PDA

View Full Version : Allocation of Divisional Prizes

1min_grandmaster
02-08-2004, 12:36 PM
Consider the following advertised allocation of prizes for a tournament:

1st \$450
2nd \$300
3rd \$150

U2000 1st \$200
U1800 1st \$200

Assume that there are sufficient entries in the tournament, and that there are sufficient entries in each rating division. Now, suppose that the result of the event (at the top end of the standings) is as follows:

rank 1
player A, 2000+

equal 2-3
player B, 2000+
player C, 1800-1999

equal 4-5
player D, 2000+
player E, 1600-1799

equal 6-7
player F, 1800-1999
player G, 1600-1799

How should the prizes be allocated?

This is not a trick question, I would simply like to see people's answers and their reasoning behind their decisions. Please do explain your answers if you post one. Also, please work out your solution before referring to previous tournament results and prize allocations. If you change your mind after referring to past events, then please indicate this.

ursogr8
02-08-2004, 02:20 PM
How should the prizes be allocated?

This is not a trick question, I would simply like to see people's answers and their reasoning behind their decisions. Please do explain your answers if you post one. Also, please work out your solution before referring to previous tournament results and prize allocations. If you change your mind after referring to past events, then please indicate this.

A good question you raise 1mGM.

Recently I had occasion to listen to the conversation of two officials faced with a similar dilemma. It quickly became apparent that there might be multiple distributions, each logical from various points of view. If the tie-breaker logic is not specified beforehand then naturally there could emerge controversy when it comes to making the distribution.

Here is one approach that was discussed…

A wins the first prize = \$450
B and C have some equity in second prize and third prize; but hold off allocating them \$225 ea. in case C wins more in a rating or junior prize.

C has claims on the U2000 prize and because this is less than his share in second+third then he gets awarded \$225. He does not have the option to choose the rating prize instead of the share of second+third. Presume the conditions of the tournament are that each player can only win one prize, then \$225 is the limit for C. This leaves B with a share of second+third prize, so he gets \$225.

The next prize to be awarded is the highest division rating prize. E wins the U2000 prize and he gets awarded \$200. He does not get a choice to select another prize of equal amount.
The next prize to be awarded is the second-highest division rating prize.
G wins the U1800 prize and he gets awarded \$200.

starter

1min_grandmaster
02-08-2004, 02:24 PM
But player F is not rated U1800, so that player cannot win that prize!

In hindsight, this thread probably belongs in the Tournaments section...

eclectic
02-08-2004, 02:54 PM
Consider the following advertised allocation of prizes for a tournament:

1st \$450
2nd \$300
3rd \$150

U2000 1st \$200
U1800 1st \$200

one thing i don't believe in anyway is having any open division prize being worth less than a rating division prize

eclectic

Bill Gletsos
02-08-2004, 02:57 PM
FWIW the NSWCA follows a document written a few years back by Malcolm Tredinnick and vetted I believe by Charles Zworestine.

I'll see if I can dig it up and post it.

Bill Gletsos
02-08-2004, 02:59 PM
one thing i don't believe in anyway is having any open division prize being worth less than a rating division prize
Why.
What if the Open division prizes went down to 4th or even 6th.

shaun
02-08-2004, 03:06 PM
Good question, but one that has a good answer.

The principal for allocting prizes is that a) each player will take the greatest prize they are entitled to b) No player can win more than 1 prize in its entirety (ignoring special prizes like best game etc).
Now to go with this is a reasonably complicated set of rules for sharing/pooling but an answer to your example may make things clearer.

1st Player A \$450 - No problems here
2nd/Under 2000 Player B, Player C \$250 each - Why? Because the greatest prize that player C brings to the pool is \$200 (not \$150 for 3rd). So the two prizes are pooled and split.
3rd Player D \$150 - Because player E is going to get a bigger prize for ...
Under 1800 Player E \$200

As others are observing, the cause of the problem is a) rating prizes being greater than place prizes and b) the fact the a player finishing 4th gets a 3rd prize which may be semantically (but not logically) confusing.

But just to show how confusing this can be, I used to utilise a slightly different set of rules which didn't neccesarily pool as many prizes as there were players. A huge row at one Doeberl Cup resulted in an adoption of a standard set of prize distribution rules after that.

ursogr8
02-08-2004, 03:50 PM
But player F is not rated U1800, so that player cannot win that prize!

Agreed. Have corrected post #2.

Alan Shore
02-08-2004, 04:05 PM
Agreed. Have corrected post #2.

I agree with starter's (updated) post regarding the reasoning behind prize distribution. I cannot agree with Shaun's model because I cannot justify player D getting anything for the position he came.

A \$450 1st
B \$225 =2nd
C \$225 =2nd

E \$200 U2000

G \$200 U1800

1min_grandmaster
02-08-2004, 04:18 PM
Thank you for your quick and clear responses everyone. I must agree with shaun's answer. Although it is indeed confusing, it makes logical sense, and is well explained by shaun.

