PDA

View Full Version : 2005 Queen's Birthday Weekender.



Garvinator
13-05-2005, 02:24 PM
2005 QUEEN'S BIRTHDAY WEEKENDER


Dates:

Saturday 11th June,
Sunday 12th June
and Monday 13th June
(Queens Birthday Weekend)


Venue:

Brisbane Chess Club
67 Ipswich Road Woolloongabba

Prizes:

First place $200 guaranteed.
All other prize amounts determined on the day

Special Conditions:

1) Only players from rating group A can win overall first prize.
2) A modified form of accelerated Swiss pairing system known as the Box Hill system will be used, which ensures that players will play most of their games against players of similar ratings.

Box Hill System

Players are divided into their rating groups before competition starts. Each rating group is given a two point acceleration ie, if four rating groups, rating group A starts on 6 points and rating group B on 4 points. Players are guaranteed to play opponents in their rating group in the first two rounds. Normal Swiss draw is used from there.

The Arbiter (Garvin Gray) retains the right to change
Swiss perfect draw as required.


Time controls: 60 minutes per side plus 30 seconds per move from move one

Session times:

Registration closes: Saturday 11th June 10:45am

Round 1: Saturday 11th June 11am
Round 2: Saturday 11th June 2pm

Round 3: Sunday 12th June 11am
Round 4: Sunday 12th June 2pm
Round 5: Sunday 12th June 5pm

Round 6: Monday 13th June 11am
Round 7: Monday 13th June 2pm

Entry fees:

For players already caq members:

Before 11th June 2005: $40 ($30 concession)
Before 10:30am 11th June 2005: $50 ($40 concession)
After 10:30am 11th June 2005: $60 ($50 concession)

For players not caq members:

Before 11th June 2005: $50 ($40 concession)
Before 10:30am 11th June 2005: $60 ($50 concession)
After 10:30am 11th June 2005: $70 ($60 concession)


Entries/enquiries:

Garvin Gray
4 Hogan Street
Keperra 4054
Phone Number: 0422 99 30 62
Email address: garvingray@optusnet.com.au

Players can enter by the following methods:

1) By cheque/money order: Make the cheque/money order out to Brisbane Chess Club and mail the cheque to,
4 Hogan Street Keperra 4054

2) Pay on the day before 10:30am
3) Pay on the day after 10:30am

Thunderspirit
13-05-2005, 02:45 PM
I'm disapointed to see that Box Hill's incorrect method of pairings has spread north to Queensland.

Garvin it is wrong to deny players in the lower divisions the possibility of winning first prize, even if they are same cash value. If a player wins an event, that player should receive first place, and not some other prize.

pax
13-05-2005, 02:54 PM
I'm disapointed to see that Box Hill's incorrect method of pairings has spread north to Queensland.

Garvin it is wrong to deny players in the lower divisions the possibility of winning first prize, even if they are same cash value. If a player wins an event, that player should receive first place, and not some other prize.

Would you say the same thing if it was an ordinary tournament in divisions, with prizes for each division?

Don't get me wrong, I don't like the BH system either (I think ordinary divisions is almost always better), but I think your reasons for opposing it are sometimes dubious.

The biggest problem here, is that players not in division A have no guarantee of any prize, as the prizes per division have not been specified. I think if you run a divisional tournament you need to specify the minimum prize in each division, not just the top. For that matter, if the entry fees are the same, the prizes should probably be the same in each division.

Garvinator
13-05-2005, 03:06 PM
Garvin it is wrong to deny players in the lower divisions the possibility of winning first prize, even if they are same cash value. If a player wins an event, that player should receive first place, and not some other prize.

the players in the lower divisions cannot win outright first place because of the permanent acceleration. This means a player in Div C can score 7/7, but has only met players near his/her own rating. It would then be unfair to the players in Div A to award first place to the Div C player.

