I realize that all of the details concerning the structure of the Millionaire Chess Open must have been known from the beginning but the latest information I read (e-mail from the USCF)discussed a organization and prize structure I have never seen in any chess event, USCF or otherwise. I am sure that this prize structure with time control changes also passes muster with the federation. This tournament will be one for the ages for certain!
I looked over the latest blast, what ‘time control changes’ do you see that you think are unusual? Is it that the top 4 finishers move on to a playoff at a faster time control? That sort of thing occurs in the US Championships, among other events.
My writing skills are such that they have often been misinterpreted but what I read seemed ambiguous and amazing in originality.
The Millionaire Open has place prizes and I am assuming these place prizes consist of cash. I read that the four top finishers from each section would have playoffs at different time controls than the slow time control they started with for these place prizes.
Yes, it is true that tournaments have playoffs for prizes but I have never seen one select the four winners at round 7 of a nine round tournament then let the remainder of the participants keep playing for fifth prize and the rest.
What is new, if I am not mistaken, is that the bulk of the money (what else is this prize) will be fought over by the four players in each section who have the best scores after round seven in an uncompromising and exciting fashion. This novel method will ensure that players fight to the bitter end in rounds 1-7.
This is what I read into the e-mail blast. It is commendable that the tournament will continue for people who do not wish their norm hopes to be dashed. But wouldn’t it be something else to see a player who wants the elusive norm more than the cash decline his playoff spot? This is why I expect this tournament will be one for the ages.
The playoffs will not affect norms, those will be separate USCF rated sections. One difference between these playoffs and the ones used at the US Championships is that the US Championships went to an Armageddon format at the end, which is not USCF-ratable since it involves both time odds and draw odds for Black.
It will be interesting to see how the 4 playoff spots are determined, as in most sections there may not be exactly 4 players with scores needed to make the playoffs. Thankfully, I’m not directing it, Franc Guadalupe is.
I thought there was a US Championship in 2010 that took the four leaders after seven rounds and had them play three more rounds (a quad) while the remaining 20 players played the last two rounds amongst themselves.
uschess.org/assets/msa_jooml … 1005243911
P.S. Colors aren’t shown in MSA. Shulman-Onischuk, Kamsky-Nakamura, Kamsky-Onischuk, Shulman-Nakamura and Nakamura-Onischuk were five pairs that played twice. Only Shulman-Kamsky happened only in the final three rounds.
They’ve used several different playoff formats at the US Championships over the past few years. If they went to an Armageddon playoff, that was not USCF ratable, though I think the others did use USCF ratable time controls.
I think that Mr. Stokes is referring to FIDE norms, which require nine games. I suppose that there is no problem with FIDE if the top four players withdraw after seven rounds, but I would be leery. Better to have playoffs after nine rounds, but no one consulted me on tournament design.
Alex Relyea
OK, I see what he was referring to, in the top section. It does present the possibility of someone declining a top 4 playoff slot to play 2 additional games for norms (and presumably win lower place prizes.) I’m assuming Maurice and Franc checked to make sure that was OK under FIDE rules.
It would be extremely surprising if a non-GM qualified for the playoffs in the Open section. I don’t think the organizers are risking too much there.
I was thinking the same thing. Does anyone know if the playoff games going to be rated? Are the playoff games in the Open section going to be FIDE rated (in the rapid and blitz systems)?
I see why time odds would make the game non-ratable (although I cannot actually find the relevant section in the new edition of the rules…), but why would draw odds matter? I thought that for rating purposes it does not matter how games are scored as far as tournament or match position, prizes, or titles goes, as long as the correct underlying 1-0, 1/2-1/2, or 0-1 is reported.
That was why Clint Ballard’s tournaments using his “Ballard Anti-draw Point System” (BAPS), which scored an on the board 1-0 as 2-0, an on the board 1/2-1/2 as 0-1, and an on the board 0-1 as 0-3, were USCF rated. For example, the 2005 Bainbridge Slugfest was a BAPS tournament that was USCF rated. In fact, I believe all four events conducted by the Bainbridge Chess Club used the BAPS system.
Wouldn’t draw odds be similar…the underlying game is 1-0, 1/2-1/2, or 0-1, which is what would be reported for ratings, but is scored for tournament standing as 1-0, 0-1, 0-1. It’s not conceptually much different from BAPS, just a little more extreme in encouraging white to play for a win.
One difference is that BAPS is symmetrical. Both players are scored the same way for a draw. Under draw odds, one player is scored as a win while the other as a loss for the same result.
As long as a game with draw odds that ends in a draw is reported as a draw for rating purposes, I can’t see why it should not be ratable. While the player with draw odds may be motivated to play for a draw instead of a win, there are other instances where a player may be motivated by considerations other than the position on the board and yet the game is ratable. (Think team chess, where a draw may be sufficient to win a match, for example.)