pre-announced?
Note that the scholastic regs uschess.org/images/stories/s … _final.pdf are listed as governing the eight listed National tournaments, not necessarily all scholastic tournaments. There are a lot of good procedures in them but some of them are overkill for local scholastic tournaments.
If memory serves me correctly, Sonnenborn-Berger was inserted before cumulative as a way of compensating for accelerated pairings in championship sections (the second quarter generally would start with a loss against a strong player while the third quarter would generally start with a win over a weak player and cumulative gives the edge to most 1-1 third quarters player over most 1-1 second quarter players). If you don’t accelerate then there is no need to insert SB.
I’d like somebody on the scholastic council to verify my memory and to state why modified median was eliminated from the list for team tie-breaks.
Um, wouldn’t it be simpler just to calculate cumulative tiebreaks slightly differently in the case of accelerated pairings? Simply omit the first-round score from the sum. For example, with 5 rounds, instead of adding the cumulative scores for rounds 1-5, just add them for rounds 2-5.
Not if you are dealing with very large sections and limited time to prepare results and awards. You need a system that the computer can do because you don’t have time to do it by hand.
If the pairing programs were to be updated to include the modification I suggested, the computer could do it.
My suggestion is not new, nor did it originate with me. Perhaps it is / was in one of the rulebooks, although I can’t find it right now. Or, maybe I saw it explained in a rule sheet posted by CCA at some of its tournaments.
In any case, it is a sensible suggestion, and the only way to make cumulative tiebreaks work as intended, when accelerated pairings are in use.
Modified median throws out two scores (high and low) for players with even scores, while only low score for players with above even scores, thus strongly disfavoring any team which has to include an even score in its high scorers.
If that’s the case, then modified median is a terrible team tie-break, and the scholastic council did well to eliminate it.
For “normal” (individual) events, this flaw doesn’t matter, since the penalized players will all have the same score anyway.
For individual-and-team events, something along the following lines would be better:
In an N-round event, for a player with a score of W, any opponent who scored worse than W+1-N/2 would count as W+1-N/2 instead, and any opponent who scored better than W-1+N/2 would count as W-1+N/2 instead.
For example, for a player in a 6-round event with a score of 3.5, an opponent scoring 1.5 or worse would count as 1.5, and an opponent scoring 5.5 or better would count as 5.5.
This formula would seem to embody the spirit of modified median without all the gorky discontinuities.
Hey! For that matter, why not change the definition of modified median to the above version even for regular individual events, too? It’s nicer, more uniform, and more continuous.
Yes, I know. Pairing programs would need to be modified. Full steam ahead.
No, it isn’t a variation. Rule 34E explicitly states “Unless a different method has been posted or announced before the start of the first round, players will expect the following sequence of tiebreak systems to be employed as the first four tiebreakers.” (emphasis mine) (Actually, my experience is that most players won’t have a clue what the tiebreak systems are, but hey, that’s just me. ) In other words, the rule itself provides for other choices of tiebreak systems.
While the rule requires notice of tiebreak systems to be posted before the start of the first round, I don’t see any need to announce tiebreak systems in pre-tournament publicity.
Thanks Ken. I was perhaps not careful with my word choice. I was using variation to mean something that needs to be posted/announced before Rd 1, and you’ve cited to the Rule that requires that.
As for my question about thoughts on whether or not another system “should” be included in pre-tournament publicity, I’m using should to ask for thoughts on best practices.
I do confess to some nitpicking here. (I will now give the reader time to recover from the surprise that I would be nitpicky.)
In a PM, someone asked me “isn’t this basically the definition of a minor variant?”. I wrote this in response:
I think there is a subtle difference. In this specific case, the rule is providing for a default order of tiebreak systems and explicitly stating that the organizer may use a different set of tiebreak systems. In other words, the rule itself says “you can do something else, you’re not obligated to follow this list.”
I tend to think of a variation as something that’s kinda sorta like the printed rule, but not quite. For example, a particular organizer only allows two incomplete move pairs on a scoresheet to claim a win on time. Rule 13C7 does not say “unless you announce something different, three incomplete move pairs.” In this case, CCA is doing something kinda sorta like rule 13C7 but not exactly.
I guess my argument is that when the rule says “you’re not obligated to do this” and you do something else, you are not varying from the behavior specified in the rule, so there is no variant (even though there is a requirement to announce what you’re doing).
(As an aside, the language of Rule 34E is “players will expect the following sequence of tiebreak systems to be employed as the first four tiebreakers.” That’s mealy-mouthed and poor rules language. Also, players seem to have many expectations that are to be found nowhere in the rules.)
One thing that wording does is it gives less experienced TDs something solid to point to as a way of resisting over-the-top parents and/or coaches that check to see how their kids’ tie-breaks come out and then try to get the TDs to use the best tie-break for their kids “because it is the most fair”.
Also, “announced” should not mean that verbal announcement is required. Written announcement – i.e. a notice posted during the on-site registration period and throughout the tournament – should suffice. There’s no good reason to clutter up the opening verbal announcements with nitpicky stuff like this. At this point players are chomping at the bit waiting to begin play.
Of course, if all prizes are monetary, there are no tiebreaks at all.
) In other words, the rule itself provides for other choices of tiebreak systems.