Switching Sections

Running Chess Tournaments
1

A little while back, there was a certain tournament conducted. It was a seven-round class tournament with only one schedule, and in addition to sections for Class A, Class B, etc., there were an Expert section and a Master section. The Expert section had cash prizes for first through third places as well as an Under-2100 prize. The Master section had the same number of place prizes and an Under-2300 prize, all with higher amounts than the Expert prizes.

One Expert, let us say Player A, had initially registered for the Expert section. By the week of the tournament, the Expert section had several players but the Master section had none at all. So, in the middle of that week, seizing the opportunity to win cash more easily, Player A requested the organizer to switch into the Master section (playing up one section was allowed with a fee). This request was granted with the caveat that the sections, but not the prizes, may be combined if turnout in the Master section remained too low. Player A understood this well and was content to play in a combined Master/Expert section while competing only for Master prizes with others who had also registered for the Master section. Player A thus became the first entrant in the Master section. The night before the tournament, another Expert, let us say Player B, registered for the Master section also. Now there were two entrants in the Master section.

Now, Player A’s Expert friend, let us say Player C, had originally registered for the Expert section also. Soon after Player A had the request to switch sections granted, he/she advised Player C to ask to change to the Master section as well because winning money might have been easier that way. Player C did indeed make this request, but unfortunately, on the night before the tournament (actually around the time Player B made his/her registration for the Master section), the organizer responded that it was “awfully late” to switch sections and he/she would allow this change ONLY if there were enough entries at the door into the Master section. So, the organizer was still taking fresh registrations for the Master section from players completely new to the tournament, but not allowing a section change to someone who had already registered for the tournament.

As the tournament turned out, there were no further entries into the Master section. With only two people in the Master section, the organizer was forced to combine the Master and Expert sections with prizes remaining separate. Player A was competing with Player B for two Master place prizes; the third Master place prize and the Under-2300 prize were canceled. Player A wound up winning the first Master place prize and Player B ended up with the second Master place prize.

My questions are these: Was the organizer within his/her rights to disallow the section change to Player C? If so, was the organizer’s decision ethical, considering that fresh registrations into the section were still being accepted?

2

IMHO, the organizer was wrong. Player C can consider filing a complaint with US Chess.

3

I agree, I think. But I’d like to hear the other side of the story.

For one thing, how are the following two statements compatible?

Did the TLA include a mention as to the advance (online) registration deadline? If so, did that deadline include both date and time of day, or just the date? (I’m sort of imagining that the attempt to switch sections might have occurred at around 1:00 am on the morning of the tournament, or something like that.)

Personally, I’m a believer in running the tournament in the manner announced, or, if this is not possible, running it in as close as possible to the manner announced. Accordingly, I would have accepted all three entries, and I would have made sure they all got paired against each other at some time during the tournament. A could play B in round 1, with C playing an Expert. Likewise, in round 2, A could play C, and in round 3, B could play C. In the remaining rounds, all three would be playing in the Expert section.

Or, the above scheme could even be doubled up. A could play B twice, likewise A and C, likewise B and C, with the “merge” not coming until round 7.

Of course, with only 3 players in the Master section, the organizer would be within his rights to cancel one of the four announced prizes, either 3rd overall or 1st under-2300, whichever was less.

Bill Smythe

4

What about the question of entry dates? Say you have an early entry date of $80 if by 1st of month, $90 by 15th of the month, & $100 at site for a tournament on the 22nd of the month? If “player C” entered at the $80 rate and then the night before the tournament asked to move up a section for the regular extra fee [say $5 extra], then what is right and correct for the organizer to do in such a situation??

Larry S. Cohen

5

My only comment at this point is that it is an unusual tournament that features both class and under prizes.

Alex Relyea

6

If the player’s request to change sections missed the $80 deadline and the $90 deadline, then the organizer would certainly be within his rights to charge the extra $20, the difference between the $80 already paid and the $100 for the later registration. In addition, the organizer would be within his rights to also charge the play-up fee, if one was announced in the TLA, for the privilege of playing up a section (Expert playing in the Master section).

Bill Smythe

7

Not exactly. The tournament featured class sections, with both place and under prizes in each section.

Bill Smythe

8

It has long been my belief that many if not most sticky issues for TDs are caused by tournament design issues, this is a good case in point. Either the design has problems or the rules/limitations were not spelled out sufficiently–possibly both.

9

I just meant that registration was never completely closed at any time before the tournament started. As far as I’m aware, there was no deadline for online entry but I could be wrong on that. However, I am definitely sure that at-the-door entries were accepted, which was even alluded to in the response to Player C’s request. The organizer said that should there be enough at-the-door entries into the Master section, Player C’s request would then be granted. As it turned out, though, there were no at-the-door entries at all into the Master section, which was then left with only two players and consequently combined with the Expert section.

How to handle the low turnout in the Master section is a separate issue and there are several options, as you mention. If there are only three players, taking out the under-2300 prize makes perfect sense. But accepting the section change is the main concern here.

10

I’ve done this with a CCA tournament. I once registered for the Expert section of the Midwest Class in time for the early entry fee. On the night before the tournament (or two nights before; I don’t quite remember), I requested to play up into the Master section. This was granted without additional charge to me. As far as I know, the purpose of the entry-fee deadlines is planning - to get a sense of the expected attendance before the tournament happens. But as Smythe said, if the organizer feels that he/she should charge the late entry fee for the section change, I guess it’s fine. It’s certainly less controversial than declining to change the section, especially on the grounds that were provided. Meanwhile, the play-up fee SHOULD be charged upon the section change.

