I’m sure there are opinions about which is better and why? Anyone want to share?
Thanks.
I believe there was an earlier thread about this two or three years ago. Both programs are quite satisfactory. I slightly prefer SwissSys because a) It gives you more flexibility in designing your output (I spent some time customizing my wallcharts and pairing sheets, and I don’t think highly of TDs who use 10-pt Courier), and b) Registering players is marginally faster – only one mouse click to import from the database, which doesn’t seem like much until you have 50 players standing in line. WinTD has better team support, and there is some evidence that it makes slightly better pairings in a few very odd cases. Pick one, learn it, and stick to it.
As far as I can tell, more games are submitted via WinTD, but that’s because it is used for most of the really large events, like the National Scholastics and (I think) the USATE, because, as John Hillery noted, it has more features oriented towards those team events.
What ever happened to that poll you did a while back, Mike? As I recall, the vote was just about 50-50.
Yes, it was very close. I think the final totals were something like 48 votes for WinTD, 48 votes for Swis-Sys and 2 votes for something else.
I think that there are more small events submitted with SwisSys and more large events submitted with WinTD.
I’ve been using Swiss Sys since about 1993/4 and have been one of Thad Suits’ beta testers for all of the Windows versions. I’ve attempted to use WinTD, mainly to understand it, and had to use it to get information from the tournament files when doing to US Open Bulletin in 2007. It would be interesting to get someone’s opinion who has been using both for many years.
In 2005, Carol Jarecki and Robert Tanner did an interesting experiment at the US Championship. They paired the tournament by hand and then asked Swiss Sys and WinTD to make pairings, comparing them to what these two experienced NTDs did by hand. They concluded that WinTD made slightly better pairings. Swiss Sys was most likely in Windows Version 6 or possibly even 5 at that point.
Swiss Sys is now on version 8.31. Version 8 has paired better than version 7 even in the beta format. I was using the first betas last summer to experiment at the Philadelphia International and World Open. Bill Goichberg had several instances in which Swiss Sys 7 did not correctly pair the top boards. When Version 8 was asked to do this, it did so correctly, or at least much better than Version 7 had. Same thing happened recently when Version 7 was pairing at the Liberty Bell: Steve Immitt’s hand pairings were very different than what Swiss Sys 7 had proposed on the top 6 boards. When it was put into Version 8, the top 5 boards matched what he had done by hand, much better than Swiss Sys 7 had done. So, I think whatever difference in pairing existed between WinTD and Swiss Sys has probably been closed.
If pairings are now equal, then Swiss Sys, IMHO, far outranks WinTD in terms of ease of use and modern Windows features. WinTD reminds me of an old Windows 3.1 program and is not user friendly. Swiss Sys has much more powerful features when it comes to printing and with a little tinkering it is not hard to create any kind of wallcharts, standings files, and html files that you need. Swiss Sys has allowed exporting pairings files into pgn headers for many years, something important to anyone wanting to make games collections from tournaments. Version 8 has improved FIDE features and many other new features which make it fun to use. Its team tournament features used to be very weak and caused many TDs to use WinTD and those features have continually been improved in Swiss Sys.
Just my opinion 
Michael Atkins
How does it do with a fixed roster team event such as the US Amateur Team. On older versions it didn’t seem to be able to do it at all. WinTD handles the team tournament format but there are some really annoying things about the wallcharts in that it doesn’t put team average or team number on the wall chart that has the players. Consequently after about the top 10 you have to count to figure where a certain team is ranked. I find it almost impossible to find out who the players are on your opponent’s team.
I’ve only had the chance to use it at National Chess Congress in the past to add in all the teams, merge all the sections and produce the winners. It does a good job printing various styles with this individual/team tournament format. When it prints team standings, it gives averages for the top 4 players on each team as that is the format, so I would assume that in Fixed Roster events it would use the top 4 players. I see the bug reports listed all the time and see corrections and fixes for team tournaments so I assume it is doing those things as I don’t often get the chance to do fixed-roster team events. It handled beautifully the College Final 4 championship that I ran last Spring which was a team round robin event. When I have some free time and nothing else better to do, I’ll create a fake team tournament and see how it prints. 
