| |
BGonline.org Forums
Madison - I'm close to a method for a 100% Swiss
Posted By: Daniel Murphy In Response To: Madison - I'm close to a method for a 100% Swiss (neilkaz)
Date: Sunday, 7 September 2008, at 4:29 a.m.
Neil wrote: Tomorrow I will try to address byes and I will most certainly desire your inputs.
Neil, I ran the Danish Mixed Doubles tournament for several years. It was a modified Swiss format, 11 rounds of 9 points each in two long days, but not quite the same as what you have in mind because the doubles "teams" play individual matches and their results are added together, which affects pairings and how quickly the wheat and chaff can be separated. But you might check with the DBgF secretary at info@dbgf.dk (who you might ask to forward your query to Michael Schou who has directed the Doubles tournament for many years) on the prize distribution in the Doubles and Mixed Doubles tournaments. I think those tournaments have typically paid four or five places and typically have had between 30 and 60 participants.
Actually I've looked up the 2008 Doubles tournament and it went like this:
33 two-player teams. The team members played separate individual matches and their records wre added together. There were 11 rounds of 9 points matches. All teams were guaranteed 11 matches. Like records were paired against each other.
After 10 rounds, two teams had 15 points out 20 (7.5 points out of 10), and two teams had 13 points out of 20 (6.5 points out of 10).
After 11 rounds:
1st place team: 17 points out of 22, or 8.5 points out of 11.
2nd place team: also 17 points out of 22, or 8.5 points out of 11.
3rd place: 14 points out of 22, or 7 points out of 11.
I presume that as in the past, corrections decided the trophy but the 1st and 2nd place teams split 1st and 2nd place money. Apparently only 3 prizes were awarded, since the tournament leader's report doesn't mention 4th place (or prize distribution).
Three individual players had 9-2 records, but recall that pairings were made based on team not individual records.
I've not followed closely all your hypotheticals but agree that the format and prizes need to be thought out well so that all is clear to the players beforehand and not changed in mid-tournament.
On byes, I agree that the bye (if there is one) must always go to (one of) the player(s) with the worst record, and no one ever gets two byes. To minimize the effect of a bye, I would suggest that first round bye not be random (although that is certainly fair), but instead be awarded to (one of) the player(s) in the tournament with the fewest lifetime ABT points (as a substitute for worst player, which no one knows, or worst rating, which no one has).
On pairings, of course like records should be paired against like records as much as possible, and no two players should be paired more than once, if that can be avoided. Whenever these two goals conflict, I would recommend that avoiding repeats take precedence. So, in a situation like at Madison, where "Steve was the only 7-0 and Brad was the only 6-1 player" but they had already played each other, I would have paired them against players with 5-2 records, for these reasons: the Swiss by nature is competition against the field; allowing the 5-2 players to avoid playing the presumably better players with the better records in the 8th round seems unfair; and by not pairing the same players twice, you avoid pairing them again later for a third time (I'm assuming a tournament intended to go 11 rounds).
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.