Submitted by Alan Hodge
These are my recommendations concerning a possible future summer scholastic event at MCC:
1.
Run two distinct
tournaments over a shorter time span. I would not run a single, 10-round
event again (but see also paragraph 6a below). While we should market it as a
unified summer program, I recommend running two distinct, four-round
tournaments and allow independent entry into each. 2001 dates would be as
follows: first tournament – June 19, June 26, July 3 and July 10; second
tournament – July 24, July 31, August 7, and August 14. These tournaments would
start one week later and finish one week earlier than this year, leaving more
room between the tournaments and school days. Players could enter either or
both. The entry fee might be $10 for each.
2.
Have more than one
section if possible. If the number of players permits, have different
sections based on ratings. This summer’s results and ratings suggest a break
point at 600. More advanced players who are new to rated play can be expected
to play up. Separate sections would eliminate serious mismatches between
advanced players and true beginners and permit more equitable and competitive
games for both groups.
3.
Play more than one game
per night (lower section). My sense is that for many players the ratio of
time spent playing chess to the time invested to be at the club was too low.
Realistically these kids, especially the less experienced ones, are going to
play fast. Giving them two games in a night at least doubles the bang for their
buck. The more advanced players play more slowly unless they are matched
against an opponent significantly below their skill level, and they should not
be encouraged to play faster by putting them under a shorter time control. As a
suggestion, therefore, the upper section could play one game at G/30, while the
lower section plays two games at G/15 (or G/20, but I’m convinced G/15 is
sufficient). For rating purposes the lower section would be quick chess, of course,
but I don’t think these kids care about that.
There are two options for pairing in the lower section. The opponents paired by
Swis-Sys could simply play each other twice in one night, switching colors for
the second game. This might have implications for getting the pairings into
Swis-Sys so that it can produce an accurate tournament report. The second
option, which avoids this issue, is to do all new pairings for the second game.
While this can be done quickly, it cannot be done until all first games are
completed; but at G/15, no one’s wait should be long. Either method will have
its share of rating mismatches and the potential problem of players being
paired out. In the first method, mismatches are repeated immediately on the
same night. The second method, unless there are many players (256 for a perfect
result, according to the formula) or we let players be paired against each
other twice (will Swis-Sys do this?), will simply postpone mismatches until
later rounds. Every player will need to play up to eight other players, and in
a projected field of only 12 to 20 (?) players, some of them are bound to be
fish. Unless there are cumbersome problems with Swis-Sys, I would opt for the
first method, pairing a house man with a player paired out for two games just
like the other pairings.
4.
Separate the
tournaments with an “off” night or special event. The in-between date of
July 17 can be reserved for a night off, for a four-round G/10 tournament, for
a combination special class and recreational/rated games, or for some other
purpose or format, depending on player and club interest and TD availability.
If some event is held on this date, I suggest that it be free. In combination
with the two tournaments, this would give the kids nine nights of chess over the
summer.
5. Regarding classes:
a. Do not
have one person TD the tournament and conduct classes. Personally I would
not attempt again to conduct classes and direct the tournament. Someone else
might be willing to do both, but I think it would be better if one person was
responsible only for running the tournament and another was responsible for
conducting classes, if there are to be classes.
b. Either
do not offer classes at all, or conduct the classes as an entirely separate
function that participants can sign up for additionally.
Given the vary great range of experience and skill level among this summer’s
players, it was difficult to prepare classes that were likely to be beneficial
to a large proportion of them. Moreover, a group environment like this with
very limited instructional time is not a very good option for effectively
teaching novices how to play better. My first recommendation would be that we
offer no classes and try to be more helpful in directing parents to school
programs, area coaches, etc., where instruction might be had.
If the club prefers and if someone is
willing to teach it (besides the event TD), I would recommend that the
classes be defined as a series and a separate function distinct from the
tournament, for which a separate fee would be charged, and that more time be
allowed than the 15 to 20 minutes I typically spent with the kids. Such a class
should be aimed at a particular skill level and have a defined and publicized
course of topics, with the expectation that the participants would be few in
number (any more than six or seven begins to be problematical), to maximize the
benefit to those attending. I would suggest that the target players for classes
be the true beginners, since the more advanced players often have their own coaches
or lessons outside MCC, and the most frequent inquiries I received from parents
regarded children who were just learning how to play. Such a class could cover
not only the basics of chess but also key tournament rules (touch-move, how to
offer a draw, etc. — the kind of information I put in the registration packet
but probably wasn’t read much). In this way I believe the club can both attract
and genuinely help novice players without trying to challenge advanced players
who are being coached by the likes of Messrs. Foygel and Eldridge.
As a very ambitious alternative, we could offer both a beginners class and an
advanced class. The challenges I see to offering an advanced class are (1)
selecting material so as to be beneficial to a wider range of skill levels than
will be present among beginners, and (2) finding a resource (or resources) to
prepare and conduct such a class.
