Championships Process Proposal by Mark Kaprielian 1998-04

Proposal for Clubs’ Championship Event

Author: Mark Kaprielian

April 1998

I’ve got a new proposal that meets almost all of the objectives. The exception would be regarding the club Championships.

First, some analysis I’ve done on setting split points for a three section event.

1. We have 96 active players. Active player is defined at this time generally to be anyone who has played in about the last 7 months.

2. Counting down from the top till you reach 32 players (1/3 of the 96) and round to the nearest 100 points of rating, you get a split point of 1800 with 26 above that, or 1700 with 36 above that.

3. Counting up from the bottom till you reach 32 players you get U1300 with 32 below that.

4. If we were to get only half the active people (this would be 48) playing in a tournament and assume an equal distribution of ratings, that would cut the number of people in each section to 16. This is the ideal number for four a four round event to produce a single undefeated player and to not produce too many odd pairings.

5. I would anticipate that maybe an average of four people would want to play up in the two lower sections.

5.A. Open group impact: If this were the case, the Open section would have a greater probability of having its 16 players under the 50% show case. I would expect of all the sections, the Open is most likely to fall short on expected turn out. This is based on observation and the fact that from an eyeball look at who makes up the over 1800 group, there is a higher percentage of occasional players than in the other sections.

5.B. I would think the Advanced section would generally be well filled. Most visitors fall into this range and this section contains the majority of long time/hard core attending members.

5.C. The Reserve section will tend to be the thinnest due to unrateds at the bottom moving up and out due to their provisional ratings, though many will end up below the 1300 split by the time they are done. Over time, members will tend to move out of this group more so than the two other groups combined. The pairings may become odd but it is less likely to matter to these players and the prize money at stake is pretty small.

Conclusion of this analysis:

1. The only section that may have attendance regularly be thin is the U1300. I do not believe that players in this section will be particularly concerned with subtleties in pairing or the prize money at stake.

2. Splitting into three sections meets the goal of providing more equitable distribution winning chances and prize money.

3. Since the Open section will tend to be won most regularly by the Masters, a third place prize will be offered. Granted, if more Masters play, the odds get better that they will take the third place prize as well. Let’s look at the past [six] months’ results to see how the place prizes would have been distributed. Remember, the higher rated players will generally meet and the losers will be knocked back in the standings considerably.

Month	1^st Place	2^nd Place	3^rd Place	Players over 2000 Not placing
Mar 98	2461/2417		1836	2228, 2130, 2070, 2008
Feb 98	2364	1843/1637		2243, 2030, 2014
Jan 98	2405/2124/1650			2054
Dec 97	2461/2424/1884
Nov 97	2408	2468/2402/2141/1993		2089
Oct 97	2474	1811	2127	2372

Pros:

A. Everyone will know in advance where the split points are and can plan on playing in section or up accordingly.

B. This gives our events more a feel for what people find outside regarding fixed break points and choosing your section.

C. This should help attract stronger players as I have comments from non-attending 2000s and up about not wanting to play the lower rated players. This reduces their excuse significantly.

Cons:

People in the lower portion of a section still have a tough time getting some reward unless they do particularly well.

Short of just giving some class prize out at every 100 point level, there are going to be people who just never seem to win anything.

Here is the prize structure. All are place prizes, no class prizes fit into the budget numbers and rule of 1/2s structure.

Regular events:

Open: 200 100 50

U1800 25 13 ----

U1300 6 3 ----

Biggie events:

Open: 600 300 150

U1800 75 38 ----

U1300 19 9 ----

By making the big events, including the championships three events we tighten up the competition at the top and give people a choice in where they want to play. If they want to be club champion, then let them earn it the hard way be not getting as many easy games as they would by playing in one big pool. Let people play with the big boys if they want to be the club championship. It will be harder for them to place in that but hey, they chose to try and become the champ as opposed to play in their own section.

By making all events the same format, there will be less confusion.

Having the breaks fixed will make speed up registration on the computer as well.

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

Kappy 04/14/98 01:20 PM

First a point of clarification: To get to the first level of GPP points, the rule is that the dollar amount available to be won by masters must be $300. It is not a matter of money in the open section. Therefor, the class prizes unless set very high [i.e., at least one at a Master level rating] do not count in getting us to the level.

Keep in mind that my initial reasoning to propose changes were to bring the prize structure into line with what was outlined by our all-club meeting. The trigger to make the changes was an increase in the average attendance over six months. I felt that we could manage the proposed changes now given the current average rate of attendance.

From an earlier email where I overlaid the 3-section prize structure onto the last six tournaments.

Month	1^st Place	2^nd Place	3^rd Place	Players over 2000 Not placing
Mar 98	2461/2417		1836	2228, 2130, 2070, 2008
Feb 98	2364	1843/1637		2243, 2030, 2014
Jan 98	2405/2124/1650			2054
Dec 97	2461/2424/1884
Nov 97	2408	2468/2402/2141/1993		2089
Oct 97	2474	1811	2127	2372

I didn’t spell out my thinking then, so I’ll do some of it now. In the above:

13 players with over 2000 placed, 7 players under 2000 placed, 10 players with over 2000 did not place. This is why I chose to add a third place prize.

