MSA crosstable oddity

Running Chess Tournaments
1

In this MSA crosstable, I noticed that the top two finishers, each at 6.0 out of 7.0, are not listed in order of post-event ratings.

Then I noticed that, further down the listings, there were several more instances where tied players were not listed in rating order (either pre-event or post-event).

The final shocker came when I saw that the last five players on the chart were not even listed in order by score. They had scores of 5.0, 2.0, 1.0, 1.0, and 0.0, and were listed after players with 2.0, 1.0, and 0.0.

What gives?

(This was an on-line blitz tournament.)

Bill Smythe

2

As has been noted before, online blitz and online quick games are not listed in score group/rating order, I believe at the request of ICC. They’re listed in the order players appear in the upload file, ie, in pairing number order as submitted to US Chess.

We’ve thought about offering this same option for OTB events, but we’re not sure how we’d note which events are ordered which way, as there is no flag in the MSA database which says that. (It’s done based on the rating system field, which is why both ICC and Chess.Com events appear that way.)

3

Can the way online event crosstables are shown be changed to be shown the same way OTB event crosstables are? I think most people would prefer this.

4

Some on-line events
uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php … 2-16085871
are in score order. I am guessing that it is really in submission order but the submission file was created that way.

5

The event you linked is not in score order.

6

uschess.org/assets/msa_jooml … 2008019172
It is in score order and probably the rating used for pairings withing the score groups.

7

So, we won’t build in a sort order that members can use, even with an explanation on the page, because we are concerned they will be confused by it,

But we will build in additional sort orders that they can’t use, even though it is almost certain to confuse them?

8

I wasn’t part of the negotiations with ICC, I just programmed what I was told they wanted, full control over what order the crosstable appears in, ie, no reordering into score groups.

Without a redesign of the crosstable information, which would require additional information in the upload file or data entered online, IMHO any other useful alternatives to score-group ordering are not currently viable.

I have suggested having a switch TDs could use to select score-group vs no reordering, that suggestion has not been approved.

Interestingly enough, other than a few posters in the Forums (most of whom don’t appear to be playing online chess), I have seen ZERO requests from players in online events to have them put in score-group order.

As a boss of mine was fond of saying, if something is not worth doing, it is not worth doing well.

9

Frequent request among scholastic parents.

10

Not that I’m seeing. And it doesn’t change the fact that our current data doesn’t give us other good options. (After-the-fact recomputed tie breaks are not always going to match what was used at the event, for reasons that have been explained many times.)

11

(“I don’t get it” graphic removed to save space.)

For once I agree completely with Kevin (although I suspect some disagreements may develop if this conversation continues).

Neither ICC nor any other online platform (nor organizer) should be given special privileges to dictate the sort order seen by viewers. If the default is by score, and within score by post-event rating, then that should be the default, period, for all crosstables, both OTB and online.

Viewers, however, should be given some other options, such as:

  • (A) by score, and within score by rating (this could continue to be the default)
  • (B) by score, and within score in the order specified by the organizer (note B)
  • (C) by rating, without regard to score
  • (D) by score, and within score by the rating used at the tournament for pairing purposes (note D)
  • (E) in alphabetical order, without regard to score or rating

These options could be displayed as radio buttons, at the end of the crosstable. The viewer would first see the crosstable in the default order (score, then rating), and then be able to choose a different option, in which case the crosstable would then re-appear in the specified order.

(Alternatively, the options could be displayed at the top, and the crosstable itself could come into view only after the viewer chooses an option.)

(note B) Option B would be available only if the organizer specified (in some way yet to be determined) an alternative order (e.g. tiebreaks). Otherwise, this option would be grayed out.

(note D) Option D would be available only if the organizer listed the each player’s rating, as used at the tournament. Otherwise, this option would be grayed out.

Bill Smythe

12

If it was possible to track, then (F) the upload order from the organizer can also be kept. That would likely match up to the wall chart order the organizer was initially displaying things in.
Ties in options A, C and D could be resolved in alphabetic order (ID order if still tied)
Ties in option E could be resolved in rating order (ID order if still tied)

This seems like a nice-to-do and not a high (or even medium) priority.
B and D seem to require changes to the upload file. I don’t know what is happening behind the scenes with F for on-line events.