I use Swiss-Sys for the USATW. It’s satisfactory. You can sort the wallcharts by “team average rating” if youi want (sorts by players by team in team rating order), output by team only (with team average rating), or output a roster (teams with average rating with players, with team results but only total score for individual players). It won’t do what I think you have in mind, wallchart with team name/rating/results with player name/rating/results below it. I asked Suits about this once and he said there just wasn’t enough demand to justify the programming work. There are some examples of the putput at westernchess.com/atw09/standings.html. The team wallchart is in finish order, but you can put it in rating order instead.
A minor point is that there’s a limit of around 40 characters for team names. That should be plenty, but of course every year there’s someone with a very long and tedious name.
The only major problem I have is that I don’t entirely trust the team tiebreak calculations. This year I ahd to rerun them by hand, which is a little tedious with the Barry System. I’m thinking of dropping that next year for straight game points.
I own both of them and prefer to use WinTD, but that is probably based on familiarity since I bought it first.
I did a comparison over ten years ago that is probably not valid since both programs have been upgraded several times since then. However, if you are interested, it is posted at www.ioa.com/~hyde/pairing.htm.
If I ever get some free time, I might update the comparison.
Point well taken. I’ve never directed (or even been at) a team tournament with more than 40 teams, so perusing wall charts wasn’t that big a deal. How would something like this have worked?
[code] Name/ID Rate Rnd 1 Rnd 2 Rnd 3 Rnd 4 Rnd 5 Rnd 6
- CAMBRIDGE SPRINGERS A(2199)
- Christiansen, Larr |2611 |P 302 |P 163 |P 112 |P 454 | P 63 |P 107 |
10460921 Board 1 | | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 |
- Kelleher, William |2383 |P 303 |P 164 |P 113 |P 455 | P 64 |P 108 |
10012571 Board 2 | | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.5 |
- Christiansen, Nata |1902 |P 304 |P 165 |P 115 |P 456 | P 65 |P 109 |
11366805 Board 3 | | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.5 | 3.5 | 3.5 |
- Dimitrijevic, Vesn |1901 |P 305 |P 166 |P 116 |P 457 | P 66 |P 110 |
12436451 Board 4 | | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 3.5 | 3.5 |
- MATE THE FORKERS(2199)
- Mac Intyre, Paul |2304 |P 314 |P 167 | P 91 |P 364 |P 180 | P 26 |
12232580 Board 1 | | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.5 | 2.0 |
- Mc Clain, Dylan |2284 |P 315 |P 168 | P 92 |P 365 |P 181 | P 27 |
12013830 Board 2 | | 0.5 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 2.5 | 3.5 | 4.0 |
- Hulse, Brian |2200 |P 316 |P 169 | P 93 |P 366 |P 182 | P 28 |
10078644 Board 3 | | 0.5 | 1.5 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 3.5 | 4.0 |
- Price, Alan C |2009 |P 317 |P 170 | P 94 |P 367 |P 183 | P 29 |
12534712 Board 4 | | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/code]
As far as teams in WinTD goes, I do a couple of fixed-board team tournaments each year (8 weighted boards ranging from 5 to 12 points per board). WinTD always does weighted board matches, but the default weighting is one point per board. I print team wallcharts, individual wallcharts by team and, near the end, cross-tables or wallcharts by board (for people interested in how the board prize races are shaping up).
WinTD allows printing a match result sheet per match with the names of the players pre-printed. If the captain changes anything then it is an immediate flag that the line-up for that round needs to be changed from what you originally had. I’m guessing SwissSys has something similar.
If you list the team code on both the individual and team wallcharts then it is fairly easy to cross-reference them (I’ve only done up to 34 teams so far).
As far as font-size goes, a number of people don’t realize that you can change the font size in WinTD. The wallcharts are easier to read at nine players per page instead of twenty.