In each event at least one U2000 player would have won money. In all but one event there were enough 2000 players to have pushed out the U2000 players. In February 1998 U2000 players took two places and pushed out three 2000 players.

It seems like U2000 players will hold their own with a third place prize being offered. Notice also that these players were from a wide range of ratings and not just the next best players, the 1900s.

Expanding to three sections makes the competition more equitable and gives more choice on amount of challenge and greater opportunity to win something, since the competition is more leveled. In the Open section, I will agree that the competition hasn’t been leveled as much as the other sections.

Is it worth 50 bucks to have a shot at Curdo and maybe even Foygel in the same tournament? Would you consider it a free lesson or a nasty impediment to getting the bucks? If you manage not to have to play them, you have a shot at some money. If you play them, you’ve probably given up any chance of getting some money. Was it a fair trade? You as the sharp player whose had a good tournament and missed your free lesson will have your shot at the money. Was the shot at the money a fair suitable compensation for not getting the free lesson? From where I sit, I think so.

I do not believe that it is practical to run 4 sections. Of course, this means that there won’t be too many people in a section and pairings against players not in the same score group will occur all over the place.

[Having multiple sections and/or class prizes] means we are catering to [a] “go for the money or go for the challenge” [choice]. I believe this will lead to chaos and emphasis of not so good traits. Proof: How many people do you know of that want to play up at a class event? Why don’t they? Because they have a better chance of winning at their own level.

CONCLUSIONS for this email:

Bottom line from my perspective is, lets do incremental changes and improvements on what we have that has apparently been working. Going from two to three sections makes a lot of improvements without totally changing the feel and motivations that are going on. I don’t think it wise to completely change the mind set of our players. If we do, the club will not be the same club. Another way to put it is, since people are coming to play without the great incentive of having a shot to win and they are not protesting up the wazzu about it, what is the big concern? That is the nature of this club. This is the kind of player we attract and hold. The club is thriving with these players and this arrangement.

If attendance continues to go up, we could possibly create a class prize at every rating that is not currently a section break. That could be our next step.

I think were moving from “reasonable for what we can afford” to “more reasonable and more fair for what we can afford” to “more fair down the road as we can afford it.” There are a lot of dynamics and things that will get traded off no matter what we do. We must choose wisely the steps we take.

I propose we stick with my revised schedule and see how things shape up after another six months. Believe me, if attendance drops off or lots of people are complaining, we’ll be sure to adjust as fast as our obligations allow us. Remember TLAs commit us several months out, so we are always predictive and hopeful.

I think we should move off the class prize stuff and onto other things.

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

Kappy 04/08/98 06:24 PM

Seems like no one has a problem with three sections for our regular events. I will consider that issue closed. Of course in the future we may revisit it.

Seems like most people favor the one section for the championship. Now I will pose some questions to further refine our position on the two biggies.

1. Should the 5-rounder in November be one section also?

In my opinion one-section events cater to the top players and reward them with the bucks. One way to further look at things is that our other events give the full range of our players a chance to win something. This is how it evolved to three sections to close down the range to make it viable for more players to win something. It eliminated the need to dork around with class prizes.

2. Should we not have any class prizes so we can put it into place prizes?

After all, the rest of us can win something during the rest of the year. This to me is the logical extension of the main justification of having one section.

3. If we don’t have class prizes, shall we beef up the money in the three existing place prizes or put it towards additional place prizes?

If the answer to number 1 is no, then questions 2 and 3 would apply to only the club championships.

My opinion is Yes to all three questions. Both events become one section, have additional place prizes and no class prizes.

Keep in mind, the next biggie tournament will be next November. We will have time to change our minds after the event should we want to, for the Club Champs in April.

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

Kappy 04/09/98 12:09 PM

When we speak of class prize as opposed to printing it in advertising, I believe we are referring to the method by which the prize is awarded as opposed to a specific class.

In terms of advertising if we were to advertise it as a Class A prize then we would need to adhere to the strict definition. If we advertise it as, let’s say, under 1750, then when we speak we would call it a class prize only to distinguish it from a place prize. The term class prize here indicates the method by which it is to be awarded.

I’ve always taken the meaning of class prize to mean that it was associated with a particular rating range. I know that the USCF has always had officially named classes but I think the term class has been used with both these meanings. What appears to be a change is that on page 49 of the April 98 issue, the USCF has listed the Classes and I’m uncertain if they have eliminated the distinction between Certified and Advanced. The lower 100 in the class was always prefixed with Certified as in Certified Class A and the Upper 100 with Advance.

In our discussions on prize structure my intent has always been to distinguish the method of awarding the prize. In advertising a specific break, I always use the specific rating not a term to make it perfectly clear what is going on.

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

Kappy 04/09/98 02:11 PM

I like the idea of having a separate tournament to decide the club champion. I think we could model it on the challenge cup idea. We could run this at the same time as a regular tournament. I can adjust down that month’s or even two months’ prizes for the regular event such that it would not be a disincentive to the higher-rated players to participate in the challenge cup. We could still have some prize money for the challenge cup.

