PDA

View Full Version : chess time scheduling



CameronD
04-10-2008, 03:29 PM
This poll is to ask chesschaters wheather in crammed weekend tournaments should have time for people to eat in the schedule as workers must have a dinner break after working 6 hours.

I'm going to use the Queensland minor as an example as it fits.

Round 1: Saturday November 8th 10am Round 2: Saturday November 8th 12.30pm
Round 3: Saturday November 8th 3pm Round 4: Saturday November 8th 5.30pm
Round 5: Sunday November 9th 10am Round 6: Sunday November 9th 12.30pm
Round 7: Sunday November 9th 3pm

Now at 60+10, games going 60 moves will last 2.5 hours, meaning that a player could be required to play non-stop for 10 hours!!. Why not have a 30 minute dinner break after the completion of round 2 for a dinner break.

Dougy
04-10-2008, 04:38 PM
Wow! That is quite an extreme tournament! I like it! It's not too big a deal about meal times - people will still fit them in somehow. If you're really worried about it, just ask for a bye in some round.

Kevin Bonham
04-10-2008, 05:30 PM
Rather confusingly, Cameron seems to be using the term "dinner" for what most people would call "lunch", ie a main meal in the middle of the day. I will use "dinner" for the main meal in the early evening.


Now at 60+10, games going 60 moves will last 2.5 hours, meaning that a player could be required to play non-stop for 10 hours!!.

Your math is a touch incorrect. A 60 move G60/+10 goes for two hours base plus 20 seconds for each move and its reply, which is 2 hrs 20 mins total not 2 hrs 30. And that's assuming both players burn up all their time on such a long game (with both full time use and long games being fairly uncommon at minor level).

However the degree of compression in the schedule you quote is greater than I would ever willingly use (also I don't think I would play in a main-list-rated event with four rounds this compressed, not that I would be eligible for a Minor anyway). Sometimes an organiser has no choice because of booking restrictions and so on. Another possibility is that rounds are crammed to allow for early bedtime for juniors, but I think that on Saturdays it is reasonable to expect juniors who are playing in tournaments to be up til 9-9:30.

For the recent Hobart Weekender we also had 4xG60/+10 on the first day with games starting @ 10:30 am, 1:30 pm, 3:45 pm, 7:00 pm. Of course the 3:45 for round 3 is very rubbery since one game can go late, delaying all the pairings for game 3 (or sometimes one game goes slightly late giving a few players a late start). However if that happens it's no big deal as games can run into the dinner break between rounds 3 and 4.

We always guarantee 15 minutes break between rounds for each player.

As for the 6 hour thing, in an agency I have been doing much of my recent work for, employees are not supposed to work more than 5 hours straight without a main meal break.

The poll question is not very well worded; it could be read as suggesting the break should be 6 hours long! Would you like me to reword it slightly?

Desmond
06-10-2008, 09:38 AM
Should crammed weekend tournaments have time for a dinner break roughly 6 hoursI don't need that long for dinner.

Phil Bourke
06-10-2008, 09:54 AM
Perhaps Cameron would like the Dubbo and Blayney Chess Opens :) Both are six rounders with a nice 3 hrs between rounds, allowing a nice break even if you get into one of the longer games! Plus the idea is that everyone gets to sit down and have tea/dinner together after Round 3 is finished. Then throw in a bit of fun blitz/lightning after tea/dinner to finish of the night.

A contrasting approach which seems to be working with this years events attracting fields of 30 (Dubbo) and 40 (Blayney).

Yes we are aware that six rounds does open up the chance of player/s getting an uneven 4-2 split in their colours. But it seems a fair trade off for a more relaxed schedule for players and officials.

If it was all about chess, we would just stay home and play on the net. Tournaments are about sharing games and times with people who have a common interest and catching up with old friends and making new ones.

Watto
06-10-2008, 10:56 AM
Perhaps Cameron would like the Dubbo and Blayney Chess Opens :) Both are six rounders with a nice 3 hrs between rounds, allowing a nice break even if you get into one of the longer games! Plus the idea is that everyone gets to sit down and have tea/dinner together after Round 3 is finished. Then throw in a bit of fun blitz/lightning after tea/dinner to finish of the night.

Very civilised. I much prefer the sound of that I have to say. Might have to visit one year I think. :)


Wow! That is quite an extreme tournament! I like it! It's not too big a deal about meal times - people will still fit them in somehow. If you're really worried about it, just ask for a bye in some round.
I tend to take byes in these situations but a lot of players might want to play as many rounds as they can. Also, people have different reactions to going without food. I know some people get by fine if they miss the odd meal but I can’t orientate myself on a road map let alone on a chess board if I haven’t eaten.

