I see. Considering how many pages there are in the rule book about 80 point transpositions and 200 point interchanges, I kind of expected a rule recommending accelerated pairings under certain criteria. Let me guess: the rule book authors couldn’t agree.
No offense taken. My student(s) did better than I could have expected and learned a tough lesson about bouncing back from a bad start. But looking back at the tournament, it appears weird that pairings, at least in the first two rounds, could be so much easier in one year than another. We’re talking a 4-500 point different in first round pairings on the top boards. That leads an observer to speak about the perceived difficulty of the event.
“I see. Considering how many pages there are in the rule book about 80 point transpositions and 200 point interchanges, I kind of expected a rule recommending accelerated pairings under certain criteria. Let me guess: the rule book authors couldn’t agree.”
As Jeff Wiewel pointed out, even if two tournaments have the same amount of players, if one has a majority of low rated and unrated players the acceleration could be rendered meaningless or worse in that example. Directing is still as much an art as science. That is why most qualified TDs do not substitute their own opinion on pairings with the computers.
You as a TD realize that there are often cases where the rules on the transpositions and interchanges conflict with each other. Quite often you make value judgements with pairings that the rulebook doesn’t readily cover.
It is analgous to trying to argue which is the best opening. You may have a point of view, and cite examples, but it is foolish to try rule that people should only play that opening.
the ^ means raised to the power for example x^2 would be x squared.
the two basic equations are:
2^n and 2^(n+1) where n is the number of rounds
for a 7 round tournament, 2^7 = 128 wich is the cutoff point in a perfect world to determine a clear winner with standard swiss pairing.
now if a tournement has 256 entries, then 2^8 (8 rounds) should produce a clear winner using standard swiss pairings.
the point of using excelerated pairings is to reduce the number of rounds by 1. so a seven round tournament using accelerated pairings 2^(n+1) using only 7 rounds should produce a clear winner with 256 entries.
That said, no matter what the method used, a good player will rise to the top and poor players will sink. In standard swiss, players in the second quarter are used to playing down 1st round and starting the tournament on a positive note. Kids who have trouble getting over a loss could be in for a bad tournament if they normally win first round, but because of accelerated pairings start off with a loss. I know some kids who have problems with losing, which affects their next games.
I guess I missed the post where someone was confused about the meaning behind the carrot symbol.
Any accelerated pairing method will not guarantee no more than one clear winner when the number of entries are between (2^n)+1 and 2^(n+1). It is also possible that acceleration of a round will increase the number of clear winners. I have directed accelerated sections with three clear winners when two would likely have been the result without acceleration.
The rule-of-thumb is that any section with up to 2^(n+1) players will not need acceleration. This is due to the fact that there will be draws on some of the top boards thus eliminating some of the perfect scores.
While there were only 133 players who played in the section, I think it is safe to assume that as a result of no-shows, there were more than that paired for the first round. With the number paired in this section barely exceeding 2^7 for consideration of consistency I could see justification to accelerate all sections.
Caution: The 2^N rule will guarantee that there can be just one player who won every game, it will not guarantee one ‘clear first’ but with a less-than-perfect score.
Yeh, I think players, and especially coaches, should concentrate on playing, learning, and a mature attitude, rather than on knowing the pairing method days or weeks in advance.
Locking the organizer into (or out of) accelerated pairings in advance would be highly undesirable. The decision should depend on not only the size, but also the nature, of the turnout. Accelerated pairings are a bad idea if, for example, the ratings are closely bunched (as in class or “under” sections), or if there are a large number of unrated, provisional, or rapidly improving players.
Let the organizer decide, at the last minute if necessary.
I was not asking to lock the organizer into anything in advance. I was just asking for what guidelines are used. The answer I got was essentially: whatever the chief TD feels like. Personally, I disagree with such an answer.
What puzzles me why the same tournament, with the same sections, similar turnout and similar rating distribution of the field, can be run differently from one year (2004) to the next (2005) to the next (2006). You may argue that it doesn’t matter, but having been there a coach, I can unequivocably say that accelerated pairings make the event feel much harder. Of course, it is harder for everyone there that year, which makes it more fair. However, Monday morning QBs will inevitably compare the “bloodiness” of the pairings from one year to the next.
In any case, I now realize there’s no way to know in advance unless I kidnap the chief TD and brainwash him.
With the number of scholastic tournaments being held and with USCF National Scholastic tournaments coming up, one might think the scholastic council members would have enough interest in scholastic chess to monitor the forums occasionally. Perhaps a scholastic council member would care to comment on how they view accelerated pairings at USCF National Scholastics?
That’s still a question best directed TO THE SCHOLASTIC COUNCIL, which as far as I know does NOT maintain a presence here. (That may say positive things about their collective wisdom.)
Asking them questions here is like the old story of the guy who lost a quarter at 1st and Main and was searching for it at 2nd and Vine, because the light was better there.
Actually, in Babylon, they would count to 12 on one hand by using the thumb to mark/tap one of the three segments on each of the four fingers of that hand. Then they would do that 5 times by using the other hand.
