I was thinking of having a tournament of matches, with the top two players playing a four game match, then the next two, etc. Finally, any unrated or provisionally rated players (or players with no one within 400 points of them) would play a four round swiss. Has anyone tried anything like this? Ideas?
Alex Relyea
Um, would this be some kind of knockout tournament?
No. I’ve done knockout tournaments. It would be more like quads, except more extreme.
Alex Relyea
Our club does this twice a year. 1 plays 2, 3 plays 4, 5 plays 6, etc.
We do 4 rounds. The first two rounds are game/40 and are played the first night. Higher ranked gets white in 1st round, then it alternates. the third and fourth rounds are game/90, and are played on the following two Wednesdays.
You’re on the right track by providing a bottom swiss system section for unrateds, provisionals and players who don’t have anyone within 400 points. The last match tournament we ran we didn’t have enough players to have a swiss section in addition to the matches so we had an odd man out who only had 4 rated games.
The ratings department can waive the 400 point or established ratings match restrictions under special circumstances (the most common being some kind of a playoff match), but for an event like this I agree that the bottom group should be a Swiss.
When people hold quads, do they always make the bottom section a Swiss with 5-7 players in it when the total number of players isn’t divisible by 4?
If I were running such an event and I had 6 experts, no A players, and a reasonable mix of B and below, I would consider making the top section the swiss. But certainly making the Swiss out of the bottom group makes sense in most situations. I’ve never seen it done any other way.
Are you asking whether or not somebody would continue with four-player quads and make the bottom section one to three players?
I’ve never done that or heard of it being done, but if there was a significant age difference (and thus it is reasonable to speed the games in the bottom section up) then it might be an option to have three players play in a double round robin (six rounds) while the quads are playing three rounds.
The only time I ever ran rated quads we had 7 players show up. The top 4 played a single RR (eg a quad), the next 3 played a double RR.
My experience has been that people seldom object to getting more games than were advertised (assuming it doesn’t cause problems with the length of the event.)
If there are 5 players, I sometimes still make it a round robin. The lower-rated players can usually squeeze in an extra game without lengthening the tournament. As soon as one game finishes, one of those players can play the waiting player. As soon as the other game finishes, one of them can play the player now waiting, etc. Sort of like cross-round pairings.
Bill Smythe
when I ran (very informal) quads, I would make the bottom section a Hex.
If the players played true to form, we could often do the entire Hex in the time that the top players did a Quad. If not, I would sometimes just play the first three rounds of the Hex (or the first four). I think a Swiss is overkill for such players.
I helped one organizer with setting up his quads, and based on the rating distribution the middle group ended out being a 6 player 3 round swiss. The bottom 4 players were all within a 200 points of each other. 700-900. If we had lumped the bottom 6 players into the swiss we would have had a rating range of 700-1100. It also happened the the lowest 4 players were 3 adults and an older kid. The middle section was comprised of 6 kids ranging in ratings of 1050 - 1400.
And quads are the main reason I go with official ratings so I don’t have to listen to “My kid’s unofficial rating is really such and such so move him up.”
That’s interesting - I used to be involved with weekly quads for scholastic players during the summer. We found it useful to do private computations of ratings so that players moved quickly into the “correct” quad (and also so that players weren’t stuck playing the same 3 kids each week). Today, I would simply get the quads rated quickly and use the updated ratings each week.
If your quads are infrequent, and the “new ratings” are based on other events - then I would do what Polly does and use “official ratings”.
On another point, that Mike was addressing - if “matches” are part of a tournament structure (each round, play a 2-round match, until the semis when it’s a 4-round match, and then an 8-round match in the finals), my inclination is to NOT enforce the USCF limits on matches. These are not matches arranged by the players (one reason for the restrictions). They are probably better viewed as “multiple-game rounds” - just like, say, Blitz events where in each round you play 2 games and report the total score.
That would also be consistent with the definition of a match that we’re currently using:
Since in a match-tournament two players don’t know that they’ll be playing each other (someone could show up with a rating in between their ratings), it’s not unreasonable to waive the match restrictions. Currently such a waiver requires contacting the USCF Ratings Department and explaining the circumstances.
I’m currently running my match-tournament, and I had nine players. One of the players was an FM, and the next two players were low A players, so I’m submitting it all as one section to avoid match problems (i.e. explanations). I’m curious how other people would have handled the odd number, especially since I had an obligation in the middle of the tournament (but had a very well-qualified assistant to help me out with rounds 2 and 3), so I couldn’t be a house player. The second highest-rated player offered to drop out, but what ended up happening is the FM is playing both of the A players at the same time.
BTW, this tournament is an excellent example of why not to use unofficial ratings. During the first round a tournament got rated in which three of my players had participated. If I had used that tournament’s ratings, the FM would have had a different opponent.
Alex Relyea