Alot of the tournaments up here do have a 'waste of time- my thoughts, but have heard other ppl making same comments- first round' where there might be only one or two upset results out of twenty five pairings.

This is an attempt to give more players games against players of similiar ratings. Players who are doing well and performing above their rating will get their games against stronger players.

I am always willing to look at different systems and ideas because I believe the swiss system is not satisfactory for giving many players the opportunity to play people near their own rating, especially in qld where it is common to have 40 player fields, but having 1500 point rating gaps between the top and bottom seeds.

This means many players do the swiss yo-yo of getting someone 500 points above them one round and then 500 points below them the next.

We shall see after a couple of Box Hill type tournaments up here what the players think. They will vote with their entry money after a couple of tournaments.

If it doesnt work and doesnt give the players what they want, I will look at something else.

I want to add that this is the first time I am using this format, so I am learning as I go, hence why I have asked quite a few questions and participated on the Box Hill threads. It is a learning process and if successful, then more information in the future can be given ahead of time.

Garvinator
13-05-2005, 03:10 PM
I dont intend this thread to be a debate about the Box Hill system. There is a thread already dedicated to that. It is just for advertising of the tournament.

For anyone reading this, a further explaination and the pro and cons of the Box Hill pairing system can be found here: http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=2263&page=1&highlight=hill+pairing+system

shaun
13-05-2005, 03:27 PM
I know this is considered unfashionable in this day and age, but how about round robins. If you have time for 7 rounds then a number of 8 player RR could be held. Have 1,2,3rd and best of bottom half for each section, with a slightly larger prize on offer in the top section. eg $40 entry fee, prize pool of $280 in each section. 1st $120, $2nd $60 3rd $50, bottom half $50. The $40 skimmed from each section can cover expenses + a little extra prizemoney for the top section.
Of course there are problems with this format, as at the top the bottom seeds in Div 1 might get a fearful hammering, while some players may object to not having the chance to play the top seeds.
However, doing it as once a year tournament may be effective.

Garvinator
13-05-2005, 03:33 PM
I know this is considered unfashionable in this day and age, but how about round robins. If you have time for 7 rounds then a number of 8 player RR could be held. Have 1,2,3rd and best of bottom half for each section, with a slightly larger prize on offer in the top section. eg $40 entry fee, prize pool of $280 in each section. 1st $120, $2nd $60 3rd $50, bottom half $50. The $40 skimmed from each section can cover expenses + a little extra prizemoney for the top section.
Of course there are problems with this format, as at the top the bottom seeds in Div 1 might get a fearful hammering, while some players may object to not having the chance to play the top seeds.
However, doing it as once a year tournament may be effective.
Hello Shaun,

This is part of a longer term strategy, just one of many formats to be tried over the next few months. You have noted one of the problems with round robins, which the Box Hill system tries to get around.

Thunderspirit
13-05-2005, 04:33 PM
I know this is considered unfashionable in this day and age, but how about round robins. If you have time for 7 rounds then a number of 8 player RR could be held. Have 1,2,3rd and best of bottom half for each section, with a slightly larger prize on offer in the top section. eg $40 entry fee, prize pool of $280 in each section. 1st $120, $2nd $60 3rd $50, bottom half $50. The $40 skimmed from each section can cover expenses + a little extra prizemoney for the top section.
Of course there are problems with this format, as at the top the bottom seeds in Div 1 might get a fearful hammering, while some players may object to not having the chance to play the top seeds.
However, doing it as once a year tournament may be effective.

While I commend the thought Garvin of wanting to pair players with similar ratings, your method needs some work. While in Europe one of the events I played were split into 10 player Round Robins and there were 8 divisions. The players like it as they know who they are playing and with what colour. As well as the chance to win 1st-3rd. With the Box Hill system, its still random, and hence you haven't a clue to who you are playing until the pairings are done close to round time.

ursogr8
13-05-2005, 05:07 PM
Hello Shaun,

This is part of a longer term strategy, just one of many formats to be tried over the next few months. You have noted one of the problems with round robins, which the Box Hill system tries to get around.