I decided not to post my answer until others have had their chance to post theirs, so that I would not influence and possibly 'bias' others. But shaun pretty much summed up what I would have said.

Now let me pose a slightly different scenario. Again, I will not post my answer until others have done so. Suppose that we change only 3rd prize to \$200 (instead of \$150). Now, how should the prizes be allocated? If you answer this question, make sure you indicate that 3rd prize is now \$200, so that viewers know which scenario you are dealing with.

1min_grandmaster
02-08-2004, 04:22 PM
FWIW the NSWCA follows a document written a few years back by Malcolm Tredinnick and Charles Zworestine.

I'll see if I can dig it up and post it.

Thanks Bill for doing this. It will be very interesting to see what it says.

arosar
02-08-2004, 04:22 PM
At the next AGM, I'm going to nominate 1minGM here for Vice Prez, at least.

Hey JC, you promised me that newsletter mate. Where is it?

AR

shaun
02-08-2004, 04:27 PM
In this case ....

=2nd Players B,C \$250 - Combining 2nd and 3rd prizes. Why? Because if a prize is of equal value then the player shall win the more 'prestigious' prize, in this case 3rd

U/2000 Player E \$200 - As the Best Under 2000
U/1800 Player G \$200 - As the Best Under 1800

So now the answer agrees with Bruce.

However if players can whinge about the prize distribution they will. In this case someone will complain about player E getting the Under 2000 prize when they could have taken the Under 1800 prize of equal value (and usually allowing them to take the Under 2000 prize). This is why the Doeberl Cup now 'band' their prize groups (except for the bottom group), so this issue doesn't occur.
But the other orveriding principal is that players shouldn't have a choice of what prizes they get (eg Player E) and consequently organisers need a clear set of guidlines to follow.

BTW Bruce, it isn't my model and the socalist in me much prefers your answer, but unfortunatley rules are rules.

Bill Gletsos
02-08-2004, 08:01 PM
Thanks Bill for doing this. It will be very interesting to see what it says.

NSWCA Policy on tournament prize distribution
(Draft version)

Malcolm Tredinnick

April 20. 1997

1 Introduction

The aim of this policy is to provide an equitable and unambiguous way of allocating monetary prizes upon completion of a tournament. On the whole, it is based on current practice within NSWCA tournaments, rather than any revolutionary techniques. However, in a couple of places where no “current practice” is apparent, a policy has had to be invented.

It is commonplace within tournaments for multiple players to finish on a given score and all qualify for a single prize. In addition, the normal situation within NSW is to have rating groups comprising all players under a given rating (as opposed to all players between two rating limits). As a result, low rated players who have good tournaments are often in a position to qualify for more than one prize. Practice has shown that the following guiding principles are sufficient to handle any situation that arises:
. No player shall win more than one prize on their own (although
they may share in multiple prizes).
. A lower rated player shall not win less money than a higher
rated player on the same or lower score. The reverse situation
is, of course, possible, due to the existence of ratings prizes.
. Prizes are allocated from the top downwards. In other words,
open prizes are awarded, then the next highest ratings group and
so on. In general, a player will win the highest prize for which
they qualify. Prizes for unrated players come after open prizes,
but before any any rating group prizes. Some prizes, such as
“best junior/woman player” are a special case (in that eligibility
is not linked to ratings) and are discussed in the next section.

2 A Method for Distributing Prizes

This section describes a detailed algorithm for distributing prizes at the end of a tournament. Although this algorithm looks unnecessarily messy, it is designed to cover all possible cases and, in practice, takes little time to implement.

Once all the scores have been tabulated, the players should be sorted according to scores and then each scoregroup sorted according to seeding (i.e usually by rating). The prizes to be awarded are ranked in order of “value” as follows:-

1. Rank the prizes in order of monetary value.

2. If there are multiple prizes with the same monetary value, the
order within a group is

(a) Special prizes [1] (best woman, best junior, best person with purple hair, etc.)
(b) Open prizes.
(c) Unrated prizes [2]
(d) Rating group prizes, starting with the highest placing. For example, “1st Under 1,600” should come ahead of “2nd Under 2,000”, because “1st” is a higher placing than “2nd”.

[1] Ranking these prizes above all else may look strange, but it ensures that the highest scoring junior gets recognition as the “best junior”, rather than as “equal 3rd in the Under 2,000 section, for example.

[2] It is NSWCA policy that unrated players shall not win rating group prizes – only open, unrated and “special” prizes.