11

I think the organizer may reconsider the decision about the section change in light of what has been discussed here. I believe it had been a while between organizing of events for the organizer in question. Part of this is shown by the fact that the second cut-off date was the day before the event, and then there was a higher at site entry fee. This clearly shows either a lack of experience in organizing events, or in this case a long time between tournament organization. I think player C should contact the organizer and request to be awarded what would have been the 3rd place Master class prize, less any fee to play up a section.

Larry S. Cohen

12

That sounds like an excellent suggestion.

I would like to give this organizer a round of applause for sponsoring this tournament in the first place. It was obviously a big risk, and a money-loser at that. Other similar tournaments, by other organizers, have also had trouble filling the Master section. For example, the Illinois Class, held every November for years, has never had a separate Master section. It has always been a combined Master-Expert section. Apparently the organizers there guessed correctly that a separate Master section might not be sustainable.

In addition, in this case there was the time element. Coming up with a correct decision during the final, rushed minutes of on-site registration is like finding the only saving move in a double time scramble. Ain’t always gonna happen.

Perhaps now we can all turn toward the more general question of what to do about very small sections in class tournaments. It happens all the time, coast to coast. I think that creative solutions are possible in some of these cases, and that organizers sometimes are reluctant to try them, or the ideas may simply not always occur to them during the registration rush.

Bill Smythe

13

That’s a great suggestion. Thanks.

14

I liked the tournament myself and in response to another individual’s post about tournament design, I didn’t find anything unusual that stood out to me other than maybe the fact that it was seven rounds with only one schedule, which is more on the lines of an international tournament. Still, I wouldn’t even say that it was bad, although I could not play all seven rounds.

I really don’t understand myself why no Masters showed up at all. I think GMs even had free entry. I think the time control was fine, the site was luxurious, and the prizes were generous enough for the entry fee.

In the case of low turnout in a class section, I prefer what the organizer in this case - to combine the section with the next one lower on the class ladder but have players play for their respective original sections’ prizes. In this case, combining it with the lower section was the only option but if it were any other section, it could also be combined with the higher section. For example, if a Class A section had low turnout and both Class B and Expert had sufficient turnouts, Class A could be combined with the lower Class B section or the higher Expert section. I prefer lower because I don’t know if all Class A players would want to be forced to effectively “play up” into the Expert section, even with separate A prizes.

I know you mentioned a few alternatives to handle small turnouts earlier, but compared to them, I still prefer what was done the best. Do you have any other ideas?

15

What I do when I combine sections is to make all players eligible for prizes in the combined section regardless of which section they originally entered. Place prizes in the lower section become class/under prizes in the combined section.

16

You understand that in your preferred example all B players are forced to effectively “play up”, right?

Alex Relyea

17

Masters are picky, and many (I believe) don’t like the idea of class tournaments at all. They think the stronger players are entitled to the lion’s share of the prizes. And I’ve got to admit, they have a point.

Lots of them. Let’s look at the other end of the spectrum for a moment.

Suppose an organizer is running a Rated Beginners Open, in two sections, Under 1200 and Under 600. Let’s say it’s a 4-round 1-day event with a time control of G/45 d/5 or something similar.

Only four players show up for the Under 600 section. The Under 1200 has plenty of players, say a dozen or so.

Is it necessary to combine the sections? My philosophy is to run the tournament in the manner announced, or as close to it as possible. The under-600 players are expecting to play other under-600 players, because that’s how the tournament was announced. Their expectations should be served if possible.

If there were only 3 rounds, the case (IMHO) would be open and shut. Keep the sections separate. 3 rounds is perfect for 4 players.

With 4 players, you run out of pairings after 3 rounds. One idea is to make round 4 a duplicate of one of the earlier rounds, giving each player a second game against a previous opponent. Perhaps the two highest-scoring can play each other again, and ditto the two lowest-scoring. This method, however, has a problem in that it’s almost never possible to make the colors work as well as you’d want. Ideally, you’d like to end up with two W and two B for each player, and also give each player the reverse color from the one he had previously against the same opponent. But odds are those two criteria will end up conflicting with each other. Besides, who wants to play the same opponent again?

So why not keep the sections separate for the first 3 rounds, and then merge them for round 4? :bulb: That way, the under-600s play each other as much as possible, but nobody has the same opponent twice.

I think some TDs are reluctant to do such things because they don’t know how to do mid-tournament merges in their pairing software. Well, just learn it then, ahead of time, before tournament day.

Question, though. Can WinTD and SwissSys do merges on demand, or do they need to know before round 1 that a merge is coming up, and when? Somebody who knows please tell me. And it might be possible only for two sections in the same tournament, not for two different 1-section events set up for the same day. So the TD may need to know in advance and set things up as needed.

Even if the TD doesn’t know how to do a merge, essentially the same thing should be possible manually. After round 3 is over, simply add the 4 players by hand to the 12-player section, and enter the actual results for these 4 players too, and then run round 4 normally. At the end, report only the combined section to U.S. Chess, since all the results will be there now, from both sections and all 4 rounds.

In short: Don’t combine. Merge instead!

More later.

Bill Smythe

18

I’m about 98% sure I’ve never had to tell SwissSys in advance when I plan to merge, but I do so very rarely, so I might be mistaken.

Alex Relyea

19

There isn’t any “advance” notice of a merge in either software. You simply merge at the time you choose.

That’s an interesting idea. It makes it sort of like a 2 versus 3 day schedule. The downside perhaps is that the leading scorers in the lower section may be artificially high point wise after the section is combined. It’s probably better to do the merge no more than half way through the rounds to prevent this. At least for the early rounds they get to play within the original section. This would work best if one or lower section prizes get moved into the combined prize list as “under prizes”.

20

With WinTD, it would have to be two sections in the same tournament file, but you can merge anytime you want. (Back it up first…back it up first…back it up first).