Then and Now

Can you explain to me what would be an example of a stupid pairing in your mind? Since I actually don't really care about anything more than the quality of the game, to me a good pairing is I"m playing a different person within a few hundred points of myself each round.

It seems to my little addled brain that if you're in a section with a 400 point range, the pairings you get should lead to good games. If you're a titled player and you are in a group of other titled players or at least experts and you play someone different every round what's the problem?

And Reb, do you realize the irony of complaining about people not showing up at chess tournaments and then saying how you won't show up at chess tournaments because of the format? Why not just go and play your best and have fun? Maybe the problem is that instead of enjoying the game you're worried about the format for some odd reason?

Since I live in GA I shall add my 2 cents worth. I play in about 15+ tournaments a year but hardly ever play in GA due to the extreme section madness rampant in the state. Most of my tournaments are in SC and NC with a few in TN and FL.

The last straw for me was a couple of years back I went to one of these tournaments in Atlanta that have an excessive amount of sections. A visiting IM from Russia was there. In the 2nd round I beat him. But when the 5th round came around he had no one to play so got a bye! How embarrassing for the state of GA. If you attempt to have a Swiss system tournament with 12 or less players the pairings become idiotic. You will always have some players withdraw as you get closer and closer to the last round which makes it even worse. Then you have to make pairings out of your score group. Or even worse, the top rated player gets a bye.

Wanting just 2 or 3 sections at tournaments has nothing to do with the higher rated players wanting to "take" the lower rateds money. It has to do with the integity of the Swiss system format and the fact that it dumbs down your chess population over time.

I can for sure tell you that I would have never made it past 2200 if all I ever did was play in under 1600 tournaments. The only way you can get better is for you to play better players.

We used to have only 2 sections at most when I was coming up thru the ranks and the lower rateds won class prizes. I sure dont remember anyone crying and whinning about having to play an occasional higher rated like I do these days. Without that you never have fantastic upsets.

When you're rated 1400, a 1600 is a better player. And when you're 45 years old and rated 1400 having illusions of becoming a titled players is folly. I can lose to you all day long and I won't get much better than I am now. But just like I'll never be a pro golfer either that doesn't mean I can't enjoy the game. Unlike golf, though, the only way for me to win a game in chess is to actually beat someone. There's no handicaps in tournament chess (though figuring out a time handicap tournament based on rating differences might make for an interesting format).

Explain to me how the game will be more enjoyable for me going 0-6 against 1800+ players versus going 2.5-3.5 against people close to my ability?

@daw55124

Your current rating would place you in an under 1600 or under 1400 group so you wouldnt be playing those around 1800. So the 2 or 3 sections, as opposed to 5 and more, wouldnt affect you really. What's the problem ? When I first broke 1800 I recall being happy because I had finally made it to A class !?  It was one of my goals/milestones to get to 1800 . That happiness was short lived however as I was thrown to the wolves and forced to play in the Open sections of 1800 and up ! You can imagine the results at first and it was a long time before I could even score 50% ! So, when I was an A class player we had to play with the " big boys" the guys over 2000 but today I notice that A class players are not often included in the Open sections and this is part of the problem...they still should be in the Open of most tournies . In most southern states there simply are not enough players over 2000 to make for a decent turn out in the Open sections. If you add the A class its much better. Alabama is gaining in attendance and their Opens include not only A players but down to 1500 as well. ( 2 of their annual tournies at least, that I mentioned in a previous post ) . Maybe other states should be following their example ? 

Odd. No one ever said for 1400's to play all 1800's. Not sure where you get your facts. Also no one said less sections would produce titled players. Just said it would produce better players. A good format would be 3 sections with the lowest section either below 1400 or below 1600.

The best format these days seems to be 3 sections at large tournaments and 1 or 2 sections at smaller ones.

Open -- 1800 and above

Under 1800

Under 1400

So unless you as a 1300 player join one of the higher rated sections odds are you will not play all 1800's. In fact you wont play any.

Reb, is your complaint that not enough players show up or that not enough strong players show up? 

I'm honestly confused as to what your issue is. In a previous thread your complaint about multiple sections was that the titled players weren't getting enough prize money. Now you're saying you're not getting good pairings. How would more <1400 players help your pairings? I don't see that it would.

Your issue seems to be that in your section there aren't enough players showing up, but you and other titled players here are saying they look at the section break down and the attendance sheets before deciding to attend or not. 

You're not going to the tournaments then complaining that not enough people go to tournaments? It just leaves me scratching my head.

If it's not about the prize money for you, then why not go, play and have fun just like the rest of us slobs?

paulgottlieb, the only people I see complaining about prize money and section structure are the titled players. I just show up and play. I rarely know the section structure and I sure as heck never know the prize structure. I just find what board I need to be at and play chess. 

My only concern, to the extent that it is one, is that I want to be able to play competative games. I want there to be some small chance that I might win a game. I'm certainly not worried about winning prize money. I've never won money at a tournament, and I don't expect I ever will. I am usually lucky to finish at 50%, and that's a great tournament for me. 

And I sure have never raised a concern over tournament structure to a TD. I don't know anyone in my raiting range who has. We show up and play. 

It's the titled players who don't attend based on strcuture, payouts and, horror of horrors, being asked to pay the entrance fee! And it's the titled players who are crowding around the TD desk complaining about stuff. 