Example 1:

Consider a tournament with the following prizes:

OPEN UNDER 2,000 UNDER 1,600 UNRATED
1st \$500 \$250 \$200 \$100
2nd \$400 \$150 \$100 \$ 50
3rd \$300
4th \$200 Best Junior: \$100

The ranking of the prizes here would be: 1st Open, 2nd Open, 3rd Open,
1st Under 2,000, 4th Open, 1st Under 1,600, 2nd Under 2,000, Best Junior, 1st unrated, 2nd Under 1,600, 2nd unrated.

Once the players have been sorted and the prizes ranked, we can start awarding the prizes. This involves cycling through the following series of steps until all prizes have been allocated. Each cycle awards the highest ranked prize that has not yet been awarded. It may also award other prizes at the same time (due to ties).

1. Work downwards through the scoregroups until the first player who is eligible for the highest available prize appears. All of the prizes due to players on this scoregroup will now be awarded. Any scoregroups above the current group will not be needed again and can be put aside.

2. Determine how many players in the current scoregroup are
eligible for the current prize and remove all the rest from
consideration – they will not be needed again.

3. If the number of players left in consideration is n, then up to n prizes may be pooled for the purposes of awarding the prizes in the scoregroup. Initially, collect together n prizes from the top of the ranking list, such that at least one person on the scoregroup qualifies for any given prize in the pool [3]. Add up the total in the current pool and divide by n to give an initial “approximation” of the amount each player will get. Call this amount p.

[3] Despite appearances, this does not mean that higher rated
players are sharing in prizes for which they are not
eligible. The justification of this statement is discussed
in the next section.

4. The prize pool that was divided up in the previous step is now re-examined to see if any of the lower rated players in the group could win more money. If every player in the scoregroup was eligible for every prize that was pooled, then nothing further need be done and this scoregroup is finished.

5. If there were prizes in the pool that not every player was
eligible for, the ineligible players are removed temporarily
. Note that situations may arise where some players are ineligible
for more prizes than others (see example, below). In this case,
the players ineligible for the greatest number of prizes are
removed first. Once the computations in the next step have
been done, the next “most eligible” group of players are also
removed and the computations repeated. This procedure is
continued until every “ineligible” player has eventually been
removed.

Example 2:

Consider a scoregroup containing five players A, B, C, D
and E. Players A and B are only eligible for open prizes,
C and D are also eligible for the Under 2,000 prizes and E is
eligible for the Under 1,600 prize.

To calculate the prizes for this group, the following prizes
were pooled: 4th open (\$100), 1st and 2nd Under 2,000 (\$100
and \$50) and 1st Under 1,600 (\$100). The first calculation
of the individual prizes (step 3), gave a value of p = \$70.

On the first pass through step 5, players A and B are
removed from the calculations, since they are ineligible for
three of the prizes that are pooled. The calculations in the
next step (6) are then performed. Step 5 is then repeated
with players C and D also removed from the calculations,
since they are ineligible for one of the prizes in the pool and
step 6 is repeated.

6. Remove the prizes from the pool for which the recently discarded players were also eligible. Recalculate the value of p using the reduced prize pool and smaller collection of players. If this is larger than the original value of p, then it is a better distribution of prizes for the lower rated players. The players who were discarded in step 5 will split the prize money that was removed from the pool at the beginning of this step [4].

[4] Due to the way the prizes were ranked, if the new value
of p is higher than the old value, then the discarded
players will end up each receiving less than the original
value of p.

7. If there are still some “ineligible” players in the scoregroup at this point, return to step 5 and repeat.

Example 3:

We will continue to use the setup from the previous example.

After players A and B are removed from consideration and
the open prizes removed from the pool, the new value of p is
calculated to be (\$100 +\$50 +\$100)/3 = \$83.33 which is
clearly better than the previous value of \$70. Under this
situation, A and B would split \$100 – receiving \$50 each -
whilst C, D and E would each receive \$83.33.

However, since C and D are also ineligible for the Under
1,600 prize, we should now repeat step 5 by removing them
from consideration and reducing the prize pool to just the
\$100 Under 1,600 prize. In this calculation, E gets \$100 –
the most possible. C and D will each receive \$75 (half
shares in the pooled Under 2,000 prizes) and A and B will
get \$50 each.

8. At this point, all the prizes that can be awarded to players on this scoregroup have been awarded. They can be removed from the prize rankings and the cycle repeated from step 1. Also, the scoregroups that were bypassed to reach this point (including the one featured in this cycle), will not play any further part in prize considerations and they can be set aside.

3 Justification

At first glance, it appears that the algorithm in the previous section allowed players to share in prizes for which they were otherwise ineligible, since prizes were pooled without considering whether every player in the scoregroup was eligible. However, this is not the case. This section is fairly mathematical in nature, so can be safely skipped by those readers with great faith in the NSWCA.

Consider the example above, where after the first calculation of p, A and B were receiving \$70. This is obviously unfair, since A and B are only eligible for the open prizes, so even if the other players were not present on this scoregroup, they would receive a maximum of a half-share in the \$100 open prize (i.e. \$50).