Box Hill is currently running a 10 player round-robin, that is FIDE rated....on Tuesday evenings. :cool:


<snip> With the Box Hill system, its still random, and hence you haven't a clue to who you are playing until the pairings are done close to round time.

The pairings for today have been on the web-site since Wednesday morning. :eek:


regards
starter


ps It occurs to me that you two guys are not reading my posts on UCJ. :rolleyes: ;)

pps We (Box Hill) will advertise anywhere(even on QLD threads). :uhoh:

eclectic
13-05-2005, 05:57 PM
before getting to the meat of my post i should note that i find it interesting that the nswca has not already "patented" the term "queen's birthday weekender" and as such "hinted" to garvin gray and the caq that they find another title for their event.

now under its "new" title i believe the queensland event should simply be an eight (8) player round robin. this is the box hill system expressed under its most extreme form. only the best eight players who enter get to play. anyone else should show their appreciation for the talent of these eight by donating whatever expenses they might have outlayed otherwise i.e. entry fees; travel costs; accommodation costs; casino costs; sundry "entertainment" expenses; etc etc as appearance fees and prize money

ye of lower divisions ... why waste your time going through the motions of playing seven rounds in "subordinate competitions" whereby it's been preordained that if you're a ratings pleb you daren't challenge the upper echelons of queensland (yay, even australian) chess and cause an upset!

save yourself the stress! stay at home and hang out for the internet relay of the four games per round and the accompanying "expert" commentary!

wow, i can just feel those three days in june rushing towards me ...

(wonder what i should call them? depends on what state i live in i guess)

:hmm:

:confused:

eclectic

Thunderspirit
14-05-2005, 02:54 PM
Would you say the same thing if it was an ordinary tournament in divisions, with prizes for each division?

Don't get me wrong, I don't like the BH system either (I think ordinary divisions is almost always better), but I think your reasons for opposing it are sometimes dubious.

The biggest problem here, is that players not in division A have no guarantee of any prize, as the prizes per division have not been specified. I think if you run a divisional tournament you need to specify the minimum prize in each division, not just the top. For that matter, if the entry fees are the same, the prizes should probably be the same in each division.

Hi Pax,
Good question. Normal seperate events are good. Doeberl is the best event with three events, others have two. Having four tournaments in overkill unless you have 200 players. Most weekenders a U1600 and open is fine.

pax
14-05-2005, 03:25 PM
Hi Pax,
Good question. Normal seperate events are good. Doeberl is the best event with three events, others have two. Having four tournaments in overkill unless you have 200 players. Most weekenders a U1600 and open is fine.

Actually, I think there is some merit in having more divisions where practical.

The often quoted "rule of thumb" for Swisses is maximum of 2^N players where N is the number of rounds (ie 32 players for 5 rds, 64 for 6 etc). This is really only an upper limit, and it is clear that events with fewer players per division produce much better results, especially at the top end.

For example, the Aus Closed Champs usually has around 30 players and 11 rounds. This produces really good events, where the winner plays not just one or two of his main rivals, but nearly all of them (e.g Lane in 2004 played 8 of his nearest 10 finishers, including all of the nearest 7). Contrast this with the Doeberl Cup, where Wohl played only 3 of his nearest 10 finishers.

That kind of ratio is obviously difficult for a 7 round weekender, but I think in general that divisions of less than 30 players is an excellent idea and will produce much more competitive chess.

Bill Gletsos
14-05-2005, 04:21 PM
Hi Pax,
Good question. Normal seperate events are good. Doeberl is the best event with three events, others have two. Having four tournaments in overkill unless you have 200 players. Most weekenders a U1600 and open is fine.Agreed. The NSW Open will hopefully continue to grow in player numbers. Eventual we expect that we will need to run it in Open, U2000 and U1600 Divisions.