13

I would note, that if we also calculated tie-break orders (and eventually allowed the upload of a tie-break order or "Organizer prize order) if its a choice of ONE AMONG MANY sorts, the idea that it automatically leads to issues is significantly diffused. If they are just different sort orders (not prize orders) and there is no implication of the latter, much of the latter concern goes away.

14

To the point that it should be a deal-breaker in a negotiation?

15

I’m not sure who negotiated the ICC deal, I think it may have been before Jean came on board as ED.

Offering players the option is probably the worst of the various ideas, because we already get complaints about how the crosstable shows little Johnny got 3rd place but his trophy says 5th place, despite the presence of a disclaimer, I think having people see DIFFERENT orderings would make that worse. Why feed that frenzy?

The ONLY option that makes any sense would be to force organizers to provide THEIR final ordering and the trophies/prizes they awarded, as that’s the what was used to decide who got what trophy/prize. We would also need the results and final standings that were used for prize determination, since those can vary from the results as used for ratings purposes.

And that would require modifying the upload format and the programs that generate, process and edit it, along with the crosstable data structure. Is this capability worth $5000 or more, because that’s probably a low estimate of the cost.

If I had it to do all over again from back when MSA first came out, in 2003, I think I’d lean towards putting the crosstables in alphabetical order!

16

Organizer prize order is one thing and works as long as organizer’s enter it properly.
A calculated tie-break fails whenever a games rated result is moved to another another section while a non-rated result stays in the section. One example is when two players come while the final round is going on to verify that there was an error in reporting the result in the round one game they played with each other (the win was given to the wrong player). The prizes should be calculated based on the initially reported result (were in the cases I was involved in), and that result should be made non-rated while the actual rated result is entered separately. That not only affects the results of the two players, but it also affects the tie-break calculation for every one of their opponents (treating the unplayed win or unplayed loss as if the player had earned a 1/2 point when taking that player’s results into account for the opponents’ tie-break purposes).

It also fails whenever a result is changed after the tournament is done with. I’ve received e-mails a week after the fact when a parent says the result is wrong. Sometimes it is a data entry error (easy to find and fix). Sometimes it is an error when a volunteer writes the result down (either volunteer error or player reporting error). Sometimes the players filled out their result slip incorrectly and verified that wrong result when the slip was collected. In the latter two types of error the opponent needs to be contacted for verification, and often does verify that the result was reported incorrectly. The result would be changed well after any awards were made and any calculated tie-break order would not be the prize award order.

17

‘Alphabetical by height’ should be an option, too, along with ‘put my son first no matter how he scored.’ :slight_smile:

18

Alphabetical by height would be:
5’, 5’8", 5’11", 5’5", 5’4", 5’9", 5’1", 5’7", 5’6", 5"10", 5’3", 5’2",
4’, 4’8", 4’11", 4’5", 4’4", 4’9", 4’1", 4’7", 4’6", 4"10", 4’3", 4’2",
6’, 6’8", 6’11", 6’5", 6’4", 6’9", 6’1", 6’7", 6’6", 6"10", 6’3", 6’2",
7’, 7’8", 7’11", 7’5", 7’4", 7’9", 7’1", 7’7", 7’6", 7"10", 7’3", 7’2",
3’, 3’8", 3’11", 3’5", 3’4", 3’9", 3’1", 3’7", 3’6", 3"10", 3’3", 3’2",
2’, 2’8", 2’11", 2’5", 2’4", 2’9", 2’1", 2’7", 2’6", 2"10", 2’3", 2’2"

The second option would by a favorite of a lot of parents, grandparents or coaches.

19 
SELECT * FROM ... ORDER BY random()
20

What’s the next number in the following sequence?

1, 3, 5, 7, …

V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V

The sequence 1, 3, 5, 7 continues as 1, 3, 5, 7, 8 …

Those are the numbers that have the letter E in their names.

Bill Smythe