Results 1 to 14 of 14
  1. #1
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,687

    Hyper accelerated pairings.

    This is a suggestion for a radically different form of Swiss Pairings. This system might be worth trying in an Allegro tournamet.


    According to the Fide rules

    Basic Principles of Swiss System Tournaments
    The basic principles of a Swiss System tournament are:
    1.The number of rounds to be played is declared beforehand.
    2.Two players may play each other only once.
    3.Players are paired with others of the same score, or nearest score.
    4.When possible, a player is given the white pieces as many times as he is given the black pieces.
    5.When possible, a player is given the colour other than that he was given the previous round.
    6.The final ranking order is determined by the aggregate of points won: 1 point for a win, 0.5 point for a draw and 0 point for a loss. A player whose opponent fails to appear for a scheduled game receives one point.
    Listing the Players in ranking order
    My proposal does not alter how this is done.
    Basis of pairings
    One player is paired at a time
    First round Pairings
    The colour allocation for the top rated player is determined randomely. Next a dice is thrown to determine the number of the top players opponent. The eligible opponent = number on dice (d) plus Player number (n).
    Pairing now proceeds straight down the list pairing each player against opponents d+n. When there are less then n players to be paired then each player is paired against his nearest opponent and the bye is allocated to the lowest rated player. Colours of the higher rated player are alternated board by board.
    Pairings for subsequent rounds
    Pair players one by one starting from the top according to score and rating. The top rated plays the closest player to him that he has not already played such that colour discrepancies are minimised. (I am not going to spell this out in detail).
    Advantages
    There will be far fewer pairings between players with big rating differences
    The strong players are going to have to play strong opponents right from the start.
    The yo yo affect where players close to the middle play grandmasters and beginners in alternate rounds will be greatly reduced.
    There should be far more draws which will help to lead to a clear tournament winner.
    Players who play well above their rating will gain heaps of rating points, players who play well below their rating will take a bath.

  2. #2
    CC Rookie
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    18
    Sounds interesting.

    It would seem that under your system, everyone gets to play mainly against opponents of similar strength. This would mean that the lower rated players would tend to finish with higher scores, and the stronger players would finish with lower scores than in a conventional Swiss. Am I right?

    So it's a bit like a handicap system as it make it harder for the strong players and easier for the weak players. Do you think the lower rated players might have chances to win a tournament under this system?

  3. #3
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,687

    lower rated players

    After two or three rounds those lower rated players who are performing well would get paired up to the top. Then they would have to show what they can do. Under the present system lower rated players keep getting paired up even with patchy results.

  4. #4
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    262
    Hey how about we roll a dice to see who wins too?

  5. #5
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,575
    I think the system is a bad one if you want to reward the players based on their objective chess strength. Current 7 round tournaments have the problem with players in the middle and (to some extent) those towards the top having played a significantly different strength of field leading to a rating group lottery. This system will make that problem more pronounced. To me it sounds like a "reasonable" way to run a handicap tournament as the sweet runs will be distributed by rating, however with all handicaping you want to make sure your ratings are accurate. The underrated player (by your system) will be at a huge advantage compared to normal swiss pairings.

    Quote Originally Posted by Davidflude
    The yo yo affect where players close to the middle play grandmasters and beginners in alternate rounds will be greatly reduced.
    I take it you are starting with the premise that the so-called "yo-yo effect" is a bad thing. I suspect some lower rated players often enter tournaments with a high average field with the idea that losses will not hurt them and one or two big scalps will see them make a huge rating profit from the tournament. They are attracted by yo-yo effect.

    Quote Originally Posted by Davidflude
    There should be far more draws which will help to lead to a clear tournament winner.
    It's not clear that their will be more draws just because more games are between similar rated players. And even if this were true, it is not obvious that this would lead to a greater likelihood of a clear tournament winner. Perhaps you would like to expand on both of these points.