This does go against the idea that we had earlier that all players have a shot, albeit as small one at becoming club champion. If we’re not hung up on that because we’ve now created two 1-section events where everyone can mix it up, then we could do this.

It does seem to me, though, that it might be simpler to do the following during one of the non-biggie tournaments:

Championship section: Only 2200 or over allowed.

U2200

U1700

U1200

or something like that.

The championship section could span two months while we have two events like normal, for the other sections.

franck 04/08/98 09:54 AM

[The Club] may be “one big pool” but there is definitely “a deep end” and “a shallow end” and I don’t notice the ends alternating from month to month. A club championship giving the top players several “extra” easy games doesn’t prove anything. There *may* be a point in giving them some sort of honorarium as a sort of “thanks” for showing up at the Club.

What I want each month and every month is competition with players near my own level and some chance of winning a prize. One of the advantages that a big club has is that it increases the opportunities for players at all levels to meet opponents at or near their level. This is what the Metrowest Chess Club should seek to provide each month, every month. We can honor our top players in many ways, not the least of which is to see that they get six TOUGH games in order to become club champion.

My vote is for three sections each month, every month, as long as the numbers of active members support this. In the long run I believe more players will enjoy this format and “keep coming back for more.”

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

hreed 04/07/98 05:18 PM

It’s a Championship. One pool of players. Our happens to be a big pool, but it should be a single pool nonetheless...

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

siverson 04/08/98 03:00 PM

I assume that playing better players is the only road forward for improving my chess and my rating. So I don’t mind playing a one-section tournament once or twice a year.

I can live with any prize structure proposal which in my mind encourages bigger turnouts and better chess play. [Mark’s] current proposal seems to me to meet both those considerations.

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

wamalas 04/08/98 05:42 PM

In my view we should maintain ONE-Section for the two tournaments: the Championship and the one in November. In this way the club will be serving all people’s interest. At least those who favour one section will be served twice a year and those who favour three sections will be served ten times a year. I believe it is not right to eliminate One section tournament completely. Here is my point:

Chess players make friends when they play each other. . . . The point I am making is of a social aspect. In getting to play people you don’t play all the time you get to meet them. This is a CLUB and this is a social event.

Please as a club let us try to serve all members’ interests.

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

ronaldb 04/08/98 06:38 PM

[Severine’s proposal] sounds good to me. Excellent points!

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

bigbear 04/08/98 09:49 PM

I think no class prizes is a big mistake. Everyone needs to feel that he (ore she) can win something. If you want more place prizes, so the 1900-2100 guys have a better shot at prizes, then just lower first and second [place prizes] for one month and have third and fourth place prizes.

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

Tom.Powers 04/09/98 10:56 AM

Should the Stan Crowe be one section? Yes, if we wish to make it our other big bucks, GPP event. The club is big and important enough to warrant two such events per year.

Should we have class prizes? Yes, absolutely, for ALL events that can support them, even two and three section events, but ESPECIALLY for single section events.

A player in the top half of the bottom half (the third quartile) may get one chance in a four-round event to play a master or higher. The bottom quarter of the field won’t likely get even that chance. I DO support the efforts to get higher caliber of play at the club, but we must consider that the lower and lowest strength players need some coddling too. The experts are learning while playing the masters, and the B players are learning while playing the experts, and the D players are learning playing the C and B players, but that represents a long time for the masters’ expertise to trickle down to the bottom! Most of us would be better off buying the experts’ and masters’ time directly at $25~$50 per hour for direct lessons.

So this C player says “throw us a bone” - spread SOME sort of class prize around so that every B, C, D, and below has a chance for the equivalent of one or two free events a year in class prize money.

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

wamalas 04/09/98 01:22 AM

When I come to play Chess on Tuesday it is my night out. Just to go and have fun. I don’t expect to make money from Metrowest. . . . We cannot focus on prizes as the main purpose because there is no prize big enough to be worth the time. It is also very difficult to come up with a prize structure which will benefit everyone. . . . My real opinion on this prize issue is actually neutral, but for purposes of picking a side, I will side with members who prefer class prizes so that they have a chance at winning something.

I am definitely in support of having one section in the November tournament.

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

hfranck 04/09/98 06:21 AM

I vote ‘yes’ to all three questions, on one section for the two major tournaments.

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

jkrycka 04/09/98 12:56 AM

During the course of the year, we should strive to offer competitive chess matches as the main focus of our tournaments, but also variety of format and the social aspects of the club are very important. With this in mind, here are my suggestions:

1. The Club Championship

· Keep it as one section with six rounds (I’ve changed my opinion on this one from the lively discussion).

· Offer both place and class prizes; this way we have one club champion and several class champions - everyone has something to shoot for and everyone will get to play against a couple of people he normally wouldn’t face.

· Possibly offer one of the monthly tournaments in one section if there is interest in doing so. September or December might be good choices, but not the big November tournament.

2. The Big November Tournament

· Schedule three sections with predetermined split points. My assumption is that the bigger prizes, more publicity, and larger GPP will attract more non-club members than usual. This exposure is very healthy for the club. The more specific our advertising the better - I would think that those not familiar with our club who might consider entering this tournament would like to know the section rating ranges before deciding on whether or not to enter - I know I would.