CameronD
06-10-2008, 08:48 PM
I agree phil. I think that 4 60+ games in a day as too much



Perhaps Cameron would like the Dubbo and Blayney Chess Opens :) Both are six rounders with a nice 3 hrs between rounds, allowing a nice break even if you get into one of the longer games! Plus the idea is that everyone gets to sit down and have tea/dinner together after Round 3 is finished. Then throw in a bit of fun blitz/lightning after tea/dinner to finish of the night.

A contrasting approach which seems to be working with this years events attracting fields of 30 (Dubbo) and 40 (Blayney).

Yes we are aware that six rounds does open up the chance of player/s getting an uneven 4-2 split in their colours. But it seems a fair trade off for a more relaxed schedule for players and officials.

If it was all about chess, we would just stay home and play on the net. Tournaments are about sharing games and times with people who have a common interest and catching up with old friends and making new ones.

Dougy
07-10-2008, 08:55 AM
I agree phil. I think that 4 60+ games in a day as too much

It hard-core, to be sure. But remember different chess players prefer different things. Variety is the key: not every tournament is a cardboard-cutout of every other tournament.

For example, not everyone can get away for 3 full days, eg. with children and other commitments.

Watto
07-10-2008, 09:08 AM
The poll question is not very well worded; it could be read as suggesting the break should be 6 hours long! Would you like me to reword it slightly?
Yes, the wording is pretty odd. If Cam had put in 15 minutes or half an hour, he might have got a different response on the poll. But as it is, I'm not certain whether those who have voted no are against a short lunch break or not.


Variety is the key: not every tournament is a cardboard-cutout of every other tournament.

Fair point. If players go for this format, then it will justify itself to an extent. But, since the poll question is a general one I'd go for having time for a short lunch break.

Kevin Bonham
07-10-2008, 12:43 PM
"Should crammed weekend tournaments have time for a meal break after roughly 6 hours?" would be a simple way to word the question and one I would unhesitatingly vote "yes" to. But if people who want to ask polls aren't going to word them unambiguously I don't see why I should bother voting.

Watto
07-10-2008, 12:53 PM
"Should crammed weekend tournaments have time for a meal break after roughly 6 hours?" would be a simple way to word the question and one I would unhesitatingly vote "yes" to. But if people who want to ask polls aren't going to word them unambiguously I don't see why I should bother voting.
Yes, that's why I haven't bothered to vote either.

Garvinator
07-10-2008, 01:09 PM
"Should crammed weekend tournaments have time for a meal break after roughly 6 hours?" would be a simple way to word the question and one I would unhesitatingly vote "yes" to. But if people who want to ask polls aren't going to word them unambiguously I don't see why I should bother voting.
I just answer the question that is asked. Nothing more, nothing less. If the question is a lemon, well that is not the fault of the person answering the poll question.

Kevin Bonham
07-10-2008, 01:15 PM
I just answer the question that is asked. Nothing more, nothing less. If the question is a lemon, well that is not the fault of the person answering the poll question.

I do this too, but only when I can actually clearly understand the poll question.

Ian Rout
07-10-2008, 02:00 PM
I think I know from the discussion what the question means. I am more uncertain about the word "should".

Does it mean do I think it's highly desirable, or that I'd personally like to see a bit of a break? In that case I'd say yes, though the bit about six hours in a work environment is really irrelevant considering that in a chess tournament people are engaging in their hobby not work, they have the opportunity not to participate, and it's an occasional thing not every day. But it would be a hard slog playing four games straight so a pause to regenerate your frazzled nerves and at least have a snack would not be a bad thing.

Does it mean there should be some sort of compulsion, for instance a tournament will not be eligible for the Grand Prix or ACF rating if there is no break of at least x minutes after y hours/rounds. In that case I'd say No; if a tournament has some sort of pressure like venue availability I'd prefer to play a tighter schedule rather than cut out a round. I can bring a sandwich or other food and take my chances on finishing one round early enough to eat it.

It should also be said that there's such a thing as too many (or too long) breaks. If you have to hang around with nothing to do I'd rather get the next round started (and finished).

Kevin Bonham
07-10-2008, 02:41 PM
I agree with Ian's distinction above. People should be allowed to hold rated tournaments with very packed schedules, even GP tournaments, and if the punters don't like it they can always choose not to play.