As the algorithm progressed, this example corrected itself and A and B ended up only receiving \$50 each. It can be proven that, in fact, this will always happen:

Suppose that in a scoregroup with n players and an initial prize pool of D, there were x players who were only eligible for d of that prize pool. Suppose further that the initial computation of p (in step 3 of the algorithm) had all players receiving more than d/x (so the x were receiving their “fair share”). Then the susequent calculations in steps 5 and 6 are guaranteed to remove the amount paid to the x ineligible players to an equitable amount.

The reasoning here is that the “castling out” of players that occurs in step 5 removes x players from consideration, but only d from the prize pool. If the average payment to the remaining players did not go up, there would have been at least xp removed from the prize pool, but xp = x(x/d)>d.

So the new value of p will be higher, and the x players who were left out will receive less. After repeating this process sufficient times, we can see that the x players must all eventually receive at most d/x – which is ttheir “fair share”.

Alan Shore
02-08-2004, 08:37 PM
In this case ....

=2nd Players B,C \$250 - Combining 2nd and 3rd prizes. Why? Because if a prize is of equal value then the player shall win the more 'prestigious' prize, in this case 3rd

U/2000 Player E \$200 - As the Best Under 2000
U/1800 Player G \$200 - As the Best Under 1800

So now the answer agrees with Bruce.

However if players can whinge about the prize distribution they will. In this case someone will complain about player E getting the Under 2000 prize when they could have taken the Under 1800 prize of equal value (and usually allowing them to take the Under 2000 prize). This is why the Doeberl Cup now 'band' their prize groups (except for the bottom group), so this issue doesn't occur.
But the other orveriding principal is that players shouldn't have a choice of what prizes they get (eg Player E) and consequently organisers need a clear set of guidlines to follow.

BTW Bruce, it isn't my model and the socalist in me much prefers your answer, but unfortunatley rules are rules.

I can see how this system is more fair to player C, who did indeed finish higher. Yet it seems quite strange to award a third placing to someone who did not finish in the top 3. Anyway.. I have a hypothetical too.

Consider a tourn \$500 first, \$200 second, \$100 third, U1600 \$150.

Player A 6/6
Player B and Player C (U1600) 4.5/6,
Player D,E,F (U1600),G,H,I 4/6.

Would I be correct in assuming under your system B and C get \$175 each and the \$100 for third is split 6 ways? I guess it works out well in rewarding Player C it's just strange awarding 3rd place to =4th.

Kevin Bonham
02-08-2004, 08:59 PM
I agree with starter's (updated) post regarding the reasoning behind prize distribution. I cannot agree with Shaun's model because I cannot justify player D getting anything for the position he came.

A \$450 1st
B \$225 =2nd
C \$225 =2nd

E \$200 U2000

G \$200 U1800

This is what I would have done too. The ratings prize is not taken by the player who wins the outright, so it cascades down to the next eligible player. This is justified because a ratings prize contender who wins an outright is probably underrated anyway. 1st outright, 2nd outright and 3rd outright have gone, why should D get money for 4th just because a player who tied for 2nd outright and took that prize would otherwise have won the ratings prize?

1min_grandmaster
03-08-2004, 05:04 PM
Thank you Bill for posting the NSWCA policy. How do you think the prizes should be distributed in the case of 3rd prize being \$200 (instead of \$150)?

The reason I still ask this is because the policy does not appear to disuss how to 'rank' prizes with the same monetary value and the same placing but for different divisional prizes. I would like to hear your opinion and explanation (or anyone else's).

Rincewind
03-08-2004, 05:15 PM
Thank you Bill for posting the NSWCA policy. How do you think the prizes should be distributed in the case of 3rd prize being \$200 (instead of \$150)?

The reason I still ask this is because the policy does not appear to disuss how to 'rank' prizes with the same monetary value and the same placing but for different divisional prizes. I would like to hear your opinion and explanation (or anyone else's).

This was addressed by Shaun and Bill's responses. To quote The NSW Policy...

2. If there are multiple prizes with the same monetary value, the
order within a group is

(a) Special prizes [1] (best woman, best junior, best person with purple hair, etc.)
(b) Open prizes.
(c) Unrated prizes [2]
(d) Rating group prizes, starting with the highest placing. For example, “1st Under 1,600” should come ahead of “2nd Under 2,000”, because “1st” is a higher placing than “2nd”.

1min_grandmaster
03-08-2004, 05:21 PM
The prizes to be awarded are ranked in order of “value” as follows:-

1. Rank the prizes in order of monetary value.

2. If there are multiple prizes with the same monetary value, the
order within a group is

(a) Special prizes [1] (best woman, best junior, best person with purple hair, etc.)
(b) Open prizes.
(c) Unrated prizes [2]
(d) Rating group prizes, starting with the highest placing. For example, “1st Under 1,600” should come ahead of “2nd Under 2,000”, because “1st” is a higher placing than “2nd”.