· Offer only placement prizes for each section.

3. The Other Nine Monthly Tournaments

· Break into three or two sections as the number of players dictates.

· Float the section split points based on ratings distribution. This is very important because it builds in some amount of variety for those who otherwise would normally fall just under or over the split points. Mark’s estimate is that U1800 and U1300 would be typical split points. If these were fixed split points the 1300-1400 level and 1800-1900 level players would always be at a disadvantage as far as prizes are concerned, while the 1200 and 1700 folks would be in a great position to win their sections and still have the opportunity to play-up if they wanted a challenge from time to time.

· Offer only placement prizes for each section.

· As I indicated above, possibly use one of these monthly tournaments to do something different, such as being one section, or making it a two-section event if attendance makes the other eight monthlies three-section events.

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

franck 04/09/98 11:22 AM

We actually have class prizes now in the current tournament. I would make all tournaments multiple sections. What I am firmly opposed to is having class prizes AND multiple sections in the same tournament. That’s just too complicated to ever get right and for anyone to relate to.

The prize money is not the issue. Winning a prize, or a section, or a game IS the issue. I think all players should have a chance at some sort of recognition. What I would like to suggest is that we post the names and the event/section of the winners of all prizes on the MCC website. [You can leave out the dollar amounts of the prizes!] That will give some additional recognition to the winners.

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

franck 04/09/98 11:46 AM

Let me take a stab at clarifying prize names: let’s call what we have in the current tournament “Level Prizes”, e.g., U1900, U1700 and U1500. We would keep these for Stan Crowe if it were to be one section. What we would have for the regular, three-section tournaments would be called “Section Prizes”.

We would not have class prizes, which would normally be associated with “Expert”, “A”, “B”, “C”, “D” and “E”. That is what would be confusing when Mark’s proposed split at 1800 and 1300 were overlaid on the class structure.

So we would have “Level Prizes” for the one-section, big, GPP tournaments and “Section Prizes” for the regular, multiple section tournaments and never have “Class Prizes”. How does that sound?

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

alan.hodge 04/09/98 10:55 AM

1. I think having an U1300 section (or U1400 or wherever the break sensibly falls) could increase participation in that section. While I agree that playing better players is one of the best ways to improve one’s game, I also know that it is very discouraging to lose continually. . . . To put it simply: if there were more chances to win at the lower end, more people would play at the lower end. And the main point is to get them to play: if they don’t play, they don’t get better and the club doesn’t grow either.

2. Mark says that some master-level players avoid the club because they don’t want to play low-rated players. To the extent that’s true, having a more competitive open section will increase participation at the upper end also.

3. I agree that it is good to have some number of one-section tournaments during the year. Not only does this provide the social benefit Severine talked about, but it also provides an opportunity for all lower-rated players to play outside their own peer level, with the chances of pulling an upset now and then. These tournaments will avoid a situation where someone plays the same opponents over and over from the same relatively small pool.

4. That said, I don’t think the club championship should be one of the one-section tournaments because I agree that the championship should be determined by the most rigorous competition that can be arranged. Here is yet another alternative idea: instead of the “Open” section being about one-third of all entrants, with the rating break falling wherever it does, how about defining a “Championship” section limited to 16 players? To prevent non-members from “crashing” the tournament, entry could be restricted to members (maybe even “active” members to encourage further participation in the club on a regular basis). The 16 players could qualify on the basis of some combination of rating and club record since the last championship tournament.

5. It is of no importance to me whether cash prizes are offered in the lowest section, especially if we are talking about insignificant amounts of money. For me the point is to win games, not money. As for the championship tournament, I think the prizes should be meaningful, and should go to the top three finishers. As for the class sections under the championship section (number to be determined), I would be happy to see trophies substituted for cash prizes.

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

dslater 04/09/98 01:51 PM

Boylston does something similar [i.e., a qualifying championship tournament]- their championship is a round-robin deal with about 10 players in it, and it’s extremely strong, with more masters than experts. I would KILL to play in that kind of tournament. I don’t know what the incentives are for the senior masters to play. I assume there’s money involved.

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

franck 04/09/98 01:28 PM

I think the [suggestion for a qualifying championship tournament] merits special consideration. It’s not like we’re all wondering, at this point, who the Club Champion is going to be this year. The idea of players (in the fabled 1900-2100 range) working all year to be among the top 16 who compete for the Club Championship has a real tug to it. That is something that could be hyped and advertised widely.

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

bigbear 04/09/98 06:24 PM

I have played in a Boylston Chess Club Championship. They are both fun and very strenuous. But it’s probably only practical to have six players in a MCC Closed championship. 5 rounds. Both because of the strength of the club and the number of rounds.

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

Tom.Powers 04/09/98 01:52 PM

Up until several years ago, the club sponsored an event called the Challenge Cup. The Challenge Cup was an invitational event, and was sometimes referred to as “the closed championship” of the club. The top-rated 6 or 8 players (members?) who had played in at least one regular club event during the previous year were invited to play one another in a round-robin event. The event was held in the summer, in parallel with the other normal club events. The invitees paid no fees, but there was also no prize (except perhaps a small trophy). Being in a round-robin, the players had some flexibility in arranging their pairings, so that if one couldn’t make it one week, they could make it up, perhaps even off-site. We gave it up when the normal summer attendance could barely support regular club events, never mind losing the top competitors to a second event.

