The major reason that in a quick event, the tournament directors use the regular ratings:
most players do not have a quick rating then they would be in the ‘unrated’ section when their regular rating says different;
some stronger players never go to any tournaments with time controls less then G/60 if they do go: they could have a weaker quick rating as their quick rating could being years old;
as quick events are not common, the regular rating are more able to show current level of skill, as the quick rating that can be much older showing the skill of the player at a different era.
I am delighted to hear this – but not surprised, considering that our super-wonk, Mike Nolan, is designing the new system.
When the number of rounds becomes large, a TINY K-factor must be used, else the player’s post-tournament rating could actually overshoot his performance rating. E.g. a player with a 1400 pre-tournament rating and a 1500 performance rating could end up with a 1520 post-tournament rating.
No, but there might be justification for lower per-game fees for tournaments with a large number of rounds. I’m sure it’s less costly to rate a 50-player 8-round event than a 100-player 4-round event.
This affects blitz primarily, with its huge number of games per player.
Or by using the SAME subroutine, but with different values (such as K-factor, or a flag indicating whether one rating initializes another) passed to it.
A quad does NOT need to be listed in order of rating. Only the sections need be determined this way. Within a section, players can be ordered randomly. For example, the top quad should consist of the top-rated four players, but in an order determined by lot rather than by rating.
It doesn’t HAVE to be, but I agree that a double round robin is better – if it doesn’t make the tournament drag on too long. For example, a 20-player 5-minute single round robin would last (theoretically) 3 hours 10 minutes, while a double round robin would last 6 hours 20 minutes.
It might be best to break the round robin into two sections. In a blitz tournament the players are only looking to play 10 to 20 blitz game that night, not 38 games in a double round robin with 20 players.
If it is a 4 section quad with the same players, the players would play 12 games, then be in the same rating group. In a open round robin a master could need to play a class E player, being a blitz game the class E player has some better chance to beat a master. During a blitz game, players with a 1000 points difference (regular rating) in ratings, do have greater chance for a upset in a blitz game.
There are a number of people and myself are in the same school, that blitz chess destroys a players ability to play well during slower time controls: as the player is more use to play fast, then would play fast during time controls of G/90 or slower. As a Master would be more use to play slower, and a class E player more common to play faster, the master could make more blunders then in slower time controls.
Having a open round robin event that is rated could drive the stronger players if the event is USCF rated. Some of the reasons that weaker players do come to a blitz event is to see if they can beat the stronger players in a blitz event. Knowing they have a shot at a game with a master, as everyone plays everyone in a round robin: it could be the only reason they signed up to play in the tournament – just to play one and only one person.
If the federation does have a blitz rating, we could see the end of the open round robin into sections of round robins. As the organizers would need to set the limits of games, to understand the rating fee to cover then entry fee. If they only set the cost of the rating fee into the entry fee of 20 per games per person and the person plays 30 games the club would lose money in the event. If they set the cost at 20 per games and the play only plays 10 games then the club would make a huge profit. As most round robins the prize fund is small or no prize fund with a small entry fee. If the club sets the rating fee into the entry fee of 30 games per person then the club would make more money when fewer players show up for the event.
With the case with the master and the class E player, and the cost adding rating fee into entry fee. The days of open round robin events with blitz tournaments could be at the end if the federation do set a blitz rating.
As you say, a 20-player double round robin blitz would take too long, if it is to be played in a single evening. I can think of at least four ways to handle this:
Have a single round-robin instead of a double-.
Break it into two sections, horizontally – e.g. Open and Under-1800 sections.
Break it into two sections, vertically – strongest player in section A, next strongest in section B, etc, so that both sections are about equally strong.
Having a USCF-rated section and a non-rated section.
Personally, I’m partial to 1. over either 2. or 3. I think it’s more fun to play 20 different opponents, rather than 10 opponents twice each.
Option 4. could settle the issue of players who don’t want to bother joining USCF. To give the two sections a little different flavor (besides one section being rated and the other not), the rated section could have a slightly higher entry fee and significantly higher prizes.
If the number of players REALLY gets large, you could use two of the above solutions, such as 1. and 4.
If a round robin tournament happens each week at a chess club: the entry fee has to be the same week after week. If we only talk about rating fees to cover entry fees then there has to be some form of system.
With computer disk, the minimum rating fee is five dollars (25 x 0.20 = 5.00) or twenty-five games; with handwritten the minimun rating fee is eight dollars (20 x 0.40 = 8.00) or twenty games.
If the club sends in one blitz tournament every week the computer disk (52 x 5 = 260) minimun year rating fee would be $260; with a handwritten for every week (52 x 8 = 416) would be a minimun year rating fee of $416.
Each club must find some middle gound, for making each week the same entry fee from one week to the next.
The point also must be that in a tournament that happens each and every week: with a blitz or a quick double round robin. The entry fee for the tournament needs to be the same. If the director sends in the report on paper, one week a player would play 10 games [10(0.40 / 2) = 2.00) wound cost the director $2.00 just for rating; if the next week a player would play 50 games [50(0.40 / 2) = 10.00] would cost the director $10.00 just for rating.
If the director has a double round robin each week and feels a player would have only 20 games per night: on paper tournament [20(0.40 /2) = 4.00) plans on $4.00 for rating fee. Then can make the tournament entry fee be $6.00 with $2.00 into the prize fund – leaving the tournament at break even. If the director has 50 games per-person [50(0.40 / 2) = 10.00] be $10.00 for one persons rating fee. With 50 games per-person in a double round robin [(50 / 2 = 25) + (25 + 1 = 26)] be 26 players. With the cost difference of $4.00 and $10.00 would be $6.00 in rating fees; making a loss of the tournament be [ 26 players x $6.00 = 156] $156.00 in rating fees.
The rating fee will force clubs to make the tournaments be quads or some other form. Even going up to 32 rounds with the new software, would mean a round robin could not have more then 33 players. In a double round robin would be the difference of 6 games of 64 games: or 6 games (6 x 0.40 = 6.40) to (64 x 0.40 = 25.60). Going to ask you Bill, what are you going to set for the entry fee?
Presumably Bill would also send in such an event over the net, in which case the minimum ratings fee should be much lower (if not completely eliminatd), and the Board may decide to lower the per-game fee for online submissions too. (That was certainly my intention when I recommended the new rates to the Board a year ago.)
So I guess BIll can take that into account when setting the entry fee.
My experience has been that more than a few players don’t appreciate all of the costs behind an event anyway, they want 100% of the fees returned as prizes, plus a great site.
The federation could have free rating fees; free life time memberships – taking care of the need to renewal all the time. Then have a tournament with a one million dollar guaranteed prize fund, free hotel rooms, free food – with a entry fee of free. Then there is the real world when money matters.
You are apparently concerned that, as the number of players increases, the number of games per player will also increase (in a round robin), so that the rating fee per player will increase, making it difficult to calculate the entry fee in advance so that it will cover the rating fee.
I think there are other questions that transcend this. Typically, a round robin is played in a single evening, usually quick or blitz. If the number of players increases too much, the tournament will drag on for hours, and players will begin to drop out, and not come back next week.
You need to have a contingency plan for various numbers of players. For example:
Fewer than 8 players: Double round robin.
9-20 players: Single round robin.
21-36 players: Single round robin, 2 sections, open and under-1800.
etc etc etc
Then you can calculate the maximum possible number of games per player, and set the entry fee accordingly. But more important, you can get the tournament over with at a reasonable hour and make everybody happier.