Third time in a row.

Running Chess Tournaments
1

A not-so-funny thing’s been happening ever since my rating fell below 900. Yeah, go ahead and snigger. It’s not easy coming back to chess at age 39 when you’ve hardly played since you were 12, at which age you picked up all sorts of bad habits from playing the same color against the same neighbor kid over and over. And it’s not easy getting that rating to go back up when the active players your age are all rated several hundred points higher than you are.

So the thing is, there’s not much action where I live. I’m doing what I can to fix that, but it’s not fast going, so if I want to enjoy rated play on a regular basis, I have to head out of town. It’s typically a drive of between 1½ and 2½ hours each way. As you might guess, once I finally get where I’m going, I want to sit down and play.

Well, a couple of months ago, I drove 2½ hours to play in a three-round Swiss groups tournament. My rating having fallen below that of the second lowest-rated player (924 . . . in a group that went up to 1465), I caught the first-round bye.

In March, I drove to the same club for the four-round Tri-Level. With five players in my section, no one was safe except the top-rated player. I got the bye in the second round.

Today, I drove 1½ hours to a different city for a quad tournament. I figured quads were pretty safe. I figured wrong. There were three extra players, so the bottom “quad” turned into a seven-player Swiss. The other six players ranged from 1112 to 1326. Guess who caught the first-round bye and wouldn’t have a game for the next 3½ hours? Yep. I simply withdrew on the spot – I mean, what was the point? Twenty dollars for two rounds, and a whole day lost? Besides, if I hadn’t withdrawn, two other players would have gotten robbed as well.

Back when I lived in Cambridge, Mass., I got stuck with byes a couple of times, and that wasn’t fun, but it wasn’t quite as bad there: the club was in a cool neighborhood where I could get ice cream or coffee or ribs, and besides, home was just a 15-minute subway ride away. But these byes at the end of long drives are killing me. What’s more, they’re helping to kill my rating: every time I catch an early bye, I get an unearned game point, and the rest of my pairings get commensurately tougher, driving my already low number even further down. It’s getting to the point – maybe it’s already gotten to the point – where it makes no sense for me to participate in any event but an RBO. (My club is holding an RBO in July. Does me no good, though . . . I’m the TD.)

I know that when there’s an odd number, somebody has to get the bye. And I know that the chess world fancies itself a meritocracy and therefore bends over backward to keep the folks on the top of the pile happy. So I don’t expect that the “lowest rated odd player gets the bye” rule will ever change. Nor do I expect that I’ll cease to be the lowest rated odd player anytime soon. I guess I just needed to declaim how very, very weary of this I’m becoming.

2

I actually think one could argue that the bye should go to the middle player in the first round, or the middle player in the lowest score group in subsequent rounds. (A reasonable variation might be to do this only in the early rounds of a tournament.) To justify this, imagine introducing a mythical player named “Bye” into the section who plays so poorly that he is at the bottom of the wall chart and can not possibly win a game. That would cause an even number of players, and give the “free” point to the player in the middle of the roster.

It does seem unfortunate that the lowest rated player in the first round ends up with the bye and then has to face stronger competition in subsequent rounds (and possibly uncompetitive pairings). If there is a large difference in ratings, it also means one of the winners in the first round also gets an easy pairing in the second round. That can have an effect (admittedly, minor) on who eventually wins prizes, especially in four round tournaments.

Anyway, I sympathize. I’ve “felt the pain” of being the weakest player and getting stuck with harder games because I got the bye. As a TD, I would give serious consideration to a request by a player who got the bye in an early round to change it to a zero point bye (unplayed round) if the rating difference were large enough that the player would be likely to have uncompetitive pairings otherwise. However, that needs to be balanced with the possibility that the player ends up with easier pairings and ends up with an advantage for a lower “under” prize.

3

That is why we always try to have a houseman, even if it has to be the TD.

4

Before traveling to your next tournament call the organizer and ask whether a house player will be used if necessary in order to avoid byes. Asking that question ahead of time may increase the chances that house-player options are considered before posting pairings with a bye.

A couple of years ago I played in a tournament where byes were assigned every round despite a potential house player being present and eager to play (entry fee was a bit steep, so he was observing). I agree that this can be frustrating.

5

There is this movie I like called The 13th Warrior.

Banderas plays a character that is physically weaker than his Norse counterparts. In one scene when he is given a sword, he responds “I cannot lift this”, with a response back from the Norse of “Get stronger”.

