11919 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
25-30 players should be 5-6 rounds or so.
That's my guess, according to my experiences.
In 9 players, every round will have a person getting a 'bye', but not the same person twice.
In general, the more rounds the better. As you increase the number of rounds in a Swiss, the more it resembles a round robin. I think the time available, rather than the Swiss system itself dictates the number of rounds in a tounament.
Yes, the more rounds the better; the minimum for 25-30 players is 5 rounds. The general rule is that x rounds are usually enough to have a crear winner out of 2^x players: 5 rounds is enough for up to 2^5=32 players. 4 rounds is enough for up to 16 players.
Usually it is normal to calculate no. of players divide by 3 to get optimal round number. So for 25 - 30 players it is normal to get 9 rounds in swiss system and all top plyers should play each other.
Think how many rounds would be needed for a tournament of 498 players. 166 rounds?
http://www.cappelle-chess.fr/fr2/default.php?page=3967 or nine?
9 is a normal no. of rounds in a tournament, or 13 (i think ) on chess olimpiad. We ware here talking about round number for small tournament how to calculate.
One way to think of it is that for every round, up to half the players can get 1 point. So for 30 players, after rd 1, there can be 15 with 1 point, then 8 after rd 2, 4 after rd 3, 2 after rd 4 and finally 1 after rd 5.
If you have a calulator with a ln (logarithm) function you can calculate:
rounds = ln(players)/ln(2), then "round" up. (no pun intended!)
or, rounds = log2(players) (log2 = base 2 logarithm).
Or use a table like this where for each round, you double the maximum number of players:
1 rd, 2 players
2 rds, 4 players
3 rds, 8 players
4 rds, 16 players
5 rds, 32 players
6 rds, 64 players
and so on...
Of course, if you have time for an extra round or two, more of the top players will have a chance to play each other.
Your post seems to indicate that you thought 9 rounds was adequate for 498 players. Your link shows that places 1-7 had identical scores of 7. The next 15 places (6-21) were half a game off the pace with 6.5 wins. I imagine a good number of the top 21 didn't lose a game. How many of the top 21 got to play each other in 9 rounds?
You could have a 166 rounds and everyone could be tied at 83 points. A minimum number of rounds in a swiss style does not guarantee no ties. It guarantees there are no tied players who won all their games.
2 to the power of 8 is 256, 2 to the power of 9 is 512 so nine rounds is the minimum to determine a winner of a swiss style tournament of 257 to 512 players if two players dominate the others.
Round 1 - 512 players tied with 0 points
Round 2 - Maximum 256 players tied with 1 point
Round 3 - Maximum 128 players tied with 2 points
Round 4 - Maximum 64 players tied with 3 points
Round 5 - Maximum 32 players tied with 4 points
Round 6 - Maximum 16 players tied with 5 points
Round 7 - Maximum 8 players tied with 6 points
Round 8 - Maximum 4 players tied with 7 points
Round 9 - Maximum 2 players tied with 8 points meet in the last round.
If there were only eight rounds the top two players would not have met.
As indicated by previous posters you could have more rounds.
Notice a knockout style tournament would have the same nine rounds.
Notice that a knock out tournament would need more games because of draws, even if you don't call replaying after a draw a new round. Notice what 9 rounds did to Petrosian who probably didn't lose a game. If there was a draw after 166 rounds, I would say it was a legitimate result. After 9 rounds, when few of the top players have played each other I think a draw is unsatsfactory, and going to tie breakers doesn't prove anything. 166 rounds would be impactable because of time restrictions. 13 rounds would have been a vast improvement. I still say the more rounds the better. Your example tends to show why 9 rounds is not optimal.
but what if we have 9 players?How many round in that case?Or is it better ,in that case play round robin?
If you have time for 8 rounds then a round-robin. If you have time for 16 rounds then a double round robin.
If you do not have the time then see the post from RoyLupez
...use a table like this where for each round, you double the maximum number of players:
2 rds, 4 players (3 to 4 players)
3 rds, 8 players (5 to 8 players)
4 rds, 16 players (9 to 16 players)
5 rds, 32 players (17 to 32 players)
6 rds, 64 players (33 to 64 players)
The calculation is this:
2 to the power of 3 = 8, so 3 rounds for 8 players.
2 to the power of 4 = 16, so 4 rounds for 9 to 16 players.
If you do not have time for 8 rounds then a Swiss with a minimum 4 rounds works for you.
Also to be considered is how many places need to be accurately determined. Once first is determined you may need two more rounds to get 2nd, four more to get 3rd. For team selection tournaments in the late 60's, a round robin was the way to go. This is what I put together to create round robin schedules a few years ago: http://home.comcast.net/~wporter211/realsite/chess_etc/rrpair.htm
ok 16 players 4 rounds... but what if the "tournament" is meant for qualifying reasons and you want to get the best 2 players, then 3 rounds would make sense for 16 players since you have virtually 2 swiss with 8 players? or actually making two parallel 3-rd swiss with 8 players is better?
It would still make sense to play 4 rounds otherwise the result might be a bit unfair (there would be an high chance of having one player qualifying with much weaker pairings for example). A mere 3 rounds tournament can have really random results.
For 16 players and two places to be accurately determined, you need six rounds; four to determine 1st place and two more for 2nd place.
Isn't it possible though, to overshoot the optimal number of rounds? E.g. 16 players would ideally have 4 rounds to convincingly choose a winner, with pairings getting closer with each round, til the top two players face each other in the last round (assuming an ideal situation where higher rated players always beat lower rated opponents). The final sorting ends up perfect. But if you have 5 rounds, the top players have already faced each other and can't play each other again. One person that's vying for maybe fourth place ends up having to face the #1 player, an unfair matchup compared with the pairings that he is otherwise tied with. Perhaps it would be best if the top player (out of 16) would get a full-point bye after 4 rounds. That way he'd get the point that he'd probably otherwise win anyway, while allowing an extra round for sorting the rest of the places without one of them facing an unfairly tougher opponent.
by alessandropicone a few minutes ago
one of pfrens most brilliant games
by pfren 4 minutes ago
why is ruy lopez considered the strongest
by X_PLAYER_J_X 6 minutes ago
7/31/2015 - Slow Progression
by DreamKenya 8 minutes ago
Remove chess piece value
by agrix 22 minutes ago
Your favorite GM?
by MelvinDoucet 23 minutes ago
1000 GAMES SIMULTANEOUSLY
by marcomarco13 27 minutes ago
Let's write a Chess GUI from scratch in Java
by watcha 27 minutes ago
New Chess Book Review blog
by agrix 29 minutes ago
Please ban users that post before Daily Puzzle
by ontomorrow 43 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2015 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!