But the above does not explain how to rank, for example, between U2000 \$200 and U1800 \$200.

Rincewind
03-08-2004, 05:30 PM
But the above does not explain how to rank, for example, between U2000 \$200 and U1800 \$200.

Perhaps you are right, but I would read it that given the choice you should claim the U2000 prize. Assuming both are 1st places.

If it is a choice between 1st U1800 and 2nd U2000 then you go for the 1st U1800 as it is a higher place.

This certainly fits Shaun's "most prestegious prize first" principle, and the NSW policy states explicitly that any divisional 1st is more presitigious than any divisional 2nd, and so forth. Assuming equal places then the higher division would be more prestegious than the lower division and therefore take precidence.

1min_grandmaster
03-08-2004, 06:04 PM
So then, in the scenario with 3rd prize being \$200, would your allocation of prizes be the following?

player A: \$450 (1st outright)
players B, C: \$250 each (2nd and 3rd outright)
player E: \$200 (U2000 1st)
player G: \$200 (U1800 1st)

Personally, I see no reason why player E (who is in the 1600-1799 category) should get the U2000 prize when the U1800 could be awarded to that player. The NSWCA policy also does not state why (or even if) this should happen.

In the example stated (with 3rd prize being \$200), by allocating player E the U2000 prize, we are effectively making 2 prizes in the U1800 division and 0 prizes in the U2000 division.

If such a scenario is considered a problem, I suggest a solution: that divisional prizes be for a closed range of ratings (eg. best 1800-1999) instead of an open ended range (such as U2000).

arosar
03-08-2004, 06:05 PM
Thanks for sending the SUCC newsletter JC. Once again I would like to congrats the SUCC for producing an excellent publication. It even has a memorable game with the greatest number of castlings (3).

Also, it seems that the SUCC mob have deviced their own ratings system. Well done indeed.

AR

Rincewind
03-08-2004, 06:16 PM
So then, in the scenario with 3rd prize being \$200, would your allocation of prizes be the following?

player A: \$450 (1st outright)
players B, C: \$250 each (2nd and 3rd outright)
player E: \$200 (U2000 1st)
player G: \$200 (U1800 1st)

Yes, that's my interpretation.

Personally, I see no reason why player E (who is in the 1600-1799 category) should get the U2000 prize when the U1800 could be awarded to that player. The NSWCA policy also does not state why (or even if) this should happen.

Perhaps you already think of them as exclusive sets. If you think of them as nested sets then E is the highest placed player in the U2000 set without some other sort of prize. As this is the most prestigious prize then this is allocated first.

In the example stated (with 3rd prize being \$200), by allocating player E the U2000 prize, we are effectively making 2 prizes in the U1800 division and 0 prizes in the U2000 division.

This argument is only valid with the definition of U2000 being [1800,2000), when in fact the definition is [0,2000).

If such a scenario is considered a problem, I suggest a solution: that divisional prizes be for a closed range of ratings (eg. best 1800-1999) instead of an open ended range (such as U2000).

That would be another interpretation, but I don't see any reason to move that way. If the rating prizes are of different values then it make sense (I think) to have nested divisions rather than exclusive one.

Bill Gletsos
03-08-2004, 06:57 PM
FWIW I agree with Barry.

Rincewind
03-08-2004, 07:03 PM
FWIW I agree with Barry.

Except for the atrocious spelling I assume. I was running late for dinner and did not re-read my post. Hopefully I've fixed all the whoppers now.

shaun
03-08-2004, 07:10 PM
So then, in the scenario with 3rd prize being \$200, would your allocation of prizes be the following?

player A: \$450 (1st outright)
players B, C: \$250 each (2nd and 3rd outright)
player E: \$200 (U2000 1st)
player G: \$200 (U1800 1st)

Personally, I see no reason why player E (who is in the 1600-1799 category) should get the U2000 prize when the U1800 could be awarded to that player. The NSWCA policy also does not state why (or even if) this should happen.

It does not need to. As Barry has said U/2000 means 1999 down to -infinity

In the example stated (with 3rd prize being \$200), by allocating player E the U2000 prize, we are effectively making 2 prizes in the U1800 division and 0 prizes in the U2000 division.

But only because the U/2000 prizes weren't good enough to win their 'own' prizes. Which leads to ....

If such a scenario is considered a problem, I suggest a solution: that divisional prizes be for a closed range of ratings (eg. best 1800-1999) instead of an open ended range (such as U2000).

Which is exactly why the Doeberl Cup specify explicit ranges for it's rating prizes (an idea we got from Stewart Rueben btw).

Bill Gletsos
03-08-2004, 07:35 PM
Which is exactly why the Doeberl Cup specify explicit ranges for it's rating prizes (an idea we got from Stewart Rueben btw).
And one we copied this year for the NSW Open.