6

Sometimes, if time allows, in an odd entry section, I will pair the first round bye against the first player in the section to lose their first round game. If it’s a 4 round event, I will also pair the third round bye against the first loser from the bottom score group. I am careful to observe the other Swiss rules about playing someone twice and color allocations. I then add what appears to be a fifth round with everyone getting a bye except the four players that got cross-round pairings. This has the effect of eliminating the bye. I should add that this works better in scholastic tournaments in which I am likely to see a scholar’s mate or two. Also, parents seem to like that their child will not miss a game.

The house man can also work, but it works better if the house man has a low rating. I’ve directed at several tournaments in which someone will come to the director and ask to play if there is an odd number. Often, this is done by giving the bye, but sending in the house man game as part of a different section, or noting that the player who plays the house man is not to receive a future bye, even if he lost to him.

Another solution that sometimes works in multi section tournaments, is to pair the byes against each other for a rated game as part of a separate “extra games” section and give both a full point bye in their own sections.

As for the idea of giving the middle player the bye, this is against the principle of Swiss pairings, which is to determine the winners. The idea behind giving the lowest rated player the bye, is to give it to the one least likely to win.

7

I remember that movie. I also remember that the Norsemen couldn’t be bothered even to pay attention to the protagonist’s name.

The house player is a good solution when (a) there’s not too much airspace between his strength and the strength of the players given byes and (b) the event comprises four or more rounds. Otherwise, though, it only slaps a Band-Aid on the problem. The player with the bye gets a game – against a player he has little or no chance of beating. And then he’ll get overmatched in subsequent rounds.

For instance, in the February tournament, I played a house game against Bruce Potratz. I love the man, and I enjoy playing him, but on the day I can beat him, I won’t be the one getting byes anymore. And since I got the game point in the first round, instead of facing a player from the lower half of my group in the second round (924–1268), I was guaranteed a pairing against a player in the top half (1389–1465). There were only three rounds. If I hadn’t received a first-round bye, I’d still have gotten overmatched in the first round – that’s nearly unavoidable in a Swiss with non-class-based groupings – but I’d at least have had two rounds to punch my own weight.

Going back further in time, last August, just after my rating fell below 900 for the first time, I drew a second-round bye in an U1200 section at the same club. Instead of playing a rated house game against me, Potratz treated me to a teaching game – and that was far more valuable to me than a rated game would have been. So now that some of the sting of yesterday’s misfortune has faded away and I’m ready to start thinking about solutions again, perhaps the default, if a house player of comparable strength to the players with byes isn’t available, should be not house games but instructional opportunities.

8

I’m trying to follow this. Let’s say you have a 7-person “quad basement.” Are you saying that player G, who got the first-round bye, will be paired against player D, the top losing player in the first round, in round 2? Or that G will play a game with player F, the first player to finish a game and lose, before round 2 starts, and that this will count as round 2 for G, while F will essentially skip the round?

This makes me wonder whether anyone has ever seen an instance in which a player with a first-round bye managed to win enough subsequent games to take first place in his section when his bye point was added in.

9

Player G will play Player F (or whoever else finished first and lost) for his first round game. He will be paired normally for his second round game. This game will be Player F’s 2nd round game. The hope/expectation is that this cross-round game will be finished by the time the 2nd round is to start - allowing Player G to play that game. In that way both Player G (who would have had a bye in round 1) and Player F (who would have had a bye in round 2) will get to play all their games.

See pages 124-125 of the rulebook for more details.

10

What the chess world needs is more TD’s who hate giving byes, and will do whatever it takes to avoid them.

There are a number of ways to avoid byes. Not all of these work well under all circumstances, so the TD must be flexible.

One of the most obvious ways is cross-round pairings. (More on this below, following the quote.)

Another way is for the TD to pair himself into the tournament, taking himself in and out, whenever necessary, to keep an even number in each round. This can work well in a small (20 players or so) single-section event.

This does not mean that the TD should use himself as a house player. That’s not good because the player otherwise receiving the bye would likely have a much tougher game than he should. Instead, the TD should pair himself normally, according to his score so far.

For example, let’s say there are 19 players, rated 1600 on the average, and the TD is rated 1400. To make 20 players, the TD should pair himself as though he were a “regular” 1400 player entering the tournament normally. He would probably get an opponent rated about 1900 in the first round.

Now let’s suppose, in round 2, there are 20 players instead of 19. (Maybe an additional player showed up late and wanted to jump in.) Now there is an even number, so the TD does not pair himself in round 2.