6. I
am ambivalent about offering trophies. The idea this summer was that this was a
“big” event and it should have “big” prizes. It’s hard to know how much of an
inducement the trophies were for players to enter; obviously several still in
contention are keenly interested now, but one of the two players tied for first
place withdrew from the tournament after eight rounds to play across the hall
in the regular event. Moreover, things get more complicated if there are
distinct tournaments and multiple sections: there are now potentially four
groups of winners for whom to buy trophies. I offer the following thoughts as
discussion fodder rather than recommendations:
6a. If trophies (or similar “big”
prizes) are to be given, they should be based on the combined results of both
tournaments, reflecting that the tournaments make up a single summer program
even if some players choose to participate in only one part of it. Moreover, I
would give trophies only in the upper section, although this might induce some
players to play up who shouldn’t. The problem is not that they will win a
trophy (if they are good enough to win a trophy, they should be there), but
that they will dilute the competition, partially defeating the purpose of
having separate sections.
6b. As an alternative to trophies I
would suggest a system that would permit a higher proportion of players to win
something; i.e., a selection of prizes that can be won by anyone earning a
certain number of points. The threshold prize might be a medal for everyone
earning a specified number of points (as opposed to giving medals to everyone
who entered the event). For higher numbers of points players could chose from
among boards, sets, carrying cases, T-shirts, chess books, free entry into
future MCC scholastic tournaments, and such items, graduated somewhat equitably
in value. This de-emphasizes a player’s place of finish and provides an incentive
for more player to continue to play throughout the summer (rather than to stop
coming because he is out of contention for any prize).
6c. Whatever the prizes, if any are
offered, both game results and attendance should count toward winning them. I
otherwise would not recommend this, because maintaining all the scores in a
spreadsheet as opposed to simply relying on the Swis-Sys-generated wall chart
has proved to be a fair amount of work, but the clear preference of both adults
and players is to count both. One parent commented that attendance should count
less heavily than game results, however, and I agree that this is reasonable.
The introduction of multiple games in a lower section, if that happens, offers
a solution, but not without its own complications. In the lower section, a
player still would get only one point for showing up, even though he plays two
games, so in a night he could earn up to three points. In such a system the
attendance would have half the weight of his game results. To achieve the same
effect in the upper section would require giving only half a point for showing
up. Thus we would have somewhat different scoring mechanisms in the two
sections, although they are conceptually the same:
Attendance Lower Section Upper Section
Shows up and plays 1 .5
Gets paired out 1 .5
Requests a bye .5 0
Forfeits 0 0
6d. The lowest score for winning any
prize might be 4, so that in the lower section a kid who shows up for each
round of one of the tournaments will win “something” even if he loses all eight
games. A player who plays in the upper section of only one tournament and shows
up for each round would earn only two points, and so would need to score two
more points from some combination of (a) game results and (b) attendance points
from the other tournament. Assuming that the “off” night event, if there is
one, will not count toward prizes, a perfect score for the lower section would
be 24, and for the upper 12; so either the “prize scale” should be different
for the two sections, or, if the scale is the same for both sections, the
prizes themselves should be different (i.e., “cheaper” for the lower section in
anticipation that twice as many will be won). Alternative prizes can be
calibrated to each level of points, so that a player earning x points has his choice of (a), (b), (c)
or any prize from a lower number of points.
7. In
summary, if I were going to do another summer program, I would structure it to
include these (or similar) separate elements:
(a) (Optional) Beginners class, and
possibly advanced class, eight week series, separate fee ($TBD)
(b) First tournament, two sections
(U1100, U600), four nights; U1100 one G/30, U600 two G/15 per night, separate
entry, $10 entry fee
(c) “Off night” — possibly three- or
four-round quick “fun” tournament or special class, free
(d) Second tournament, two sections
(U1100, U600), four nights; U1100 one G/30, U600 two G/15 per night, separate
entry, $10 entry fee
Selection of prizes (no trophies) scaled according to value, to be won by any player
earning a specified number of points.
I believe such a structure would offer more games, more competitive games, less
elaborate but more practical rewards to more players, and a lower cost to
participants (at least without factoring in class cost).
8. Tiebreaks. I would revise the tiebreak
method order to be as follows:
First: Performance of tied
players against each other.
Only when tied players have identical records against each other (or did not
play each other), then proceed to:
Second: Modified Median
Third: Solkoff
Fourth: Cumulative Scores
Fifth: Cumulative Scores of
Opponents
Regarding MCC-sponsored scholastic events during the school year, I have little to add to the survey results. I believe the idea you mentioned last night of designating a particular weekend each month for a scholastic event (or an event with a scholastic section) is the right one. I think there is still an open question whether there is a “Saturday constituency” that is not being served by the usual schedule of Sunday tournaments. It might be worthwhile, at least for the first year, to alternate Saturdays and Sundays and monitor participation.