| |
BGonline.org Forums
Creating a strict but executable tournament schedule (long)
Posted By: Chuck Bower
Date: Friday, 26 April 2013, at 1:11 a.m.
This is now the third thread in less than a workweek to address this issue. I guess that qualifies the topic as "important". The project at hand:
How do you establish and then enforce a uniform, consistent, equitable algorithm for match starting times at weekend tournaments?
0) If this is more than a pipe dream, we need cooperation (for sure) AND likely concessions from both directors and players.
1) We already have a good strawman design from the Swiss tournaments which have been contested in the US (at least): Indiana Open (defunct), Wisconsin State Championships (under new management), Chicago Open (Pascar era), Pittsburgh Championships (Maier era, now defunct). I'm giving Butch Meese credit here since he was the first (AFAIK) to implement a swiss movement to a major weekend event in the US. Round starting times were predetermined and published in a handout available to players BEFORE the first round began. This practice received strong impetus because in a pure swiss (pairing players with equal records) you need to WAIT for a round to end before any matches from the next round begin. (Not rigorously true, but if you want random pairings, it is.) Here's the question: why does this procedure need to be limited to swiss movement? Can't it be used in the more typical knockout = binary bracket?
2) In order for any uniform, predetermined starting time formula to be executable, you need to clock every match in every round. The bugaboo argument has always been "we aren't guaranteed having enough clocks for an Open event to instigate 'clocks required'" although I think multiple tournaments (Maier's Pitt events and Gibson's LA events) have already done this. Both players and directors have clocks -- an example of cooperation between both camps to finding a solution.
3) In order for players to start their matches on time they need to know who the opponent is! This is my first (but not last) call for 21st century electronics: Post the draw ONLINE so that people with smartphones can access the drawsheet without having to herd into a crowded cattle corral. Some tournaments have already done this. Why not all? In addition, for those who don't have smartphones, use a computer projector. I've seen this done (e.g. Monte Carlo) and it works well. (Cost? Maybe, but volunteers can help here both with hardware and software.)
4) In order to enforce strict starting times, either staff needs to be added (which is going to cost players money, like it or not) or the players themselves are going to have to cooperate and not only show up EARLY but then start opponent's clock when s/he is tardy. The first may be easy for some but the second could be tough. If we want a better competition we need to get tough. Of course the case of BOTH players arriving late is still a sticky situation. Do we require neighbor players to act (starting the nearby match's clock)? Which player's clock do they start? Maybe this is going to require more directorship intervention (and the possible/likely associated cost)?
4 cont.) One of the key principles of the rules Phil, Jeb, and I came up with is that players are REQUIRED to follow the rules, regardless of whether or not the opponents agree with each other to 'change'/ignore a rule. You don't have that right. The director can (with discretion), so if you feel strongly about it, summon the director and make your case. But if the rule says that you are to start your opponent's clock at a certain time if they aren't present, you CAN'T choose to be a nice guy and give him/her extra time. It's not just you that the tardiness impacts but potentially any other player in the event. If you think there is a good excuse for the tardiness, tell the director and let him/her decide. It's not up to you to unilaterally make the decision, EVER.
From my experience it appears that the worst problems occur A) at the very beginning of the day, and B) after the dinner break. Case B is probably the easier to solve (currently): schedule a realistic dinner break time window and enforce it (with the help of electronic bracket communications as mentioned above). So why is the beginning of the day (specifically the beginning of the tournament) a bigger problem? It's the C-word -- Calcutta.
5) Modify the current practice of running a Calcutta before the tournament begins. There are multiple solutions for this and the most extreme is already in effect at some tournaments -- don't have a Calcutta at all. HOWEVER, given that the Calcutta is a source of revenue for the director (even for the ones that convert the rake to a charitable contribution) then the players are going to have to make up the slack by paying more up front. Either a new (or higher) registration fee, consent to a higher rake fraction, or pay a considerably larger entry fee with the same rake fraction. (What, did you expect a free lunch?)
5 cont.) The Calcutta Auction was extremely popular in backgammon's heyday, sometimes paying better (top to bottom) than the entry fee pool. Backgammon tournaments used to be contested in a gambling atmosphere. There are other pluses (and minuses) of Calcuttas but this one has faded with time. The scheduling problem caused by Calcuttas is two-pronged: A) they typically take a lot of time and seldom stick to the intended deadline, and B) in order to allow players to buy back BEFORE the draw, extra time (15-30 minutes) needs to be allotted. If the Calcutta is to survive, it needs, at a minimum, to be allotted the proper time and that includes the consideration of time for buybacks before the draw. No more spillovers into the match starting time. If that means starting the Calcutta at 9:00 AM, do it. If it's still as popular as you think then it will survive with earlier starting times. (Of course another improvement could be to shorten the amount of time the Calcutta takes, and there are many ways to do this.)
6) There are other ways to save time and some (more) involved technology: keep the results online (already mentioned above) AND do the draws electronically. Is there still, 1/8 of the way through the 21st century, a reasonable, logically thinking human who feels that hand-drawn pairings are inherently more honest/equitable than a reasonably (and easily) designed written software solution? We have a plethora of computer engineering talent in backgammon and this is an easy problem. One writes it and a couple others review it and communicate to the community that it's fair and secure. Then instead of playing cards, marking pens, Whiteout, and wasted time we'll get a modern solution to an easy problem.
In summary, if we want improvements in this area we all need to work together even possibly to the extent of sacrificing $ for time. But it may not need to be this drastic. Cooperation can result in significant improvements/accomplishments.
OK, you've read my thoughts. Time for yours.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.