I'll ask again -- why are you guys not just going and playing the game? And then you don't go it's somehow the class player's fault? Really?

My complaint is that there are too many sections for the number of players that do show up, regardless of their ratings. On top of this you can add that the split isnt where it should be imo in many events. This year's LPO having an under 2200 section among their 7 sections ! was  simply nuts ! Here I am complaining that the A players should be in the Open section and they dont even have the experts in the Open section !  To me it seems some people are several fries short of a happy meal. 

I'll ask again -- why are you guys not just going and playing the game? Can you not have fun unless you're beating up on A players in the first two rounds?

As that angrycritter said ... too few players in a section destroy the integrity of the swiss pairing system. If the A players play the Open ( as I did as an A player )  I might get one in the first round and if I beat him I will likely get an expert or an A player near expert the next round. It seems you think its easy beating up on A players...... its not I can assure you. 

I think every tournament is a little different. For example, the New Hampshire Open has been doing quite well.

59th- http://main.uschess.org/assets/msa_joomla/XtblMain.php?200906143591.0

60th- http://main.uschess.org/assets/msa_joomla/XtblMain.php?201007119521.0

61st (which I participated in and shared the top U1250 prize )-  http://main.uschess.org/assets/msa_joomla/XtblMain.php?201107177471

The New England Open doesn't seem to be doing too badly as well.

67th- http://main.uschess.org/assets/msa_joomla/XtblMain.php?200709032611

68th- http://main.uschess.org/assets/msa_joomla/XtblMain.php?200809013271

69th- http://main.uschess.org/assets/msa_joomla/XtblMain.php?200909079471

70th- http://main.uschess.org/assets/msa_joomla/XtblMain.php?201009069021

I'm just saying, we might need more numbers. Tourneys have good years and bad years.

Reb, you missed my point. 

I've shown up and had a swiss turn into a double round robit because instead of 20 or so people they had 6. I had fun and played chess.

The people who didn't show up, didn't.

The problem with the "state of chess in the USA" at your level is, according to you, too few people in the sections. You're combating that by not showing up?

How effective a strategy is that for you?

My strategy is one designed to force the organizers to go back to 1, 2 or 3 sections and not 7 or 40 !  If they dont change the format then I dont go..... simple. Its not that enough players arent showing up to have a decent Open section , its that they are dividing those players into too many sections and also making the rating cutoffs for the sections badly.....

*shrug* so don't play. But complaininng about how tournaments you are choosing not to play in aren't in a format you'd like if you were playing in them seems like a less than productive or enjoyable use of time.

If the concern is for the state of chess, note Reb's comment about how China and India are doing "better" than us, then the way to combat that is to, well, do something about the quality and number of players we are developing. 

That means being involved. 

I doubt that simply because someone has a title that they are therefore financially destittue and can't afford to spare their time. 

And obviously they aren't having a problem financing their own tournament activities -- they don't show up becuase they don't like the formats. 

You don't understand. There ARE enough participants IF they dont divide them up into so many sections ! I am nor declining to play certain events because they dont have enough players but because they have too many sections in relation to the number of players which results in the Open section ( the one I play in ) NOT having enough players to avoid stupid pairings. How many times must I say this ? 

It's a meaningless semantical distinction, Reb. Your section would have one more participant if you show up than if you don't. Likewise if the next guy shows up rather than not. By not showing up you are creating the problem you are complaining about. Moreover, by not showing up you are eliminating your voice from those the organizers are going to listen to. They will listen to their paying customers, they aren't going to listen to people who claim that maybe they'll show up next year possibly on the outside chance that all of their demands are met.

You can never change anything unless you bring problems to light = complain ! The format was fine when I was coming up through the ranks and it was changed due to all the class players complaining that they got smashed by much higher rated players and now we have a mess. 

As for titled players volunteering to do stuff for free , don't hold your breath. They would like to make a little money back from all they have invested over the years and who can be blamed for that ? 

You have said I should go and just play " for fun" but tournaments arent fun for me nor most titled players I dont imagine. The fun gets lost somewhere along the way because you start having certain expectations of your games and results. Its a lot of pressure/tension. If I were only gonna play for fun I wouldnt play tournaments at all, I would only play online and maybe blitz with players at the local club, if one is available.  Thats fun.... tournament chess isnt a lot of fun imo. It was fun when I was 1300 because almost everyone I played was higher rated/better than me ( in the under 1600 and under 1800 sections ) and I expected to lose most of the games and did. Now I am expected to win something like 80% of my games with A class players and thats pressure and not much fun..... 

There are effective ways to complain and ineffective ways to complain. Boycotting the event isn't likely to get you listened to or taken seriously. People listen to their paying customers, they don't listen to folks who aren't attending their events. They have no reason to believe that if they change the format the people who are showing up will continue to come, and they have no reason to believe you'll suddenly show up either. 

Swiss system of 5 rounds is perfect for 32 players, if you have more than that you can use the accelerated swiss pairings and this works well for say 40 to 50 players more than 50 and 2 sections might be better but then the rating cutoff needs to be such that both sections have roughly the same number of players in them. You never have the turnout in the South to justify 7 sections !!  Thats just stupid. An exception for class tournaments, ofcourse. However, please dont make all tournaments class tournaments..... thats awful !