Then and Now

Again -- the only people whining about not having enough people not at their level to play are the folks wtih titles -- and you're whining about not having weaker players than you in your section.

I know of no one in my rating range who is "afraid" of playing stronger players. Or who is complaining to TD's to change pairings. Or who won't show up to play because they don't like the prize distribution or how many sections there are. Those people are all at YOUR level. Indeed, YOU are one of them. Stop blaming the people below you for YOUR choices.

That said, I do know that if I show up for the weekend quads and there's me and a bunch of people 1800 and above I seriously consider why I'm wasting my money and time since I likely won't even make it out of the opening alive in any of my games. 400 rating points generally don't get made up with "want to."

There's a difference between being afraid and wanting value for one's chess dollar. I want to play competative games I can learn from. I almost always play up a section to ensure that I am playing people around 200 points above me when it is the case when I have a choice. But I also don't want to be playing people so far above me that they don't even have to look at the board to wipe me off of it. That's not "enjoyable" except in some esoteric netherverse where the sadomasochist in all us chess players resides.

Personally, my experience has been that unless there are a lot of people in my rating range, I'm playing up so far that it's no fun or I'm playing down so far that it's no fun. The notion that it "evens out" after a couple of rounds is only true if there's a substantial number of people near your rating to begin with. Otherwise it doesn't even out and you get stupidity at the end of the day the 1400 with 2 wins is playing the 900 with 2 wins. What an exciting finish!

The problem is the number of people, not the number of sections. I do wonder if there are other pairing systems besides the swiss system that can be used for a large number of people playing in a short number of rounds to generate better games when there's an uneven distribution of ratings?

Let me draw you a picture because you seem to just not get it. I am complaining because when there are too many sections its almost always the Open section ( the one I must play in ) that suffers by not having enough players in it ( of any strength ) to have a decent 5 round swiss ! This was NOT a problem before and still isnt in the tournies that still have only 1, 2 or 3 sections . I want to play in a section with a minimum of 20 players ( for 5 rounds ) so that the pairings make sense and there arent stupid pairings and byes. I dont care if all those 20 players are higher rated than me because I am NOT scared to play much stronger players ! Since there arent many players over 2000 in most southern states you simply have to include the A class players in the Open section , in most open tournaments , to have a decent number in the open section. I really dont understand your problem anyway sine YOU will not be playing anyone much higher rated than you ( if the fromat was changed to the way it used to be ) unless you elect to play up 1 or more sections. 

I get it -- you think everything wrong with chess is the fault of hte class players who are actually showing up at the tournaments and it's ruining it for you titled players who aren't bothering to attend because you don't like the structure or the way the prize money falls out.

I get it. I just find it irritating.

No, the fault lies with the organizers who decide the format of the event if they decide to have too many sections. However, if the organizers are doing this due to class players whining for their own sections then yes, they too are to blame. 

After checking your tourney history on uschess.org I dont know why you care anyway as it appears you didnt play a single event from 2006-2010. The sole event you played this year was one big section of 6 rounds . There were several players over 2200 and even a couple over 2300, they were the highest rated players and this is the kind of situation you seem to be afraid you might play some 400 to 600 points higher rated than you...... but lets see......are those fears founded ? 

Your opponents ratings by round were  round 1 - 450  +

                                                                 2 - 1768 -

                                                                 3 - 1642 -

                                                                 4 - 1135 =

                                                                 5 - 1446 -

                                                                 6 - 471  +

So, you scored 2.5/6 against opponents with an average rating of 1152. 

Your fears you expressed earlier certainly seem unfounded by this event. You didnt play for 5 years apparently, according to uschess.org and this year you have played only one event and it was structured like I like a tourney to be .  So, whats your problem ? 

Now..... if that same tourney had a bunch of sections and the top section was for say 2000 and up they would have had only 8 players in the top section for 6 rounds.... this is practically a round robin and NOT a swiss when you do that .

You also accuse me of wanting weak opponents to play ( you conside A class players weak ? ! ) and yet two of your opponents were under 500 !! Thats 900 rating points weaker than you ! I have NEVER played anyone 900 points lower rated than me !  LOL  The highest rated you played was 365 points higher than you..... I would say you have no basis for complaint imo. 

My problem is the attitude you express to those rated lower than you.

And yes, I took many years off of playing. I think I only played in an event or two between 2001 and 2005, and then I haven't played till this year. Prior to that I was relatively active in my area and I'm getting back to that point. One of my son's decided he wanted to try chess last year so I volunteered to help with his school's chess club and have come back to playing as a result.

And as for weaker or stronger oppoenents -- you miss my comment repeatedly. You want players who are weaker than YOU. 1800s aren't weaker than me, but they are weaker than a 2200 -- it's a definitional thing.  Second, the only comment I've ever made regarding opponents is that I'd like my games to be competative. To that end, I'd say one game from that tournament was what I would have considered a godo pairing (and it's one of my losses, not my wins).

I have never choosen to go or not go to an event based on format. You do that. Yet you accuse the class players lower rated than you of ruining the structure and of being cowards. We're not the one's complaining. We're not the one's boycotting events. Stop blaming people rated lower than you for your choices. That's my problem with you.