    Quote Originally Posted by Davidflude
    Players who play well above their rating will gain heaps of rating points, players who play well below their rating will take a bath.
    What you say is true of all tournaments and I can't see why it would be a particular feature of the pairing scheme you outline. In fact the low rated player would have trouble getting paired up to high rater opposition, so while they might make some rating points by beating their peers, big scalps would be harder to come by.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Walker
    Hey how about we roll a dice to see who wins too?
    Good call Frank, but grammatically speaking you are both a pair of goose.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  6. #6
    CC FIDE Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    648
    Looks like a fun way to run a handicap tournament, especially where the emphasis is not on finding a winner, but on giving everyone a number of good games. I'll give it a try at one of the ACTJCL develolment squad days. In honour of its inventor I'll call it the "Flavoured Dude Pairing System".

  7. #7
    Account Permanently Banned PHAT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Wollongong
    Posts
    4,254
    Quote Originally Posted by Davidflude
    The colour allocation for the top rated player is determined randomely. Next a dice is thrown to determine the number of the top players opponent. The eligible opponent = number on dice (d) plus Player number (n).
    Pairing now proceeds straight down the list pairing each player against opponents d+n. When there are less then n players to be paired then each player is paired against his nearest opponent and the bye is allocated to the lowest rated player. Colours of the higher rated player are alternated board by board.
    Pairings for subsequent rounds
    Pair players one by one starting from the top according to score and rating.
    WOW! I had a similar idea some time back. The difference was there was no dice as there is/was a proscriptive progression to the pairing.

    Pairings formula

    1 Vs P+n+1-R

    Where:
    P = the player position to be paired
    n = the number of rounds in the event
    R = the number of the round

    Thus, for the first round of a seven round event
    1 Vs 8
    2 Vs 9 ... 7 Vs 14
    Then reverse the colours for the next group
    22 Vs 15
    23 Vs 16 ...

    Round 2
    7 Vs 1
    8 Vs 2 ...
    12 Vs 6
    Then
    19 Vs 13 ...

    Following this algorithm the last round would be
    1 Vs 2
    3 Vs 4
    5 Vs 6 ...

    For players already paired the opponent should be the next eligable player up/down, alternately for each time they are floated.



    Under this system,
    1. The winning player has been playing only the top 8 players.
    2. The best two performing players should meet in the last round, reguardless of the size of the tournament or the number of rounds.
    3. Players generally, have opponents who are very close to their own current form in every round.

    An advantage over Barry's system is that it has no random aspect that could see the best two players miss each other, and fluke dice rolls pairing the top seeds early in the tournament.

    Comments please.
    Last edited by PHAT; 30-01-2006 at 08:55 AM.

  8. #8
    . eclectic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    .
    Posts
    2,840

    be careful not to tread on someone's sacred turf ...

    i reckon all this is treading on starter's "metrically competitive-index patented?" "junk-round eliminator" "box-hill brewed" "dual-divisionalised" "superaccelerated swiss system"

    any comments please ?
    .

  9. #9
    Account Permanently Banned PHAT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Wollongong
    Posts
    4,254
    Quote Originally Posted by eclectic
    i reckon all this is treading on starter's "metrically competitive-index patented?" "junk-round eliminator" "box-hill brewed" "dual-divisionalised" "superaccelerated swiss system"

    any comments please ?
    Agreed.

    You may find it amusing that I don't actually like my own system, because it takes away many chances to claim a scalp. However, I do not try to come up with ideas that are good for me, but good for chess. I am not important - the group is important.

  10. #10
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    40,325
    Quote Originally Posted by Matthew Sweeney
    Comments please.
    One obvious issue is that if there are no upsets, seed 2 plays all bar two of their games against players defeated by seed 1 in the previous round. Chances are that these players will be less motivated and seed 2 will get easier games against the same players than seed 1 and hence have an advantage when playing seed 1 in the final round.

    Another is what happens if there are draws. Say seed 1 draws in round 1 but otherwise all games go according to seedings. In a normal Swiss, seed 1 will be back to top board in three or four rounds. In your system, seed 1 plays seed 2 in round 2, and seed 3 in round 3, seed 5 in round 4 (4 lost to 2 in round 3), and so on.

