Problems with US Chess

Ok , I understand. Weak players only want to play other weak players , well this method/approach/structure is not likely to produce strong players... very sad really. 

 No!!  We just don't want to be extremely mismatched as we progress.  When possible, I play up a section to get better competition.  I even occasionally play a USCF expert that I know and have him review our game.

Additionally, conventional wisdom says that playing someone rated more than 200 or 300 points higher than you is a waste of time as far as improving is concerned.

Time, money and talent (my rating is the result of my having no talent) are the things needed to develop strong players.  There are only a few that have the talent to reach Titled player strength, and many of these have neither the time nor the money.

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

Us weak players are perfectly ok playing stronger players. Many of us prefer it. But we also aren't interested in playing in a tournament where everyone is so significantly stronger than us that we don't get to enjoy our games at all -- let alone learn from them.

I don't know how long you spent in the class C and below world, I suspect like most people with titles you probably improved fairly quickly relative to the rest of us. But after several years of mostly losing, I assure you we lowbie adults all play pretty much entirely for the love of the game. We don't mind a hard struggle, but there's no joy in just being your punching bag.

Or maybe folks with titles like taking candy from babies too?

It seems some havent been paying attention. I havent suggested anywhere that C class players should be playing in the Open sections. I did suggest A class players should , why not ? When I was an A class player I almost always had to play in the Open sections , why change it now ? I could see raising the cutoff to 2000 IF there were enough above 2000 to make the Open sections have a decent number of players but there isnt, not in the US Southeast anyway. So, leave the A class players in.... I also said Bama makes 1500 and up play in the Open and the lower section is under 1500 and it works well for them as both sections have a few more than 30 players. I imagine they have class prizes for the class players who dont stand a chance of winning their section, this is how it was done when I was a C class player. In my first tourney I lost every game, in my second I won one and lost the rest so I certainly know what its like to be one of the "fish" in the pond. However, the great thing about the swiss system is that if you are losing your opposition gets weaker until you are playing competitive games and if you are stronger the same thing occurs. I think tourney organizers should do their best to try and have an decent and equal number of players per section and give class prizes also for any section that has 2 or more classes playing in it. How much chance do you think I have when faced with a GM of 2600-2700 ? If this really bothered me I simply wouldnt go to tournies that attract such players, but I actually enjoy getting a crack at such players from time to time. Its true though that I dont want to play one of that calibre in every event. 

And low rated players are the same way. We like to win a game now and again, too. To take that and turn it into an insult to throw at people rated lower than you is crass and classless. 

I get your point that having the breakdown of classes be based, at least in part, on participation numbers might be a good thing for some tournaments.

But ultimately what makes for a good tournament, for players of any skill level, is there being enough participants who are competative with you. 

If I show up at a tournament that has me, 200 players rated at 1600 and kasparaov, I'm going to have a great tournement experience, I'll start out playing a former world champion, and then I"ll have a bunch of games against people that give me a chance of winning and a near certainty of learning something. I'll have a blast.The 1600 players would all have a great time as tehy would all have real chances at winning something.

But I bet ol' Gary will think it's the lamest tournament he's ever played in.

Likewise if you showed up at a tournament and there was you, and then nothing but 2700 players, would you think "what a great tourney?" Well, maybe the first time -- but if that was the only type of tourney you could find year in and year out how much fun would it be.  How long would losing every game remain fun for you?

Organizers are faced with a real dilemna -- pre-established sections give them the ability to make players happy with their pairings, when enough people for those sections show up. But when you have sections that are poorly attended, or worse, where the distribution of players is very lobsided and poorly attended, the organizer is in a no-win situation.

Organizers are faced with a real dilemna -- pre-established sections give them the ability to make players happy with their pairings, when enough people for those sections show up. But when you have sections that are poorly attended, or worse, where the distribution of players is very lobsided and poorly attended, the organizer is in a no-win situation.

If I were an organizer I would look at the previous turnout for the same tournament last year and based on that decide how many sections and where the rating cutoff should be to provide as close to the same # of players per section as possible. I would do this every year and make adjustments as necessary. It seems the organizers of the Alabama state championship do this but so far I havent found any other state to be doing this. I am only checking southeastern states btw.  The Ga ( my birth state ) state championship has gotten so bad I wont even consider going there ..... a shame really. 

:) Grass is always greener. I'm living in an area with half-a-dozen unsanctioned, free tournaments a year, and I'm annoyed that we can get that momentum turned into 1 or 2 rated tourneys a year.

+10000 Thanks Dashkee94, that is a great post.

Anyone want to point out the flaw with 1 section tournaments which have prizes for things like u1400 u1600 and etc depending on what the overall rating of the group that shows up is and divides the class prizes accordingly?

payCal that was the point of the previous post -- it's not competative for the average person playing in the tournament, and people in your class will find themselves either gifted wins or punished with bad pairings.

daw55124

Your welcome; but +10000?  You are very generous.

 If the tournament is large (more than 50 players for example), the organizers will probably use accelerated pairings.  This is done by dividing the players into groups according to their ratings, and making pairings within those groups in the first round.  Pairings for subsequent rounds are more complex, but  the tournament effectively becomes a multi-section tournament, so why not have a tournament with different sections to begin with.

Also, when there are different sections, the prizes for the lower-rated players are higher than the token class prizes (Reb started this thread becasue his friend's class prize in the open section was smaller than first prize in the U-1400 section).

Accelerated pairings are usually used for the first 2 rounds I believe and then pairings are done normally starting with round 3. This is done to lessen the chance that there are several perfect scores at the end of the tourney. 

Reb

You may be right about that.  My comment was based on descriptions that I have read.  They presented instructions for the entire tournament.  Regardless, the result is the same:  lower-rated players have their own section within the tournament, and the higher-rated players never have to play the lower-rated players.

Actually if a lower rated starts out winning his first 2 games in the accelerated when the pairings return to normal in round 3 he very likely will be paired with a higher rated player in round 3. 

I probably should have said the highest-rated players (my former English teacher would use her red pencil on that, there can only be one highest-rated player).  The low-rated player in the third round will be at the bottom of the pairings list and will play someone in the middle. 

Are you a TD woton ?  I used to be a few decades ago. 

No.  I'm just a rules junkie.  Spent my working years dealing with government regulators so it's ingrained.