PHAT
04-08-2004, 12:15 AM
I suggest a solution: that divisional prizes be for a closed range of ratings (eg. best 1800-1999) instead of an open ended range (such as U2000).

I have been keeping quiet on this thread because of my well known bias toward equil distributions throughout the ranks.

Nevertheless, I was wondering when someone would suggest the closed range solution. It is the Common Man method. It is simple, transparent for all, fast to determine at the end of play, and fair.

Bill Gletsos
04-08-2004, 12:22 AM
I have been keeping quiet on this thread because of my well known bias toward equil distributions throughout the ranks.

Nevertheless, I was wondering when someone would suggest the closed range solution. It is the Common Man method. It is simple, transparent for all, fast to determine at the end of play, and fair.
Actually that wasnt the common man method at all.

According to the Common Man advert it was:
Four equally sized divisions - a quarter of pool to each division

This has nothing to do with ratings but is based on total participants.
Given that entrants dont know what division they will be in till actually on the day it isnt in the least bit fair.

Two players could be seperated by 1 rating point and you have the situation where 1 is the bottom of a division and the other the top of the next.

PHAT
04-08-2004, 12:29 AM
Actually that wasnt the common man method at all.

According to the Common Man advert it was:
Four equally sized divisions - a quarter of pool to each division

This has nothing to do with ratings but is based on total participants.
Given that entrants dont know what division they will be in till actually on the day it isnt in the least bit fair.

Two players could be seperated by 1 rating point and you have the situation where 1 is the bottom of a division and the other the top of the next.

FO

In essence it is the same, ie closed division. So,

FO

I am sick to death of you autistic-like obsessive knit-picking.

Just FO

jay_vee
04-08-2004, 12:31 AM
This has nothing to do with ratings but is based on total participants.
Given that entrants dont know what division they will be in till actually on the day it isnt in the least bit fair.

Two players could be seperated by 1 rating point and you have the situation where 1 is the bottom of a division and the other the top of the next.

But where is that unfair? The same happens to two players rated 1699 and 1700. Not announcing the limits ahead of time merely ensures that the divisions are approximately even in size, which I think is actually fairer, and (somewhat) discourages sand-bagging.

PHAT
04-08-2004, 12:32 AM
and berfor you jump in with a reply that I am crude and rude, let me give you the drum in advance.
FO!

Bill Gletsos
04-08-2004, 12:34 AM
FO

In essence it is the same, ie closed division. So,

FO
The two situations are not at all similar you clown.

[I am sick to death of you autistic-like obsessive knit-picking.

Just FO
I'm sick to death of you continually misrepresenting the facts in virually all situations.

Bill Gletsos
04-08-2004, 12:39 AM
But where is that unfair? The same happens to two players rated 1699 and 1700.
Not true. The 1699 knows he is eligible for any U1700 prize and the 1700 player knows he is not. He can therefore decide in advance if he wants to play.

Not announcing the limits ahead of time merely ensures that the divisions are approximately even in size, which I think is actually fairer, and (somewhat) disencourages sand-bagging.
It certainly isnt fair if you happen to be the last player in a division and significantly lower rated than the other players in that division.

Bill Gletsos
04-08-2004, 12:40 AM
and berfor you jump in with a reply that I am crude and rude, let me give you the drum in advance.
FO!
Well I'm glad to see you confirmed it once again.

Alan Shore
04-08-2004, 12:50 AM
It certainly isnt fair if you happen to be the last player in a division and significantly lower rated than the other players in that division.

Dead right. I doubt people would want to play in tournaments where they have no realistic chance of winning anything and they'd feel pretty duped not being told the limits beforehand only to find this out after they'd entered.

jay_vee
04-08-2004, 12:59 AM
Not true. The 1699 knows he is eligible for any U1700 prize and the 1700 player knows he is not. He can therefore decide in advance if he wants to play.

Yes, but that isn't quite the same as fairness, is it? True, in case of pre-set limits the players can predict wether or not they are eligible. But, assuming that rating prizes are their main motivation, that will discourage the 1700 and encourage the 1699 to participate. But if you don't announce the limits of the divisions in advance or announce only that you will have X equally-sized divisions, the two player's chances to be eligible for the same prize are almost identical, they will both know what they are getting and noone will be discouraged from playing. In addition, it ensures fairness by ensuring that you don't have five players playing for one rating prize and twenty for the other.

It certainly isnt fair if you happen to be the last player in a division and significantly lower rated than the other players in that division.

Yes, but you know the risk of this happening before you decide to go, and you also know that with only slightly more luck you might as well be in the top spot of a division. This is merely exchanging predictability for equal treatment, which is good in my book.

jay_vee
04-08-2004, 01:03 AM
I doubt people would want to play in tournaments where they have no realistic chance of winning anything and they'd feel pretty duped not being told the limits beforehand only to find this out after they'd entered.

