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.