Tournament
Sections
Author: Mark
Kaprielian
January
1998
I.
How many Sections should we have for our Tournaments
1.
Splitting the field in two left both sections rather
anemic. In four round tournament, the
ideal minimum would be 16 players. When
you have less than that, the pairings can become rather odd and difficult. Also, due to the distribution of players
appearing for the first round, what seems like the middle point at which to
split the group into two sections the first week would often appear as a bad
choice in the weeks that follow.
Essentially, 23 players with a random distribution were not sufficient
to hold two good sections.
1.
Due to the uneven distribution of players appearing for the
first round, to avoid the problems of the previous year, we would more often
than not, eliminate the second section and have just one, starting on the first
night.
2.
Having one section would result in the new to chess or lower
half of the field having a 300 to 500 point disadvantage for the first two
rounds. While undoubtedly educational
for the lower ranked player, it was clearly, from casual comments heard
afterwards, not encouraging experiences.
Many times I was asked if they couldn't somehow be paired with people
closer to themselves.
3.
With the first two rounds being rather uneven in terms of
ratings, the higher end of the field generally had to wait until the last two
rounds to be in control of their fate, so to speak. Often, because of the uneven distribution of ratings, several of
the higher rated players would be paired significantly easier than others in
point group. This had the effect of
making the order of finish seem like it was heavily influenced by luck of the
draw instead of the contenders meeting head to head.
4.
In efforts to promote attendance in our events to players not
yet participating at the club, I was told on several occasions of people who
did not come to the club because of our tendency to combine sections. Specifically that they did not want
"easy" games for two or three rounds.
1.
The club averaged 34 players from an active pool of about
70. The distribution of those 34 or so
who showed to play would typically allow us to split the field into the two
sections at a 1600 or 1650 rating with both sections being close in size.
2.
The two sections seemed to offer players in both sections,
reasonably good competition often starting in the early rounds. The disparity between ratings was not nearly
as great as it had been in the past.
3.
The pairings in the later rounds were much better behaved than
had been in the past. The contenders
for first place generally met by round 4 and their fates were in their own
hands.
4.
These conditions seemed to be satisfactory to most
participants.
1.
In both sections, but particularly the lower section, the disparity
of the ratings is once again making for very uneven matches. The lower section feels this difficulty more
due to there being a steady stream of unrated players just beginning their
competitive experience.
1.
The large number of people in the lower section and in
particular the under 1400 level may be an aberration of the last few
months. Since September of 1997, an
average of about two new to USCF players has joined the club. A fair number of these players may well end
up with ratings above 1400 after they complete their provisional rating
phase.
1.
Make all our regular time control events at least two sections
for the following reasons:
a)
This gives people the choice of playing up or not. When they want to test themselves, they can
play up.
b)
It keeps the competition sharper than if just one section.
2.
Continue to have two sections for the next six months and see
if the trends and distribution of players still merits splitting into three
sections. If so then:
a)
Organize our tournaments as three sections events. If we had split the field for the January
1998 event on the first night of play, assuming no one played up, our sections
would have been as follows:
Open 19 players
U1600 14 players
U1400 16 players
b)
Advertise our tournaments as three sections with the lower
sections being combined if sufficient turn out or distribution does not occur.
3.
The rating distribution will have to be carefully observed to
determine the likely population of each section. We may wish to hold off on the three-section split until we can
support sections of Open, U1800 and U1600.
It is my estimation that the number of people who would wish to play up
when these sections are offered would generally be small as compared to other
rating breaks.