Well, noone was duped, if they knew ahead of time, the limits would only be announce at the start of the tournament, especially, if the goal was to ensure equal-sized divisions. Having set limits actually discourages players just above that limit from participating, whereas with flexible limits, they get the same chance as everyone else.

Bill Gletsos
04-08-2004, 01:05 AM
Yes, but that isn't quite the same as fairness, is it? True, in case of pre-set limits the players can predict wether or not they are eligible. But, assuming that rating prizes are their main motivation, that will discourage the 1700 and encourage the 1699 to participate. But if you don't announce the limits of the divisions in advance or announce only that you will have X equally-sized divisions, the two player's chances to be eligible for the same prize are almost identical, they will both know what they are getting and noone will be discouraged from playing. In addition, it ensures fairness by ensuring that you don't have five players playing for one rating prize and twenty for the other.
Perhaps but i dont agree.

Yes, but you know the risk of this happening before you decide to go, and you also know that with only slightly more luck you might as well be in the top spot of a division. This is merely exchanging predictability for equal treatment, which is good in my book.
No, you dont know what the risk is of the groups being out of whack are until you actually turn up and see what the division breakdowns end up being. Also late entries could suddenly change the whole picture.

Bill Gletsos
04-08-2004, 01:10 AM
Well, noone was duped, if they knew ahead of time, the limits would only be announce at the start of the tournament, especially, if the goal was to ensure equal-sized divisions. Having set limits actually discourages players just above that limit from participating, whereas with flexible limits, they get the same chance as everyone else.
Hang on.
Matt was talking about EQUAL sized divisons.
Nothing was said about breaking the entries up into divisions based on some sort of rating limits decided after all the entries are taken.

PHAT
04-08-2004, 01:18 AM
Thanks vee jay for calmly stating the obvious to the blind. You have more patience than me.

(BTW, have we met?)

Bill Gletsos
04-08-2004, 01:25 AM
Thanks vee jay for calmly stating the obvious to the blind. You have more patience than me.
You fool, jay-vee isnt supporting you.
He makes it clear in his posts he is not talking about equal sized divisions but divisions based on ratings selected after the players have all entered.
That of course has no relationship to your method.

jay_vee
04-08-2004, 01:36 AM
Thanks vee jay for calmly stating the obvious to the blind. You have more patience than me.

This is not an issue where there is a definite right or wrong. Therefore, someone can hardly be considered blind merely because he favours a different approach. Insulting the person you are arguing with has never achieved anything (useful).

(BTW, have we met?)

I don't think so.

Hang on.
Matt was talking about [EQUAL[/b] sized divisons.
Nothing was said about breaking the entries up into divisions based on some sort of rating limits decided after all the entries are taken.

Well, that depends on how you chose the rating limits, right? My preferred method would probably be to announce "approximately equal-sized" divisions, as you don't always have a number of participants that is an exact multiple of the number of divisions. This would also retain some flexibility if a really big split in ratings occured very close to a division limit (although I would rarely use that flexibility)

jay_vee
04-08-2004, 01:38 AM
He makes it clear in his posts he is not talking about equal sized divisions but divisions based on ratings selected after the players have all entered.

Well, however, I would select the ratings limits in such a way that the divisions would be (approximately) equal-sized. Unless I missed something that is very similar to Matthew's approach.

Bill Gletsos
04-08-2004, 01:44 AM
Well, however, I would select the ratings limits in such a way that the divisions would be (approximately) equal-sized. Unless I missed something that is very similar to Matthew's approach.
I have no real problem with your approach although I suspect most players would like to know the divisions and prizes up front.
However that said your approach is not at all very similar to Matt's. His has far more problems than yours.

His approach as both voiced by him and also advertised was for equal sized divisions.

Not approximately equal, based on selected rating limits.

PHAT
04-08-2004, 01:44 AM
Insulting the person you are arguing with has never achieved anything (useful).

Nor has putting putting perls (of wisdom) before swine ;)

Bill Gletsos
04-08-2004, 01:45 AM
Nor has putting putting perls (of wisdom) before swine ;)
You have never uttered any pearls of wisdom.
You usual utterances are full of crap.

jay_vee
04-08-2004, 01:57 AM
I have no real problem with your approach but your approach is not at all very similar to Matt's. His has far more problems than yours.

His approach as both voiced by him and also advertised was for equal sized divisions.

Not approximately equal, based on selected rating limits.

Then how would Matthew divide the divisions? Even if you announced four equal-sized divisions you would still have to deal with 42 entries, and only get approximately equal sized divisions, lest you resort to surgical measures :).