If we were to resurrect this event, we’d probably want to award some honorarium, perhaps with the stipulation that the winner or some other participant deliver a lecture or two on the proceedings. As you might expect, this results in some VERY competitive chess in a club venue. We could make some good public hay about such an event. The actual excuse for the event was to attract the local masters to OTHER club events so they’d qualify for an invitation!

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

bigbear 04/09/98 06:29 PM

As I mentioned, 6 players seems more manageable. Where you can seed the three or four highest-rated players in the club and leave two spots open that can be earned by accomplishing some set of tasks. Say, the players with the two highest total scores in all the tournaments for the past year, that haven’t already qualified. Or, have a qualification event.

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

franck 04/09/98 01:56 PM

A real case could be made for the Club Champion to be decided by a six-game match between Foygel and Curdo — with the analyzed games going straight to the Study Group list, of course!

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

bigbear 04/09/98 06:39 PM

Ughhhhhhhhh!!!! How many times in a row would I have to play Curdo and Foygel????????

See my 6 player round robin idea with 3-4 players seeded by rating and 2-3 players qualify. The finals of the Championship could be held at the same time as another MCC 5-round event in which all the players who didn’t qualify for the finals could battle for first and second in the regular event without the big guys.

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

Mike.Marl.PSG.Barry 04/09/98 08:23 AM

I think that keeping 2 single section tournaments a year with class prizes is important . The single section tournament is what separates us from the weekend tournament syndrome of only playing against players of your own strength. An amateur baseball player cannot take batting practice with the Red Sox. But we amateur chess players DO get the equivalent when we get paired against an Igor Foygel or John Curdo.

I also agree with Joel that we need to have class prizes. I think that it is important to something established to award good play at all levels in single section tournaments.

I also would like to add a word of caution to the discussion. We need to be careful to balance the fact that these tournaments “...cater to top players and reward them with the bucks...”, with the fact that we have been working very hard over the past two years to get them to come here in the first place. I mean you cannot expect John, Igor, or Joel to show up on a regular basis and then be shocked that they are walking away with the bulk of the prize money.

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

wamalas 04/09/98 10:16 PM

I agree it is a good idea to make the championship a separate event to concurrently run with regular MCC monthly events, so that those who do not qualify for the Championship can still enjoy chess at the club.

This is what Severine would do:

1. Number of people: 9 (about 10% of members)

2. Round robin for 8 weeks (2 months)

3. Qualifying procedure: This is a tricky one. This is where playing in three fixed sections is going to help. Say if the playing sections are fixed as; A) open, B) U1800 C) U1500

i) The first three spots will be filled by the three highest rated in the club.

ii) The second three spots will be filled by those players in section A who have accumulated the most points from the end of the Championship (in this case it will be beginning June 98) to the month ending before the Championship. Accumulated points are those of games played excluding 1/2 byes.

iii) The next two spot will be filled by those players in Section B who have accumulated the most points as in ii).

iv) The last one spot is to be filled by a player in Section C who has accumulated the most points as in ii).

If any of the above person is not able to participate the next qualifying person gets in.

I am taking an inclusive point of view. Every one in the club to play the whole year with a hope to qualify for the Championship. I think this is going to increase competition and more regular attendance, knowing that each point counts toward the Championship. Qualifying alone will be a gratification for lower-rated players much more than winning $40 or $20. Including the lower-rated players makes those sections feel recognized.

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

Tom.Powers 04/10/98 09:27 AM

Whoa! My advocacy of re-instituting a Challenge Cup should in no way imply that I favor changes to the concept of an Open Club Championship. There is no better way to determine the Open Club Championship than to play a multi-round (six seems to work) Swiss open to all comers. The concept of an invitational Closed Championship is separate.

The complications of Severine’s methods of three or four classes of player, based on a combination of rating, games played, and points won should give pause.

We should give serious thought to re-instituting the Challenge Cup, with some prize money, and expanding the eligibility (as Joel, I think, mentioned) to top-rated players and other qualifiers. Nine players (eight rounds, two months) is too big and too long. I suspect that six players (five rounds, one long month) is as long as we can maintain interest (of players and spectators and diverted attendance from our other events). However, given that these games can be played under more controlled conditions (predictable pairings, off-site play if needed), we might consider a slower time control for Challenge Cup play. Say 50/2, 15/30, SD/30. Challenge Cup players could have an earlier start time, or we might consider letting the games go to one adjournment, if needed.

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

bigbear 04/10/98 01:07 PM

Adjournments stink. They should be avoided at all costs. They invite collusion and other forms of cheating (computers, etc.).

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

Tom.Powers 04/10/98 01:10 PM

Yeah, I understand [that adjournments stink], but the idea of having a longer time control and “more serious” chess than can normally be accommodated in a club setting just led me in that direction. A 50/2, 15/30, SD/30 game would have to start at 6:00pm to guarantee being finished by midnight. This is not out of the question, of course, but might be an inconvenience. Also, 50/2, 15/30, SD/30 might not be the right mix; 40/90, 15/30, 15/30, SD/30 is the same six hours in a more staged progression. But all that was just one part of the idea.