    Systems that aim to force two equal leaders to meet in the last round are silly anyway. Typically the players will promptly split the point. It is better for the leaders to meet a few rounds out from the end.

    I suggest anyone wishing to promote an alternative Swiss draw provide a full tournament simulation showing how it would work in practice. Get a list of players from a real event, use a formula for win/draw/loss likelihood per rating difference (or perhaps even per ratings as well) and do some random simulations. Post them as evidence that your system actually does what you claim it to. No radical reworking of the system can be taken seriously without a test. It is all too easy to come up with theories based on the top seeds always winning that fall over if there are draws or upsets.
    Last edited by Kevin Bonham; 31-01-2006 at 11:32 AM.
    Moderation Requests: All requests for, comments about, or questions about moderation of any kind including thread changes must be posted in the Help and Feedback section and not on the thread in question. (Or by private message for routine changes or sensitive matters.)

    ACF Newsletter Information - All Australian players and administrators should subscribe and check each issue for relevant notices

    My psephology/politics site (token chess references only) : http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/ Politics twitter feed https://twitter.com/kevinbonham

  11. #11
    CC Grandmaster Spiny Norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    4,437
    Quote Originally Posted by eclectic
    i reckon all this is treading on starter's "metrically competitive-index patented?" "junk-round eliminator" "box-hill brewed" "dual-divisionalised" "superaccelerated swiss system"

    any comments please ?
    I went and added "Competitive-index-powered" before I re-read and noticed the "patented" bit.
    “As you perhaps know, I haven't always been a Christian. I didn't go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don't recommend Christianity.” -- C.S.Lewis

  12. #12
    CC Grandmaster Desmond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The island
    Posts
    14,198
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    I suggest anyone wishing to promote an alternative Swiss draw provide a full tournament simulation showing how it would work in practice. Get a list of players from a real event, use a formula for win/draw/loss likelihood per rating difference (or perhaps even per ratings as well) and do some random simulations. Post them as evidence that your system actually does what you claim it to. No radical reworking of the system can be taken seriously without a test. It is all too easy to come up with theories based on the top seeds always winning that fall over if there are draws or upsets.
    Has anyone taken Kevin's suggestion and done a simulation? I would be interested to see it, just wish that I was more tournamentically minded. (I always find it's good to learn a new word every day. If you must invent that word, so much the better. )
    So what's your excuse? To run like the devil's chasing you.

    See you in another life, brotha.

  13. #13
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,308
    Quote Originally Posted by Boris
    Has anyone taken Kevin's suggestion and done a simulation? I would be interested to see it, just wish that I was more tournamentically minded. (I always find it's good to learn a new word every day. If you must invent that word, so much the better. )
    Are you asking if anyone has done a simulation for accelerated pairings? Not quite sure what you are after?

  14. #14
    CC Grandmaster Desmond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The island
    Posts
    14,198
    Quote Originally Posted by ggrayggray
    Are you asking if anyone has done a simulation for accelerated pairings? Not quite sure what you are after?
    Yes, taking an actual tournament that was paired using Swiss, and comparing what would likely have happened if it was paired using accelerated pairings instead. Pretty much what Kevin said

    In particular, I'm interested which pairing system would produce a clear winner of the tournament in a smaller number of rounds.
    So what's your excuse? To run like the devil's chasing you.

    See you in another life, brotha.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. PROTOS experiment
    By pax in forum Arbiters' Corner
    Replies: 90
    Last Post: 16-02-2006, 08:45 PM
  2. Sydney grade matches joke
    By Javier Gil in forum Completed Tournaments
    Replies: 250
    Last Post: 11-12-2005, 09:33 PM
  3. Changing computer pairings/ Pairing Programs
    By Denis_Jessop in forum Arbiters' Corner
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 27-05-2005, 04:39 PM
  4. Pairings for R1 in Mt Buller
    By News Bot in forum Chess Australia
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 28-12-2004, 11:01 PM
  5. Does Accelerating pairings affect Glicko?
    By firegoat7 in forum Australian Chess
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 26-02-2004, 02:22 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •