Then and Now

So if you have 20 people what should you use instead of swiss and why? 

There are still tournaments run like I am suggesting ( and how they were run for decades ) I will support those and watch the others continue in their madness.... losing the participation of many of their best players to neighboring states. 

I live in WV and we don't have a large base of tourn. players, so i have always had to deal with the A class or Expert players in every tourn. i have played in. When i was rated around 1500 i would win one round against someone lower rated and then play someone much higher the next round, sometimes winning or drawing and sometimes getting crushed. I agree with the guys that these were the highlight of my tourn. it was great when i could win one of these games.I can also agree with Reb that some tourn. have far too many sections for the number of players. We have pretty much had only one open section in most of our tourn. here usually drawing somewhere around 20-25 players. The guys i talk to love a chance at one of the higher rated players. I can also understand Reb's comment about the pressure now i am rated 1840 and losing to a 1600 is just not the same as it was when i was a1600. I once played IM Ed Formanek in the first round of one of these tourn. when i was a 1600 player and although i know i did not give him any kind of a game for me it was great.IMO the class players in WV are slightly stronger then some class players in other parts of the country because they are always having to play up in 1 or 2 rounds of most tourn. they play in.

Blaming the increase in sections is just plain dumb. You're presupposing that with fewer sections there would be more players in the open section/tournament as a whole, which isn't necessarily true.

If you want more players to compete in the upper sections, it's the job of TDs and higher ranked players to build up a base of 2000s that feel they have a chance to compete for the top prize, but will still get crushed by handful of 2200s there.

Why is it dumb when it used to work before with fewer sections ?  Let me draw you a picture : lets say 50 players show up for a weekend 5 round swiss tournament. You have one section of 50 players or 2 sections of say 25 each.....no problem ! Now......have 10 sections with the top section for above 2000 but only 3 players are over 2000 ?  You still don't get it ?!  Ofcourse having too many sections can ruin ANY tournament ! If you still dont get it lets say the same 50 players show up and you have 50 sections...... understand now ?? 

I would like to know in which post I said anything about china and/or india ?  

@Reb

Your OP implies that the attendance at the tournament has declined because of the added sections. A look at the tournament's history shows that the extra sections were added in 1993, and the tournament had been well attended through 2006 (207 players in 2004 and 192 players in 2006). During this time there have typically been 15-20 players in the open section. Turnout has been low in the last four years, but that probably has more to do with the state of the US economy rather than a general dissatisfaction with the tournament format.

My main focus here is what so many sections has done to the Open/top section woton. When you only have 5 players over 2200 isnt it ridiculous to have an under 2200 section ? The Open section needs to include the 2200s and the experts and maybe even the A class players but if you try to have a class tournament for all sections below the Open section that cannot be done. The excessive sections is destroying the Open section mainly/most. In this years LPO if none of the players had decided to play "up" and enter the Open section they would have been stuck with only 5 players for 5 games of chess...... a RR would only give each player 4 games.... sorry, but this is simply nuts no matter how you try and slice it..... 

I live in NC, so I feel I might be able to add something to the discussion. There were a couple of problems with the LPO this year:

1. The timing, at least for in-state players, wasn't optimal. Lots of tournaments right before and after the LPO. So, the turnout from NC players was down.

2. The LPO did have a lot more entrants last year. About a fifty percent increase when compared to this year. So, when the organizers decided on the structure, they expected a lot more players than they got.

3. The LPO has recently been overshadowed by the NC Open. The NCCA(North Carolina Chess Association) has focused most of its efforts on advertising the NC Open. It might be that many in-state and out-of-state players decided they would rather play at the NC Open than the LPO.

All that being said, I agree that seven sections is far too much for a tournament only bringing in roughly a hundred people. For a tournament of the LPO's size, three or four sections seems appropriate.

After looking at the crosstables from several NC tournies I would certainly like to attend the land of the sky and NC Open  and might be able to next year. If I can only make one in NC it will be the NC Open . I will be coming from Alabama so its close to 8 hours for me to Charlotte and Asheville both. 

@Reb

You may not believe it, but I do see your point.  The problem is that the better you get at any game, the fewer the competitors at your level.  North Carolina, Georgia, and South Carolina have 8, 11 and 4 active players, respectively, rated above 2200.  You couldn't even hold a regional tournament and fill the top section without including lower rated players.  For whatever reason, tournament organizers depend on some people playing up to fill the Open section (Perhaps experience has taught them that there will be enough?).

GA has 26 players over 2000 with about half those over 2200. If ALL of them came to the state championship you would have a decent Open section even without the A class players or anyone entering up. However you are lucky if half of them show up, so that means 13 players, you will draw a few from out of state and a few will play up... with those you might get 20. If you include the A players in the Open section ( which was always done when I was an A player ) you should have an Open section of 30 players, maybe a few more or a few less, perfect number for a 5 round swiss. This years LPO was basically a class tournament with an Open , an under 2200, under 2000, under 1800, under 1600 and under 1400 ..... only 5 players over 2200 showed up..... the LPO used to be an Open tournament and not a class tournament. 

Yes, the pairings are made within each section. If you are in the under 1400 section you only play with players in that section. I think if they are going to do this I would prefer all the tournies do go to having quads ! This way its only 3 games and you wouldnt have to spend as much on hotel and food ! One day, 3 rounds, go home.... I would prefer that to playing in a 5 round  Open section with 8 players in it.... 

^ Yes, that's exactly the format for the LPO and many Open tournaments. However, I have started to see some tournaments switch back to a two-section or three-section format. Not any as big as the LPO though.

 What are the sections? 7 is absolute madness

It's dumb because in your picture you're assuming that 50 players are showing up for a tournament regardless of the details. A tournament with 2 sections may attract 50 players, half might want the better competition/rating points, and the other half might want a more casual environment/better chances of winning a prizes. But a tournament with one giant open might not draw out enough players from the latter crowd, and thus only 40 people might attend.

Thus the problem is not the amount of sections but the overall lack of interest in chess. Solve that, and you could easily fill a tournament with 5/50/500 sections. The WSOP wouldn't have a problem doing that. Understand now??

^ That's oversimplifying it a bit. It's more than the question of how to get people interested in chess. I'ts also the question of how to get people into chess tournaments. Furthermore, an influx of new players does not mean that the new players would distrubute evenly among the sections. Hardly so! Reb's hypthesis is this: If you have few sections with wide rating ranges, everyone will have someone to play and the tournament will run more smoothly and hopefully attract a larger turnout by doing so.

To use an example: Say you have two divisions with a cutoff at 1600. The masters can play the class A's competitively, the Class A's can play the Class B's competitively, and any Class C's that decide to play up can play the Class B's competitively. Nobody gets unfairly disadvantaged by this, and no matter what your rating range you'll have plenty of people to play.

Interest in chess is synonymous with interest in chess tournaments. Aside from TV ratings, poker interest is measured in tournament attendance. Since television has nothing to do with chess, it's all about tournaments. Even interested fans may end up going to tournaments to see the top players, support friends, learn some new tech, etc.

No one is making the argument that an influx of fresh blood will equate to evenly dispersed skill levels and thus even sections. The only fact is that the assumption that less sections directly translates to smoother tournaments is flawed.

^ Hardly. Playing in officially rated chess tournaments involves a significant investment of both time and money. There's a lot of people who just aren't interested in them. Look at all the people in chess clubs who never play in tournaments. Heck, I wouldn't play in very many tournaments if there was an active chess club within two hour driving distance of my home.

When I was a class player I would go out of my way to play with the strongest players I could, that were willing to play me. When I was considering what tournaments to attend I often chose the one that I thought might have the most/best masters playing in them , in the hopes I might get to play one of them, even though I knew I would lose. This attitude of not wanting to play with much stronger players is therefore new, and completely foreign to me. Where does it come from ? My rating is barely over 2200 now and I struggle to keep it above 2200...I am getting old and not improving anymore. I think if I had this new attitude I would simply let my rating drop to my floor of 2000 and then insist that I have my own section to play in 2000-2199 so I wouldnt have to play any players a lot stronger than me and I surely wouldnt want to play those IMs and GMs ,many of whom are professionals and I have never been anything but an amateur ! I guess if the class players continue to get their way this is exactly what I will do.... if you cant beat them, join them ! What does this disturbing trend mean for chess in the US though ? I think it means much the same that the dumbing down process has had in our schools, that many HS graduates cant even read their diplomas and are not ready for college level work without "remedial" classes. This wasnt the case in my generation. Ofcourse I can see that there are some class players that dont have that attitude because I still see quite a few entering up in tournaments and some of them enter the Open section and are only B class players ! The best players of the future will come from these and certainly not from those who whine about having to play masters....