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

theeldridges 04/11/98 02:30 AM

I really don’t care that much whether we have one or two sections in the big tournaments. I see some of the arguments for each way. But in any case the champ is the winner of the Open section.

I basically like the idea of a small, select field playing a closed event. Whether it is called the club championship, the Challenge Cup, or something else is irrelevant. Personally, I would make this event club championship. But the key thing is holding the event, whatever we decide to call it.

As for the format and the number of players, . . . the only truly fair system is a double round-robin, where each player gets white and black against each opponent. But of course these take a lot of time. So what is the best alternative?

Obviously, if you have an even number of players, you have an odd number of rounds — and half the field gets an extra white while the other half gets an extra black. This can be a significant advantage/disadvantage.

Why not have an odd number of players and an even number of rounds? This means one player gets a bye each round, but is that such a big deal? And if some byes come at more disadvantageous times than others, that’s certainly not as bad as getting an extra black. Furthermore, the timing of byes could be determined by ratings: the higher rating gets the more advantageous bye -- whatever we determine that to be -- and so on. In view of all this, I would propose a seven-player, six-round closed tournament for the club championship.

How do we get the seven players? I would favor inviting maybe five by rating. Some would undoubtedly decline (particularly if we have small or no prizes). But we take the five highest-rated players who want to compete for the honor of being club champion. The other two spots could be filled by some sort of qualifying competition or competitions. You could go by points scored in club tournaments over the past year, or have a qualifying event, or whatever. In any event, the advantage of letting at least one or two players play their way in is that nobody can claim that he or she was excluded from a chance.

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

franck 04/13/98 10:27 AM

As a ca. 1500 player I personally welcome the chance to compete with players up to 1800 for a prize. I think that’s the ideal stretch to try to improve one’s chess game. [Above 1800 is just too much...]

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

ronaldb 04/13/98 12:25 PM

A 1900 or 2000 player has to compete with masters for prizes. We now have many A and even experts competing - if we want to encourage these players a class prize would help a lot. In fact, by not having prizes these players can win we are discouraging them from competing.

[Because of the way the rating system is structured] there is actually more difference in skill between every level over 2100 than there is below. This means that there is a greater distance between a 2000 player and a 2400 player than there is between a 1400 and an 1800 player. In a six-round event with 2 2400+ players and one 2200 player, it is almost impossible for a 2000 player to finish ahead of the senior masters – and quite difficult to finish ahead of the master.

Since we have so many A and experts competing, it makes sense to have a prize for them. Even an <2200 prize would be a help!

If we are going to have 3 sections we have to remember that we want to encourage improvement and have the better players win more than the lower rated players. We don’t want a situation where the prizes for <1600 are greater than for <1800 - and they should also be lower than for <2200. And those 2000 should have at least a great a chance for prizes than those in other sections! But if we don’t have <2000 or <2200 prizes we have a prize structure where the lower rated players have better chances of winning prizes than these 1900-2200 players. I fear that such a situation will stop these players from attending our events.

The Invitational will not work unless there is a LOT of prize money connected with it. At least, the top players probably won’t compete unless there is a lot of prize money!

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

franck 04/13/98 01:52 PM

This is the ‘heart’ of the problem: is it really harder for a 2000 player to compete with ca. 10 other players in the 1800-2200 range for a $50. prize than it is for a 1600 player to compete with ca. 16 other players for a $40. prize? I have yet to be convinced of this. I feel that I am open to persuasive arguments.

What might be ideal but which I reject as impractical is constantly ‘adjusting’ the rating boundaries so that every member has a statistically equal ‘shot’ at a prize.

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

theeldridges 04/14/98 02:45 AM

[After accounting for Foygel, Curdo, Joel Johnson, Chris Chase, Derek Slater and Ed Epp (both around 2100)] you get down to the players rated between 1800 and 2000, [and] there is virtually no chance that they can win any prize.

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

theeldridges 04/14/98 02:45 AM

I agree with most of Ron’s points, but not with this one [that the Invitational will not work unless there is a LOT of prize money]. My point has always been that we should be offering two types of rewards: (1) big money for the Foygels and Curdos, and (2) the honor of a club championship for the regular, “ordinary” club players. So why not provide an opportunity for both to be rewarded? The big guns can win the money, while the smaller fish can win the club championship.

How do you do his? Easy. You continue to have the same big-money tournaments as before, but when it comes to the club championship, you designate this as a non-money or small-money event. You aren’t excluding anybody. Anyone who wants to compete for the title of Metrowest Club Champion is free to do so. But there is no money (or very little money) involved. We don’t necessarily want senior masters competing for this honor, but neither do we want to exclude them. So we give them a choice.

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

ronaldb 04/13/98 10:58 PM

I agree we don’t need a big money tourny for the club championship. Of course, we can have a MWCC Amateur Championship for a trophy and a MWCC Championship with the bucks for the pros!