Yes, I'd like to remain a bit more flexible, just in case, but the real difference I see is between announcing rating groups ahead of time (thus turning people off, who are just above the limit and risking a very uneven number of players in the groups) and not announcing limits ahead of time to avoid these disadvantages (at the cost of the players being less able to predict their eligiblity for a particular prize before the first round). Compared to that, the difference between Matthew's and my approach seems marginal (although I obviously like mine better).

Bill Gletsos
04-08-2004, 02:02 AM
Then how would Matthew divide the divisions? Even if you announced four equal-sized divisions you would still have to deal with 42 entries, and only get approximately equal sized divisions, lest you resort to surgical measures :).

Yes, I'd like to remain a bit more flexible, just in case, but the real difference I see is between announcing rating groups ahead of time (thus turning people off, who are just above the limit and risking a very uneven number of players in the groups) and not announcing limits ahead of time to avoid these disadvantages (at the cost of the players being less able to predict their eligiblity for a particular prize before the first round). Compared to that, the difference between Matthew's and my approach seems marginal (although I obviously like mine better).
His is likely to end up with players of very similar ratings being in seperate groups.
Yours is not.
Thats is a major difference.

Rincewind
04-08-2004, 07:22 AM
<deleted>

In essence it is the same, ie closed division. So,

<deleted>

I am sick to death of you autistic-like obsessive knit-picking.

Just <deleted>

Testy. On an unrelated point, what was the result of Wilms-Sweeney last night? ;)

PHAT
04-08-2004, 08:01 AM
Testy. On an unrelated point, what was the result of Wilms-Sweeney last night? ;)

:lol: I typically sacriced a pawn early for lotsa lines and an attack. He defended well enough that it went to a 2P+R v 1P+R end game. I was able to force a draw by repetition at half past 11.

Rincewind
04-08-2004, 08:17 AM
:lol: I typically sacriced a pawn early for lotsa lines and an attack. He defended well enough that it went to a 2P+R v 1P+R end game. I was able to force a draw by repetition at half past 11.

Well done. I was hoping for the draw as if either of you won, there would be no catching you. ;)

1min_grandmaster
04-08-2004, 11:22 AM
There are advantages and disadvantages in all the different types of possible prize distributions.

Split players into equal (or approx. equal) numbered divisions ("Matthew's method"): avoids uneven distributions like 20 in one division and 5 in another

Split players into divisions based on ratings of approx. equal numbers (what they normally do in Newcastle): same adv as above (but only to a slightly lesser extent), but the organiser has a chance to divide the players so that the boundaries are set where there is a relatively large rating gap (that way, it is more competitive, and we dont have something like a player rated 1654 in one division and 1657 in another).

Predefine ratings divisions (NSWCA method): it's clear to all beforehand what the prize distribution should be like, and there is less chance for organiser's influence, which some players may sight as bias.

I personally don't particularly favour one over another, because if the prize distribution is mentioned beforehand, and is not changed dramatically, then it should be fine with me.

Actually, the NSWCA usually says that prizes are based on sufficient entries in each division, so they reserve the right to change prizes if they have very unbalanced divisions, which is common sense and flexible, like the "Newcastle" method. "Matthew's method" is probably least flexible, but at least ensures the divisions are as equal (in number) as possible.

Bill, if the closed range of ratings divisions (eg. 1800-1999 instead of U2000) was used in the NSW Open, why can't we use that in all tournaments to avoid the problem I have mentioned? No criticism intended here, just a suggestion for a possible improvement.

Bill Gletsos
04-08-2004, 12:03 PM
Bill, if the closed range of ratings divisions (eg. 1800-1999 instead of U2000) was used in the NSW Open, why can't we use that in all tournaments to avoid the problem I have mentioned? No criticism intended here, just a suggestion for a possible improvement.
Some people see open ended divisions as a problem some dont.
In the case of the NSW Open we eventually want to build that up over the next few years. I suggested to the Council we follow the Doeberl Cup lead with regards Division prizes since they are a highly successful event.

1min_grandmaster
04-08-2004, 04:01 PM
So other NSWCA tournaments wont follow this successful lead and continue to have open ended divisions?

Garvinator
04-08-2004, 04:11 PM
So other NSWCA tournaments wont follow this successful lead and continue to have open ended divisions?
could depend on whether the tournament is one division or two.

Bill Gletsos
04-08-2004, 06:39 PM
So other NSWCA tournaments wont follow this successful lead and continue to have open ended divisions?
I'm unaware of any complaints by NSW players about them being open ended.

That said, I'm not really opposed to changing it, however most of the remaining events for the year were snet out as part of a mailout not too long ago so I doubt it will be changed for any them.

I'll see if I can get some feedback on the issue from my mate Charles Z.

1min_grandmaster
05-08-2004, 10:28 AM
Yes, do seek Charles' wisdom on this matter. If we can't change any of the tournaments that have been involved in the mailout, then at least we can make the change for future events. Thank you for taking this possible improvement into consideration.