SwissSys 9 is now out. Thoughts on the new features?
Excellent topic for discussion, but I’ve not downloaded version 9 yet.
i just downloaded it and found that Thad has included at least two features I asked for (package information selectable and customizable text message for the bye player). I saw some other stuff I want to try as well. I will use it this weekend in a couple of tournaments and post some more details…
tom
Anyone had any experience with SwissSys 9 yet?
I’ve run eight tournaments so far with it. Couple of glitches still looking to verify, but some really nice features. Does have a problem with Quads that when you show all pairings on the pairing sheet, the results get ALL prefilled with zeros. Also had a problem in a swiss tournament where we moved all the players (three) from one section to another section, removed that section, pairing one of the other sections, just fine, but then the pairings would get lost. Allowed us to pair again, but still resulted in the same problem. Luckily the files seem to be backwardly compatible with version 8, with one exception. For quads, the pairings remain the same, but if you take the same quad file between version 8 and version 9, the players are playing on reversed board numbers!
I am loving a lot of the new features though and I think the upgrade is worth it.
tom
I noticed this problem as well when I first downloaded Swisssys 9. However, the current version, 9.02, doesn’t seem to have this problem.
In the current version of SwissSys (9.05), if you are running a double swiss or double round robin event and enter a 1-1 result, it will record it as 2 draws. Is there anyway to change it so it records it as 1 win and 1 loss for each player? Starting with one of the latest versions of SwissSys 8, it would ask you if the result was due to s draws or 1 win and 1 loss but that appears to be gone in SwissSys 9.05.
Another, similar, problem has existed in past versions. What if the first game is a played result, then the loser quits the tournament in disgust, without playing the second game? There is apparently no way to record the result as 1 win and 1 forfeit win.
I think it would be better if the user could (be required to) enter each of the two results separately. Such as:
1,1 … 0,0 (white wins twice)
0,0 … 1,1 (black wins twice)
1,0 … 0,1 (white wins first, black second)
0,1 … 1,0 (black wins first, white second)
0.5,0.5 … 0.5,0.5 (both games are drawn)
1,0.5 … 0,0.5 (white wins first, second is drawn)
1,1F … 0,0F (white wins first, black refuses to play second)
Bill Smythe
That’s how WinTD handles it. Though WW means player one wins twice, not “White” wins twice.
I still don’t see why this matters, if you’re not running a FIDE event. Can’t you always change it by hand?
Alex Relyea
You know that and I know that (and hopefully most people here), but just try to explain that to the parents of their little prodigy that 2 draws are the same as a win and an loss when the ratings are calculated!! I have also had players complain when it is marked that they won the first game and lost the second game, and they insist is was the other way around (losing first and winning second)! 
I just quietly sigh and change it by hand…
If that doesn’t provide enough entertainment, go explain that beating a player rated 300 and losing to a 200 produces exactly the same rating change as beating a 200 and losing to a 300 (while muttering to yourself that when the ratings are low enough, you might just as well toss a coin for the result 
).
I know what you mean. We are contemplating that does it really make any sense to accelerate pairings in an under 500 section?
I would definitely not use accelerated pairings in an under 500 section. Accelerated pairings only make sense when there is so much difference between the top and bottom half that the first round would just be an exercise in “bunny bashing.” In an under 500 section, the only danger I envision for the rabbits is someone stumbling and accidentally falling down on one.
With accelerated pairings in round two you are depending on the “top half” round one losses to beat the “bottom half” round one wins. The goal is to drop to potential number of perfect scores by 50% (in comparison to standard Swiss pairings). If the “bottom half” is essentially intermixed with the “top half” (and in particular if the third quarter is as strong as the second quarter) then you may not have that level of dependability. Best case is the top half losses win (or draw) in round two and no more than 12.5% of the field is 2-0. Acceptable is half of the top half round-one-losses win (or draw) in round two and no more than 25% of the field is 2-0 (the same percentage that standard Swiss pairings are limited to). Worst is when the top half round-one-losses all lose again and 37.5% of the field is 2-0.
A U500 section has similarities to a class B section of a multi-section tournament (or class D or Expert, etc.) in that the ratings are a rough guideline of who should win but the mood and current alertness of the individual players are significant enough to often take precedence over the rating difference. At that point acceleration is questionable.
Actually, Mr. Nolan has shown that ratings have a lot of validity even at the lowest levels.
Alex Relyea
Well, at least accelerated pairings in an under-500 section might provide evidence, one way or the other, as to whether rating differences at that level are still significant (as Nolan says) or not (as Ken hints).
How did that event turn out?
Bill Smythe