No one has mentioned the actual reason for the crammed schedule in this case; would be interesting to know what it is.

Garvinator
07-10-2008, 04:46 PM
No one has mentioned the actual reason for the crammed schedule in this case; would be interesting to know what it is.This type of schedule is not that uncommon up here in the past. I have noticed over the last year or so that organisers have been dropping the fourth round and having only 6 round tournaments.

The round times are not absolute and of course they can be adjusted. They are more like, 'round will not start before' times. The most common question I get from parents is, what time will Saturday finish. So the round times are there to provide an answer.

Of course if a player needs a break after a game, their games starts a little bit later than the rest.

A common complaint though is players saying that the day takes too long, so adding an extra half hour for 'lunch' may lose some players.

MichaelBaron
07-10-2008, 05:13 PM
Perhaps Cameron would like the Dubbo and Blayney Chess Opens :) Both are six rounders with a nice 3 hrs between rounds,
I do not like the idea of long breaks between the games. Those who finish games quickly have nothing to do all afternoon.

However, what i do like - is players getting together at the end of the tournament (e.g. sunday night) to have a nice dinner in a restaraunt nearby.

Phil Bourke
07-10-2008, 09:25 PM
While I can empathise with your point Michael, I also have a serious dislike of turning up for the next round and finding games still in progress. :) A difficult area to find the perfect compromise. One thing that I have found with the 3 hr break is that we can always be ready to go on time, this allows those that have had a quick game in one round to actually be able to leave and do something else, then return at the scheduled time for the next round, knowing that it will be starting then. This is probably the best reason for the 3 hr break that I can give.

Bill Gletsos
07-10-2008, 09:39 PM
While I can empathise with your point Michael, I also have a serious dislike of turning up for the next round and finding games still in progress. :) A difficult area to find the perfect compromise. One thing that I have found with the 3 hr break is that we can always be ready to go on time, this allows those that have had a quick game in one round to actually be able to leave and do something else, then return at the scheduled time for the next round, knowing that it will be starting then. This is probably the best reason for the 3 hr break that I can give.Yes but there are many people who want 7 rounds in weekenders not 6 rounds. Also 7 rounds gets rid of the 4-2 colour split problem.

Kevin Bonham
07-10-2008, 09:42 PM
So Phil, what kind of schedule would you have with a three hour break between each round? (Three hours sounds like a very long break to me, but it would have the benefit that you can put a lot of time into sightseeing or something like that if an area is of interest to you. If I was playing interstate I might find that quite a useful schedule.)

Basil
07-10-2008, 09:49 PM
5 pence worth (heritage and inflation)

1. Prefer 7 round weekenders
2. Like the rounds closer together (prefer the squeeze end of the spectrum to that of lengthy downtime)

Carry on!

Bill Gletsos
07-10-2008, 09:51 PM
So Phil, what kind of schedule would you have with a three hour break between each round? (Three hours sounds like a very long break to me, but it would have the benefit that you can put a lot of time into sightseeing or something like that if an area is of interest to you.)If the scheduled start of round x+1 starts 3 hours after the scheduled start of round x then nearly all players will get a 30 min break even if their G60+10s goes for 2.5 hours. There would not be a lot of time for sightseeing.

Kevin Bonham
07-10-2008, 09:53 PM
Ooops, I may have misunderstood Phil's post. I thought he meant three hours between the end of a round and the start of the next (and was wondering how on earth you fit that in) - does he actually mean three hours between the starts of each round?

WhiteElephant
07-10-2008, 11:05 PM
5 pence worth (heritage and inflation)

1. Prefer 7 round weekenders
2. Like the rounds closer together (prefer the squeeze end of the spectrum to that of lengthy downtime)

Carry on!

Agree with both points. With 7 rounds, a few are bound to finish early so there will be plenty of breaks anyway. I also like being tested with back to back games, gets the adrenaline pumping.

Garvinator
07-10-2008, 11:15 PM
In regards to the tournament in question, the seventh round is required as it 'reduces' the change of a tie for first, which would require a match playoff to be organised at a later date.

Phil Bourke
08-10-2008, 12:02 AM
If the scheduled start of round x+1 starts 3 hours after the scheduled start of round x then nearly all players will get a 30 min break even if their G60+10s goes for 2.5 hours. There would not be a lot of time for sightseeing.
Granted. But for those that get a quick finish, and there are always a few, especially in the early rounds, they have a chance to duck away. We had several do it both Blayney Opens, take a 15 min drive out to Carcoar, Millthorpe, or the Wind Farm, enjoy a bit of sighteeing with a meal or whatever, then come back in time for the next round, even had a few go back to the motel/hotel enjoy a 30 min nap to refresh, etc.

