tiebreaks

Running Chess Tournaments
1

i am rated 1567. the next highest rated player in the tournament is 1700.
we both have a final score of 4-1, will i win on tiebreaks.

2

Missing a question mark?

It depend on the Tie-Break system. Many use Cumulative for Swiss Tournaments and many use a QC match to determine winner.

Early results are the key in determining a winner in Cumulative.

BTW there are Tie Break systems.

3

Depends what tiebreak system the organizer is using. The most common tie-break systems do not take rating into account.

If one player’s loss came in round 1 and the other’s came in round 5, it is likely the latter will win on tiebreak, because he was probably playing higher-scoring opponents in rounds 2-5.

Is there a trophy or merchandise prize, or just cash? In the latter case, normally no tie-break system would be used – the 1st and 2nd place money will simply be combined and split.

Bill Smythe

4

Scott, if it is the tournament I think it is, the first tie-break system for a round-robin is Sonnenborn-Berger. In that case you want the loss to be to somebody with a lower final score. So if the two leaders are 4-1 then the 4-1 that beat the other wins the tie-break and the traveling trophy.

By the way, the last I heard you were 4-0 with one make-up game left against somebody that already had two losses. There is still one other make-up game as well before the tournament can be submitted.

5

FWIW, If the players involved in a cumulative tiebreak have high scores like 4-1, the winner of the tiebreak was the last to lose. The guy who lost on board 1 in the last round after going into it with a perfect score would beat someone who recovered with 4 straight after an opening round loss by 4 c. b. points.

6

Unfortunately generalizations like “the winner of the tiebreak was the last to lose” cannot always be used:

             1   2   3   4   5   Tot
Player 1     W   D   W   D   W    4
Player 2     W   W   L   W   W    4

Both players cumulative score is 12. Player 2 was the “last to lose” but Player 1 didn’t lose at all. However, I do agree your rule fits with your given scenario.

It looks like someone has created a Wikipedia page for chess tie-break systems and it can be found at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tie-breaki … ournaments. Of course you can also find info on the tie-break systems in the rule book.

7

Averaging the round numbers of the two draws gives 3 for Player 1 which was the round Player 2 lost. It should be no surprize that neither “system” breaks this tie since the difference between Last Loss and Cumulative is a constant for any given score and tournament length. Cumulative is in favor of early wins, Last Loss favors late losses–they are measuring the same thing.

This was published in the back of a Rating Supplement in the 70’s or early 80’s.

8

IMHO the ONLY advantage that Cumulative had was that the tiebreaks could be computed by hand during the last round.

With computers, that’s no longer an issue.

9

To appropriate and expand on Chris’ example

             1   2   3   4   5   Tot
Player 1     W   D   W   D   W    4
Player 2     W   W   L   W   W    4

1 and 2 each have 12 cumulative

             1   2   3   4   5   Tot
Player 1     D   W   W   D   W    4
Player 2     W   W   L   W   W    4

1 has 11.5 even though he was the last to lose or draw

             1   2   3   4   5   Tot
Player 1     W   D   W   W   D    4
Player 2     W   W   L   W   W    4

1 has 12.5 even though 2 was the last to lose.

             1   2   3   4   5   6   7   Tot
Player 1     W   L   W   W   W   W   L    5
Player 2     W   W   W   W   L   L   W    5

1 has 21 and 2 has 23 even though 1 was the last to lose

10

When you are talking about players who are ?-1, the round numbers in which they lost or average round number of their draws will give the same result as cumulative. When the players are ?-2, last to lose may not work unless all lost in the same earlier round. If you take the sum of the round numbers a player lost plus half the sum of drawing rounds, you will get the same results as cumulative.

As nolan said, with computers this is no longer an issue. If you are a player involved in a tiebreak and the TD is swamped at the moment, this might be a quick way to figure it out in your head. If you will be listed among those who “also played”, just wait for the TD to announce the final order.

11

Not quite true.

If two players are tied, with Cumulative you know immediately (as soon as both their games are over) which of the two had the better tie-breaks.

With other systems, such as Solkoff or Median, you may have to wait until other games are finished – games involving previous opponents of the tied players – before knowing who had the better tie-breaks.

So with Cumulative it may sometimes be possible to award some prizes earlier, and let the players begin the long drive home.

Bill Smythe

12

This is an interesting view of “advantage”. Personally, I prefer tiebreaks that are connected to reality. Cumulative isn’t. If you have a computer and you use Cumulative, I think you’re making a mistake.

13

Your faith in tiebreak systems other than Cumulative/Continental is touching. Cum/Con rewards (usually) the player with the most recent loss, which means the player who faced the stronger opposition. It’s mostly arbitrary, of course – just like all the other “connected to reality” systems.

Someone who’s really interested in the subject (which means not me) might want to do an analysis of how often Cum/Con produces a different TB result from MM or Solkoff.