If you are running a round robin team tournament (either a 4 team double round robin or a 6 team round robin), what order should the teams play against each other? Ultimately, you could say it doesn’t really matter since everybody will play everybody but I think it would be best to have the closet matchups (1 vs 2, 2 vs. 3, 3 vs 4, 4 vs. 5, and 5 vs 6 for a 6 team round robin) in the last two rounds to make it more likely the later rounds have more meaning and the winner isn’t already decided before the last round.
You use the same round robin tables you would use if it was an individual round robin.
That doesn’t answer my question
See the Round Robin tables. Don’t forget to draw if you have a six team RR.
Alex Relyea
You randomly assign pairing numbers in a round robin. If you need a “draw numbers from a hat” page, try this.
Yes actually it does. Read the rule book on round robins.
You use a random draw for pairing numbers, just like you do in any round robin.
The Pittsburgh Chess League uses a modified round robin table for the top sections. Each section has 8 teams. They are placed in team rating order. The top two rated teams play each other in the last round. In the first half of the League the top 4 are playing against the bottom four teams. In the second half, the top 4 are playing among each other and the bottom half plays each other. The final standings award first and second place based on match and game score. There is also an award for the top team from among the lowest 4 rated teams.
In the last section of the League, we run a 5 round Swiss preliminary, followed by a 3 round quad play off final. Teams are placed in the quads or 6 team mini-Swiss based on their match and game score from the preliminary. We try to maximize the number of teams winning an award in this section. At the start of the preliminary there must be an even number and 12 or more teams.
When we have an odd number of teams at the start, the top section usually has only 7 teams and the next section 8 teams playing in a round robin format. For example, if you have 35 teams, Division I has 7 teams, Division II has 8 team, Division III has 20 teams. If the number of teams hits 36 or higher, we can have 3 round robin sections and a last Division with 12+ teams.
Is there a promotion/relegation in the Pittsburgh League similar to what European chess leagues do? (i.e. top team(s) in Division II moves up to Division I the following year while bottom team(s) in Division I move down to Division II) or is placement decided on rating alone?
Here is the modified round robin the Pittsburgh Chess League uses:
Round 1 1:8 2:7 3:6 4:5
Round 2 7:1 6:2 5:3 8:4
Round 3 1:6 2:5 3:8 4:7
Round 4 5:1 8:2 7:3 6:4
Round 5 1:4 2:3 8:5 7:6
Round 6 3:1 4:2 5:7 6:8
Round 7 1:2 3:4 6:5 8:7
It is possible to toss for color in the first round. Then all of the numbers would be reversed.
For more information, by-laws, constitution, playing rules, forms, etc. for the Pittsburgh Chess League, see: pitt.edu/~schach/ChessPa/Che … /rules.htm
We have honed everything down over the years to make running a chess league as easy as possible. The Pittsburgh Chess League started in 1960 and has been continuously USCF rated since its inception. Our tournament director is Tom Martinak who has done a yeoman’s job of keeping the League running smoothly.
The Pittsburgh Chess League does not have a relegation process. Every year when new team rosters are turned in at a meeting before the first round, there is usually a readjustment done by some of the team captains so that they might fit in certain sections. Division I is pretty strong. The lowest rated team in that section is usually happy when we have an odd number of teams and they drop to Division II.
If the winning team from Division II was relegated upwards, it would be pitting a team with usually a high 1600’s average rating versus teams with a 2000+ average rating. Several of the top teams can field GMs, IMs, and masters. The League sections are usually rating balanced and competitive all year long. The design is such that the last round is exciting and meaningful for all of the teams.
The downside is that if you’re 5, 6, 7 or 8, you’ll play 1-2-3-4 in the first four rounds in one order or another. The difference between the schedule for 4 and 5 is quite striking. It’s one thing if that’s random. It’s another if it’s at the discretion of the TD.
The schedule is designed to provide as much equalization and alternation of colors as possible. The battle for points by the bottom 4 teams against the top 4 plays a crucial role in the final standings. We have had a team in the bottom 4 of Division I win the League. The outcome is usually in doubt until the dust clears in the last round.
I am not sure what is meant by the phrase, “It is another if it is at the discretion of the TD.” The pairings are set in advance by rule. The teams determine initial placement by forming their teams. The process is transparent and automatic.
Or seeding committee or whatever. There’s a good reason that most RR’s both in chess and outside of it are done using blind draws. By the nature of RR’s, it’s likely that someone will get a run of tough opponents. However, in a blind draw, it’s not the seeding committee or process that determines it, but bad luck.
If you find that it works for you, fine. If someone else is asking to do something like this, I would suggest seeding 1-2, flipping color for 1 vs 2 and randomizing everyone else. That’s the general idea followed by tennis (for its knockout brackets)—you try to push the key matchups until the end, but the seeding process doesn’t set the brackets in stone.
As I said, the system was honed after many years. It was discussed and tweaked to create a relatively level playing field. The bottom teams fight it out for the award for the best of the lowest 4 team, but are also eligible to win 1st or 2nd if they upset one or more of the top teams.
The founders of the League set the precedent for seeding by team average rating. IIRC correctly, among their number were engineers, mathematicians, and at least one USCF Vice-president who was responsible for the USCF to even have a rating system. We have followed the spirit of what they established and have made changes when necessary as the League expanded from the original 6 teams to our present 35. A precious few of those founders still play in the League, 53 years later. They have been most helpful in helping us to streamline the League playing rules.
One of the objections to the blind draw was that it could pit the top two rated teams in the first round. When that happened long in the past, there was a danger that the losing team would lose interest and forfeit games in later rounds. That had to be addressed. The present system keeps everything up in the air until the last game is done. The top teams never have an easy time in the early rounds. The pressure of losing or drawing games creates competitive tension on every board. It also means that the top teams have to field as much strength as they can every round, and not take any opponent for granted.
Again, I said if someone else wanted to do something like this (and that was what the OP was inquiring about), I would recommend just seeding 1-2 and randomizing everyone else. The fact that you give a special prize for the best 5th-8th shows that you understand that your system puts them at a disadvantage.
Actually, if anybody is disadvantaged it would normally be the 4th place team, as they aren’t eligible for the class prize and normally have little chance for 1st or 2nd. I think that the 4th place team would gladly switch places with the 5th if that was possible. The reason for the class prize isn’t that 5th-8th are disadvantaged by the pairing system - it’s because they are disadvantaged by their rating.