On the the 2.5 hr max, it is true most of the time, but there can be exceptions that go a bit longer, hence any sheduling on 2.5 hrs between rounds (Start times, sorry for the confusion Kev :) ) is always at risk of being thrown out. I think the shortest break we had between rounds for the last players finished was 20 mins. Which is nice for the players to grab a drink, go for a quick walk, get their heads back in order for the next round.

Should have added, it really is a moot question, there will always be devotees of both ways of doing it. For me, I like the more relaxed and stress free way of allowing a little more time between rounds. Another aspect that I just thought of, if you have a game going over time, and the rest are turning up for a delayed start, keeping the playing area quiet whilst waiting for the game to finish can be a problem. Another bonus I see is that if per chance one round gets delayed for whatever reason, you can still get back on schedule in the next round, unlike those on the 2.5 break, once behind, they stay behind.

Phil Bourke
08-10-2008, 12:12 AM
In regards to the tournament in question, the seventh round is required as it 'reduces' the change of a tie for first, which would require a match playoff to be organised at a later date.
Probably as good a place to ask this question as any :) What would be wrong with having a cut off number for the number of players in a division? I think I have seen some formula for working out the best nr of rounds for the size of the playing field, this could be worked out the other way, x nr of rounds = y max players. Once achieving this, field could be split into two seperate divisions. Yes, it would need to be advertised and there would probably need to be provision for someone relegated to the minor division being allowed to play in the major division if that was their desire. But it seems to be a workable solution to the problems of too many players in too limited rounds.

Kevin Bonham
08-10-2008, 11:33 PM
I think I have seen some formula for working out the best nr of rounds for the size of the playing field, this could be worked out the other way, x nr of rounds = y max players.

These formulae are often asserted without evidence, but they don't have much basis in real mathematics because you have no general idea how many draws to expect. Depending on exactly where they occur in the field, draws can either speed up or slow down the attempt to find a unique winner. Players also respond to the tournament design, eg if you add more rounds, they may be more inclined to take draws in the middle thus defeating the purpose.

The different formulae people mention often contradict themselves, eg if you have 2^n players, one person will say you should have n rounds, another n+1, another n+2 ... Certainly at a level where most games are won you would not want less than n (rounded up to the next whole number) but beyond that it is difficult to say.

Ivanchuk_Fan
11-10-2008, 09:16 AM
My suggestion:

6 round weekender:

Day 1: 10:30, 13:30, 16:30
Day 2: 10:00, 12:45, 15:30, presentation most likely at 6.30pm

This schedule would have the advantage of giving the players long breaks on the first day and decent breaks on the second day, yet still allow the presentation to finish at a reasonable time so that players travelling a long distance do not have to stay overnight.

7 round weekender:

Day 1: 10:00, 12:30, 15:00, 18:45 (or 15 minutes after the last game finishes, depending on the tournament)

Day 2: 10:30, 13:15, 16:00, presentation probably at 7pm

This schedule has the advantage of offering the players enough time to rest between games within time constraints and also allows the players time to have dinner before R4 and before the presentation. The only disadvantage of such a system is that the presentation could finish late for players who live far away from the venue, but this could be solved by starting the 5th round earlier.

or, for a 3-day, 7 round weekender (90+30 time control)

Day 1: 11:00, 15:00, 19:00
Day 2: 11:00, 3:30
Day 3: 10:00, 2:30, presentation probably at 7pm

I personally prefer this schedule to the 2-3-2 schedule, since the 3 games on the one day can be quite tiring, and it seems preferable to get the 3-game day out of the way when players with similar ratings are yet to play each other. But I guess it is a matter of taste. The schedule also offers players with long round 4 or 6 games enough time to rest, but still allows the 5th and 7th round games to finish at a reasonable time.

However, I understand that not all weekenders would be able to follow such schedules, depending on the number of players, the venue, location, equipment, various factors postponing the completion of a round, etc.

Miranda
11-10-2008, 10:18 PM
mm... sounds like a good plan, but for a 3-day weekender people usually need to go home on the last day, and a 7pm presentation seems a bit late

ER
12-10-2008, 01:04 AM
mm... sounds like a good plan, but for a 3-day weekender people usually need to go home on the last day, and a 7pm presentation seems a bit late

Correct!!! :clap:
cheers!