The USAT tie-break works fine in WinTD. I’ve never tried looking at the Barry tie-break that John mentioned.
If you’re talking about something like this:
[code] Name/ID Rate Rnd 1 Rnd 2 Rnd 3 Rnd 4 Rnd 5 Rnd 6
- CAMBRIDGE SPRINGERS A |2199 |W72,4.0 |B40,4.0 |W28,2.0 |B109,3.5 |W16,2.5 |B27,1.5 |
| | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.5 | 3.5 | 4.5 | 4.5 |
- Christiansen, Larr |2611 |P 302 |P 163 |P 112 |P 454 | P 63 |P 107 |
10460921 Board 1 | | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 |
- Kelleher, William |2383 |P 303 |P 164 |P 113 |P 455 | P 64 |P 108 |
10012571 Board 2 | | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.5 |
- Christiansen, Nata |1902 |P 304 |P 165 |P 115 |P 456 | P 65 |P 109 |
11366805 Board 3 | | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.5 | 3.5 | 3.5 |
- Dimitrijevic, Vesn |1901 |P 305 |P 166 |P 116 |P 457 | P 66 |P 110 |
12436451 Board 4 | | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 3.5 | 3.5 |
- MATE THE FORKERS |2199 |B75,3.0 |W41,3.0 |B23,1.5 |W87,3.0 |B44,3.0 | W7,2.5 |
| | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 |
- Mac Intyre, Paul |2304 |P 314 |P 167 | P 91 |P 364 |P 180 | P 26 |
12232580 Board 1 | | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.5 | 2.0 |
- Mc Clain, Dylan |2284 |P 315 |P 168 | P 92 |P 365 |P 181 | P 27 |
12013830 Board 2 | | 0.5 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 2.5 | 3.5 | 4.0 |
- Hulse, Brian |2200 |P 316 |P 169 | P 93 |P 366 |P 182 | P 28 |
10078644 Board 3 | | 0.5 | 1.5 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 3.5 | 4.0 |
- Price, Alan C |2009 |P 317 |P 170 | P 94 |P 367 |P 183 | P 29 |
12534712 Board 4 | | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/code]
it would be rather difficult to format that in a way that would be very readable, particularly if you were putting it out in an HTML table. (The individual’s cells have different widths and information content than the team ones). I’m also not sure how useful it would be anyway relative to the alternative of one (rather compact) table with just the team results and a separate one with the individuals by team.
It would be very useful, especially if the font/point size for each field could be set individually (as is the case in Swiss-Sys). I think it’s what the players want, and it’s certainly what I want. It’s essentially what we used pre-computer, and I dislike trading down. Of course, it’s a pretty specialized format, and I can understand that setting it up might not be cost-effective for Thad Suits. Since WinTD is used for the USATE (the equivalent of, well, ten ordinary tournaments), it might make since for you, however.
-
That’s quite true, but unless there’s been a recent change you cannot adjust the size of fields individually. You can make everything larger or smaller, but you can’t make, say, the player name larger and the opponent number/score smaller.
-
The “Barry system” is what the Rulebook calls the “U.S. Amateur Team System.” I think it’s a dumb name, and I won’t use it.
That’s exactly what I’m talking about. That makes it so much easier to find the teams. That’s an excellent change.
I hate to brag (well, no I don’t) but the following crosstable format (for team tournaments) would be way superior to anything any of you have suggested so far. (Pat on back, pat on back.) I’ll bet your players would love it – it has every piece of information you need, in a compact and readable format.
NOTE: At this point I am talking only about the appearance of the wallchart posted at the tournament, not the format for submitting to USCF. We can debate the latter point later, if desired.
I’ve thrown in an alternate on each team, so that everyone can see how alternates would be handled as well. Colors are gathered together in a color-history column. Team colors are the colors for boards 1 and 3, of course.