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

wamalas 04/14/98 04:29 AM

Clearly many members have raised concern about class prizes. This is a legitimate concern. . . . I will quote figures to support my points:

Section	1st	2nd	3rd	Total	Total Players in Each Section
Section	1st	2nd	3rd	Total	This Month	Club Total	Comb. Total
Open	200	100	50	350	3	4	27
U2200				0	4	6
U2000				0	11	17
U1800	40	20	10	70	10	20	37
U1600				0	11	17	37
U1400	20	10	5	35	6	8	28
U1300				0	15	20	28

This is my proposed prize structure:

Section	1^st	2^nd	3^rd	Total	Total Players in Each Section
Section	1^st	2^nd	3^rd	Total	This Month	Club Total	Comb. Total
Open	140	100	0	240	3	4	27
U2200				0	4	6
U2000	60			60	11	17
U1800	50	40	0	70*	10	20	37
U1600	30			30	11	17	37
U1400	30	20	0	50	6	8	28
U1300	20			20	15	20	28

[*Note: This is what Severine wrote, although 50 plus 40 is 90.]

In summary I am proposing : Section: 1^st/2^nd Class:

Open $140/$100 U2000 — $60

U1800 $50/$40 U1600 — $30

U1400 $30/$20 U1250* — $20

[*Note: This is what Severine wrote, although he indicated U1300 above.]

I think it is unfair to increase the first and second places in the open section. We have to be mindful of the fact that the financial security is based on the lower rated players. This brings me to the point that Class prizes are mandatory. I think the Masters are already rewarded by free entry. They are rewarded more by not deducting entry fee from their prizes when they win them. Since many members have shown interest in class prizes we must have them. Foygel and Curdo have been playing with the existing $140/$100 prizes now we need to attract more members in the lower rated sections by increasing their prizes. The point not to be ignored here is that the lower rated players are making it possible to pay big bucks to the masters. We should not undermine them by suggesting prizes like $5. I think prizes should be at least close to entry fees.

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

franck 04/14/98 09:23 AM

Consider the chances of a 1420 player competing in the 1400-1800 section. Or the chances of an 800 player in the U1400 section. It seems to me they are also pretty close to zero. My point is that there will ALWAYS be some number of players who have zero (virtually) chances of winning a prize and they are not *all* in the1800-2000 range.

If we are going to have sections we have to draw the lines somewhere. And I happen to think that sections are better than no sections (or one single section) because the chess is more competitive in the sense that the outcome of the games is more uncertain.

So the prize money really IS the problem that’s sticking in everyone’s throat. In that regard my recommendation is that most players learn to live with the fact that they will not be winning prize money. And these players are not all in the >1800 range.

Perhaps we could do a “strawman” proposals for sections as follows:

Open, U2000, U1500; or

Open, U2000, U1700, U1400 (4 sections)

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

theeldridges 04/14/98 07:40 PM

I did consider [the chances of a 1420 player competing in the 1400-1800>section]. I even suggested the possibility of an U1600 prize in the second section. I think it is obvious that this hypothetical 1420 player in the second section isn’t as bad off as a hypothetical 1820 player in the Open section, but I agree he is up against it.

As for the bottom section, I also considered this. And indeed, you could have an U1200 prize too. But you have to stop somewhere, and, as I said, lower ratings are less reliable anyway. And lower rated players are mostly kids or beginners, who aren’t (or shouldn’t be) interested in prize money.

My suggestion, therefore, was for an U2000 prize for sure, an U1600 prize maybe, and forget about a class prize in the bottom section for the reasons outlined above. That still sounds reasonable to me.

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

bigbear 04/16/98 10:42 PM

In the last round [of a Swiss], the player in first usually gets paired down to another strong player, which usually results in the player getting paired up losing and falling out of the money. The lower-rated players, just one point off the pace usually get much better pairings in the last round.

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

Mark Kaprielian wrote:

What choice are we giving our members other than, “If you want to play rated chess for the next six weeks at the club, take your lumps or don’t play”? Wouldn’t it be nicer to give them a choice other than not to play, like “let me play in one of the non-championship contending sections”?

If we clarify the issue of who is the champion by defining it as the winner of the Open section, I don’t understand why we can let the player choose to play for the championship, as opposed to forcing him. The only argument I can think of is that if someone happens to play really well [in the non-championship section], then he would have missed out on happening to win the championship. And even if he didn’t win place, he might miss out on happening to beat a high player.

With a large turn out, it makes it likely that more than one person will tie for 1st place. Should they be co-champions? Most likely they didn’t even play each other.

Our current rules state that for the championship, various tie-break methods are to be used to break the tie to determine the champion. The tie-break methods in general use the toughness factor of whom the players beat along the way. Also, they take into account whom those other players played as well. This is a simplification of the tie-break process, but hopefully shows that having a lot of players in the pool creates a result that is dependent on a lot of things other than just how many games the player won. None of them address the factor that the players may never have had to face each other. Also, the top players are less likely to meet if the number of people are large. Do you think a top player who won in this manner has truly earned the title when he did not have to face his peers? It does give a chance to tie for first to someone who is not a top player [but] who wins most of his games and was fortunate not to have to face a top player simply due luck of the pairings. Our choice of a one-section tournament increases everyone’s chances to get lucky.

