Third time in a row.

[Allen]

@Harold S.

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.

I have done all of these - I always try to have that bye to get a rated game if I can and he wants it.

[Akzidenz]

@anjiaoshi

@nolan

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.

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!

Hi, folks,

I’m one of the organizers Anji is good-naturedly (I hope) griping about. The half-point bye in round 1 sounds like an excellent strategy; sleep in, arrive late, improve your winning chances all around.

In our defense, there are a lot of issues to juggle in this scenario:

…the desire of all players to reach an equal opponent quickly. We run multiple-section tournaments to make this possible, but with more sections, we increase the chances of odd numbers in any given section, and make it harder to insert house players in the right “spot” rating-wise.

(In one of the tournaments Anji played in, an unrated player went 3-1, a 971 player went 3-1 and a 1043 went 4-0. Multiple sections give these players a rare chance to dominate.)

…limited time in our playing space. This makes it harder for us to do cross-round pairings, or to take the time to finesse pairings and/or negotiate with potential house players.
…When we direct, we don’t play. USCF prefers this. We prefer it too.
…We do encourage house players. We’ve had less luck getting them to stay for the whole day.
…We usually find something for the odd player out. It might be an extra game. Or it might be an hour of skittles/teaching against someone who stopped by to hang out.

So, we do try. I hope we’ll get better at this as we go along. We can get the low-seed some chess; we can’t necessarily get him/her an opportunity to pick up rating points. I REALLY hate that, but there it is.

Like Anji, I have driven long distances to play, only to get the odd-player 1 point bye, which ruins my chances of meeting an opponent of similar rating. Thus, a low-rating turns out to be self-perpetuating. We are all better than our numbers; those of us who are lower-rated are probably MORE better than our numbers, if you follow my meaning and my lousy grammar.

[billwong]

Not to nit pick, but you’ve only received the first round bye twice and just once recently. You do have a couple more second round byes, but that’s because you lost. Maybe you could request a Zero point bye, then you’d have an even better chance of playing a lower rated player, but looking at the ratings of the people who usually attend the tournaments you go to, you probably wouldn’t be meeting them until the third or final round anyway.

[KeithAmmann]

@billwong

Not to nit pick, but you’ve only received the first round bye twice and just once recently.

Not to nitpick, but one of the games I’m referring to isn’t in my MSA history because I withdrew in the first round.

@Akzidenz

I’m one of the organizers Anji is good-naturedly (I hope) griping about.

And the way she and Tom Sprandel run their tournaments is the reason why I keep attending them even though I also keep getting hosed. My gripe has probably lost any good nature it may once have had, but this shouldn’t be taken as a reflection on the Evanston Chess Club. I reserve my bile for the bye rule and the (cumulatively) frustrating effects it has on struggling players like me.

@Akzidenz

Like Anji, I have driven long distances to play, only to get the odd-player 1 point bye, which ruins my chances of meeting an opponent of similar rating. Thus, a low-rating turns out to be self-perpetuating. We are all better than our numbers; those of us who are lower-rated are probably MORE better than our numbers, if you follow my meaning and my lousy grammar.

I follow, and I think you’re spot on. You should get someone else to direct the July 10 Tri-Level so that you can come play in our RBO.

[billwong]

I know, my point stands.

[Fromper]

I’m surprised nobody’s mentioned Greg Shahade’s article about the problem with Swiss tournaments in this conversation. It certainly seems to apply.

[billwong]

not familiar with it, how bout you tell me…

[nolan]

Here’s a link to Greg’s 2007 article on the Swiss. The AUG limits me from saying what I think of it.

main.uschess.org/content/view/7854/381

[billwong]

Did he ever get around to writing those other articles? I cant find them. I searched for greg on chess, but no luck.