In round 3, let’s say there is now (for some reason) an odd number again. Now the TD can pair himself “normally”, just as in round 1. But, in pairing round 3, what score (win, draw, or loss) should the TD give himself (for pairing purposes) for his unplayed round 2 game? That should depend on the circumstances. Best would be to give himself whatever score would put him somewhere near the middle of whatever score group he would then be in. For example, if scoring himself as a loss in round 2 would put him near the top of his score group in round 3, then, to be fair to the other players, he should instead score himself as a draw (or possibly even a win) in round 2.

Of course, a TD who uses the above technique should declare himself ineligible to win any prize.

Now, back to cross-round pairings.

It’s much simpler (and works better) than that. Player G is given a “temporary” bye, but is told to wait around for a cross-round pairing. As soon as one of the other games finishes, the loser (let’s say player E, for example) is asked if he would be willing to play his next game early. If E agrees, he is immediately paired against G, counting it as round 1 for G, and as round 2 for E. (If E does not agree, then the loser of the next-finishing game can be asked instead.)

With any luck, this game will still finish in time for round 2. Player G is then paired normally in round 2. Player E is not paired in round 2, as he has already played two games. Sort of kills two byes with one stone.

Bill Smythe

11

Mr. Stenzel has an overly complicated approach to cross-round pairings. Please check out this crosstable for a more elegant solution:

http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?200912056181

Also, Mr. Ballou overlooks the main purpose of the Swiss System tournament, which is to reduce the number of perfect scores to one as quickly as possible. That’s why you want the player who is least likely to take advantage of the situation to have a free point, why the lowest rated person in the perfect score group is paired with the highest ranked person otherwise in the tournament. Oftentimes this means that the player who got the bye in the first round will play a player who had an upset draw or loss in the first round, and therefore will be very likely to lose, and thereby eliminate a perfect score.

Alex Relyea

12

Seems like the problem would be solved if you stopped showing up to make the player total odd instead of even! :mrgreen:
After all, it’s 50-50 that you will have and odd number or an even number of players. So maybe your luck is about to change and you will have three even sections in a row, or three out of the next four. And once you win a few games and bump up that rating, problem solved. Maybe you can take the ideas generated here and pass them along to the TDs.

13

This is actually what I meant as houseman. I’ve never just played the bottom player. I put myself in the mix before making pairings.

This is what I don’t like about the cross round pairings. You have just transferred the problem to another player. Now the person with two games has to set out with nothing to do. The only time we use to do cross round pairings was with scholastics and we have actually found that many of the kids really like the idea of a free point.

Another problem with crossround pairings is that byes and withdrawels really mess with them.

14

I like how you think. :smiley:

15

What happened there? Did players 8 and 9 (in round 1/2) and 7 and 8 (in round 3/4) actually play against each other and achieve draws, or was that just a sneaky way of giving them half-point byes instead of full-point byes?

16

If you don’t want to drive a long distance (& long time) just to wait for the next round with a bye, then request a first round bye and show up for round 2! I do agree that a bye is usually undesireable as most players at small tournaments are there specifically to play chess rather than sit around. If you already have a bye [in this case requested by you] then your chances of another bye are almost nil. Also, you will be looking at 1/2 a point rather than 1 point for the bye and may not get as tough pairings with the 1/2 point as you get with the full point bye. Best is the on hand houseman, which why I have always thought the TD should also be a rated chess player [not sometime always required by the USCF] who could play if needed.

Larry S. Cohen

17

That is an excellent suggestion. Thank you.

18

The best course of action here is probably to vote with your feet.

If the organizer won’t take into account the fact that you drove MUCH FURTHER to get to his tournament that many of the other participants and either arrange for a house player or try to keep from giving you a bye every time, let him know you may not be back.

However, you need to leave the door open for your continued participation if he addresses your grievances, even though he may not be able to completely prevent it from recurring.

The irate “I’m never coming back/buying your product again” letter is far less effective in motivating change than the one that POLITELY and CLEARLY lays out your situation and possible ways to address it.

19

As I mentioned before, the chess world fancies itself a meritocracy (q.v. Sevan Muradian’s comment concerning Norsemen), and the loss of a U900 is probably not reckoned to be all that great – certainly not enough to necessitate that anything be done differently. Quite possibly not enough even to be noticed.

No, I don’t foresee the aggrieved-customer strategy accomplishing anything in this respect. ILfish’s simple self-defense strategy of requesting a first-round half-point bye seems a lot more pragmatic. Especially in events like the upcoming Madison Spring RBO, which starts at 8:15 AM!

20

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Lao-tzu.