1 CAMBRIDGE SPRINGERS A 2199 3.5 wbwb W 72 W 40 D 28 W109
1a Christiansen, Larr 10460921 2611 4.0 wbwb W 72a W 40a W 28a W109a
1b Kelleher, William 10012571 2383 4.0 bwbw W 72b W 40b W 28b W109b
1c Christiansen, Nata 11366805 1902 2.0 wbw- W 72c W 40c L 28d -
1d Dimitrijevic, Vesn 12436451 1901 1.5 b-bb W 72d - L 28e D109c
1e Smythe, Bill 10339022 1850 2.0 -w-w - W 40d - W109d
2 MATE THE FORKERS 2199 3.0 bwbw W 75 W 41 L 23 W 87
2a Mac Intyre, Paul 12232580 2304 1.0 bwbw W 75a L 41a L 23a L 87a
2b Mc Clain, Dylan 12013830 2284 2.5 wbwb D 75b W 41b L 23b W 87b
2c Hulse, Brian 10078644 2200 1.0 b-bw D 75c - D 23c W 87c
2d Price, Alan C 12534712 2009 4.0 wwwb W 75d W 41c W 23d W 87e
2e Fischer, Robert J 12345678 1234 1.0 -b-- - W 41d - -
In addition to the above team-and-player crosstable, there could be a separate smaller crosstable, posted elsewhere, showing teams only. It would consist of just the headers from the above version:
1 CAMBRIDGE SPRINGERS A 2199 3.5 wbwb W 72 W 40 D 28 W109
2 MATE THE FORKERS 2199 3.0 bwbw W 75 W 41 L 23 W 87
This smaller crosstable could, in fact, be made to look like a Swis-Sys wallchart, with the large print and all. The full crosstable at the top, on the other hand, could be in single-line format as shown.
What do you think, all?
Bill Smythe
The color history column is brilliant for individual and team tournaments. Having that on the print-out would easily enable me to hand-pair the next round even if someone spilled coffee all over the computer mid-way through the tournament. (The downside is that then everyone and their dog is questioning the pairings when they have two blacks in a row. I’ll take the questioning.)
Every piece except the team vs team score. For that, you’d have to scan down the individuals and add them up yourself. That was the problem that I was mentioning about trying to interleave the individual and team cross tables - the team cross table has a different set of fields with different widths.
Why is the team-vs-team score (game score) all that important to begin with? Only the overall team result (W,D,L) is used for pairing and prize purposes, with the game score used only for tiebreaks (directly or indirectly, depending on what tiebreak system is used).
Or, if the game score is necessary (or desirable), just add a line at the bottom of each team listing, like this:
1 CAMBRIDGE SPRINGERS A 2199 3.5 wbwb W 72 W 40 D 28 W109
1a Christiansen, Larr 10460921 2611 4.0 wbwb W 72a W 40a W 28a W109a
1b Kelleher, William 10012571 2383 4.0 bwbw W 72b W 40b W 28b W109b
1c Christiansen, Nata 11366805 1902 2.0 wbw- W 72c W 40c L 28d -
1d Dimitrijevic, Vesn 12436451 1901 1.5 b-bb W 72d - L 28e D109c
1e Smythe, Bill 10339022 1850 2.0 -w-w - W 40d - W109d
4.0 4.0 2.0 3.5
2 MATE THE FORKERS 2199 3.0 bwbw W 75 W 41 L 23 W 87
2a Mac Intyre, Paul 12232580 2304 1.0 bwbw W 75a L 41a L 23a L 87a
2b Mc Clain, Dylan 12013830 2284 2.5 wbwb D 75b W 41b L 23b W 87b
2c Hulse, Brian 10078644 2200 1.0 b-bw D 75c - D 23c W 87c
2d Price, Alan C 12534712 2009 4.0 wwwb W 75d W 41c W 23d W 87e
2e Fischer, Robert J 12345678 1234 1.0 -b-- - W 41d - -
3.0 3.0 1.5 3.0
I think you are excessively concerned about column widths. Get out of programmer mode for a moment, and start thinking of the wallchart as a work of art, rather than a set of fields. Use Word (with Courier font, if appropriate) to design the output you want, then do whatever programming is necessary to get the desired result.
Bill Smythe