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

jkrycka 04/18/98 01:00 AM

Here’s a suggestion — offer a small prize (perhaps $10/20/30 for the three sections) for the biggest upset in a tournament based on the difference in ratings of the players. Count a draw as one-half the difference. Mark even posts the upset wins in the commentary page of the current tournament, so the overhead of keeping track of this should be minimal. This gives half of the players in the lower two sections and generally everyone except Curdo and Foygel in the Open section a chance to win something and be recognized for a particularly good performance one night. I suggest that we include draws because the chance of a 1700-1900 player beating a master is rather small, but an 1800 player drawing a 2400 player, for example, is still a big accomplishment. For a one section tournament, offer prizes for the three biggest upsets.

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

hreed 04/18/98 01:14 PM

I like this [Jim’s suggestion for biggest upset award]!

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

ronaldb 04/18/98 01:35 PM

I am very much opposed to rewarding ‘biggest upset’ prize or any other prize based only on one game in a tournament. Such prizes do nothing to encourage players to raise their ratings - it’s much easier to pull of an upset if your rating is as low as possible! But more important - I don’t agree that any prize should be awarded based on only one game. Prizes should be awarded based on the performance over an entire tournament. It’s not fair to those who have performed well over 4-6 games and not win anything – only to have someone else get lucky (or even play well without luck) in one game and win a prize! Awarding another class prize - or another place prize makes a lot more sense to me!

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

hreed 04/18/98 02:28 PM

[In response to Ron’s point about an award being given for a single game] in International tournaments its not unheard of to award a “Brilliancy” prize for just one game.

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

Alan Hodge, 04/20/98 10:29 AM

I do not find Ron’s objections to an upset award to be very persuasive. First, I can’t take very seriously the idea that an upset award will be a disincentive for players to improve their rating. I find it hard to believe that competitive tournament players would consider an occasional chance for a small upset prize to be worth more than their rating.

Second, unless Ron meant that luck was a factor only with respect to being paired in a potential “biggest upset” game, I think that to dismiss as lucky someone’s win over an opponent rated 300-500 points higher is unfair. In chess, as in life, people generally create their own luck.

The question whether an upset prize is more or less fair than section prizes is a separate question. Personally I think there is room for both, and having an upset prize will probably enlarge the pool of players with a “realistic” chance of winning some prize, especially given that those players who are likely to do better over the course of several games are the better players to begin with, i.e., those players already in the running for the existing prizes. My main point is only that the idea of an upset prize should not be dismissed without careful consideration.

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

hreed 04/20/98 02:17 PM

Yup yup yup, upset prizes will not keep people at low ratings!

I would still be working just as hard to improve if I would have earned an upset prize for beating either of the Eldridges or drawing Huntington (which I have done). I felt I was performing well in those games (and they were probably having a bad day at the same time) and would have loved to get a token upset prize!

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

ronaldb 04/20/98 03:23 PM

Apparently I wasn’t clear in my original memo.

The major point I have against such prizes, as my original memo indicated, is that such an award is only for 1 game – and it is more desirable to reward players for their play over an entire tournament. Study and improved play will show up over several games - and there is more luck involved in just one game compared to an entire tournament. So the best way to encourage improvement is to reward prizes for an entire tournament – not on the performance of a single game.

My point wasn’t that prizes for 1-game are horrible - it’s just that I feel that our limited prize money can better be used to take care of the players who have good performances for the entire tournament. I’d much rather have more place and class prizes rewarded for the entire tournament than have prizes for 1 game.

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

soucy 04/20/98 04:49 PM

In regards to discussion of upset prizes, it seems to me that one thing has been overlooked. The club already offers prizes based on single games. In the January tournament a ten dollar prize is awarded each week to the person who wins in the fewest number of moves. This requires even more luck (as well as an opponent who won’t keep playing in hopeless positions) then an upset prize. If we are going to keep offering prizes based on single game results, perhaps we would be better off eliminating the shortest victory prize and replacing it with an upset prize in one or two tournaments a year.

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

ronaldb 04/20/98 06:17 PM

I certainly agree that a prize for ‘shortest victory’ is totally absurd. But I’d still prefer doing away with all prizes based on 1 game and concentrate on prizes based on performance over the entire tournament. Anyone agree?

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

theeldridges 04/20/98 11:03 PM

I’m ambivalent on [upset prizes] and certainly don’t have any strong feelings one way or the other.

I agree with Ron that the lion’s share of any prize fund should go to awards for full-tournament performance. But a good point was made by the other side that one-game prizes are fairly common (brilliancy prizes in big events, the round-by-round upset prizes they give at the U.S. Amateur Team, our own shortest-win prize, etc.). In view of this, I guess I wouldn’t mind allocating an occasional prize for the biggest upset — as long as the prize is kept very small.

If you guys want my main thought, though, it is that you’re all too hung up on prizes, period. Place prizes, class prizes, upset prizes, brilliancy prizes, shortest win prizes, etc. Who cares? Personally, I’ll let others decide what prizes to give and just accept it. I come out there to play chess, not to worry about the prize structure.

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x