@Reb: As far as I know, most lower rated players don't whine about sections. In fact, as has been mentioned, most don't really care about the format very much. Whatever reason why TD's are running tournaments with more sections, it isn't us lower rated players. Maybe the organizer's think they can get more money or something? Or they're trying to cater to lower rated players even though lower rated players rarely ever complain about a tournament's format?

This may not be a problem in your area, I dont know. It IS a problem in Ga and SC and seems to be in other Southern states as well. I dont mind playing in a class tournament once a year but when I attend an Open swiss system tournament and get there to see that its basically just another class tournament I am not happy as that is not what they advertised, nor what I expected. 

Thirty years ago, the tournaments that I played in were one-section tournaments (there was normally a single class tournament each year).  The major complaints were:

Low-rated players complaining about being outmatched in the first and second rounds, and

High-rated players complaining about having to play low-rated players in the first and second rounds because it was no challenge, and their ratings took a beating if they happen to lose.

Looks as if the tournament organizers are still having problems trying to satisfy both groups.

No one has made those comments. The titled players have made that accusation of class players, but the class players keep saying "Umm, we aren't DOING that."

Meanwhile, the people who ARE admitting to not going to tournaments because of formats of who they may or may not play is the titled players, who are arguing that the A and B players need to be in the Open section with them.

Thats the way the swiss system is designed. In the first round the top half of the field gets paired against the bottom half. Ofcourse this usually means the bottom half gets slaughtered but there is usually at least one or two upsets even in the first round. I was in the bottom half of the first round pairings for years , I know what its like. Normally though I never had more than one big mismatch per event unless I won or drew the first round. After round one , if I lost, which was usual, I would be paired against someone else that lost. Normally in round 2 the bottom half will be paired against each other while the top half is paired against each other ( if there were no upsets ). This continues until almost everyone is playing competitive games. 

Put the comment into the context of what was being discussed at that time in the thread, Reasonabledoubt.

I am saying that I don't go to a tournament based on a title player being present - in response to why titled players get to play for free at some tournaments. I'm further expanding on that by saying giving them a free ride just so you can say your tournament has titled players in it dilutes the value of the entry fee for other players.

Then folks like Reb turn around and complain about class players winning prize money because that happens to be the way the tournament is structured.

I am NOT saying I won't play based on there being a titled player present. Nor am I saying I'm concerned about titled players taking away prizes from me (when they have to actually pay to play).

As I said before -- I"ve never won a prize at a tournament. I don't expect I ever will. I don't recall ever knowing a tournament's structure beyond how many rounds there are before showing up. I just show up and play.

That depends entirely on how many people show up and what the rating distribution is.

@Reb

The first round mismatch depends on the ratings spread.  In a one-section tournament, the first round mismatch is typically 400-500 points.  In a two-section tournament where the field is evenly split, the first round mismatch is typically 200-300 points.  Conventional wisdom says that the best way to improve is to play opponents rated no more than 300 points higher than you.  So, the two, possibly three section tournament looks to be ideal.

This one is so messed up I dont know where to begin. First let me say I have never been given a "free ride" , I think this refers to the IMs and GMs but even their ride isnt really free. THey still get the entry fee deducted from any prize they win and they still have to pay for their meals and hotel rooms... thats NOT a "free ride". Tell me daw..... how many tournies have you been to that had any IMs and/or GMs playing ? I doubt MN tournies draw many, if any, IMs and GMs. Also, I dont believe having fewer sections increases the prizes in the top sections as the number of players paying entry fees ( where the prizes come from ) is the same whether you have one section or 10. I also dont understand why it bothers you that a titled player might be taking some of your entry fee and yet you seem fine with a fellow 1400 player taking it ?  This isnt logical at all, care to explain why it matters so much to you ? 

There are very few IMs and GMs playing in tournies in the US South. I played there for 25 years and only played maybe 5 GMs in all those years. I might have played a few more IMs than GMs but there werent many of them either. You can go to uschess.org and see the top players in every state. You might be surprised by what you find there. 

Something I want to point out is that I am talking about the US South. This may not be a problem anywhere else in the US, I dont know. It appears it is NOT a problem in MN as evidenced by the one Open event in which you played that had over 60 players and only one section ! So.... do you really have a dog in this hunt anyway ? 

Every state open and club championship I've been too has had at least one IM in it. We have a few that live here locally and typically at least one shows up to any of the larger local events. Though those don't give free rides to titled players. The 100th anniversary of the US Open had more than a handful of GMs and IMs, and the Dakota opens oddly have a couple that show up every year.The Chicago Open has a few the one year I went there, though I ended up not playing due to being rather ill.

And my comment was in response to what I see as a theme from you -- that class players are all that's wrong with chess, they're why you won't go to the tournaments, and it's unfair that they can win prizes that might rival those the titled players receive should they win their class and section.

In your recent thread complaining about prize structure you complained bitterly that a class player won his class and section and ended up with more money than some friend of yours who did not win both class and section but who was rated higher.

The fact that people playing for free get a fee deducted if htey do win doesn't mean they aren't getting economic value from the gift in the first place. That gift of free play if they don't win anything changes the value proposition, the risk-reward ratio, for that player. It is an economic benefit to them regardless of if they win or lose.

As to why it matters -- I'm pointing out that as a titled player you're at least in the range of players who are having organizers bending over backwards to please you. Even if you have not taken advantage of that opportunity in the past -- and I admit to not recalling ever seeing free play being offered to NMs, but it would be the logical next step in the TD's ever expanding quest to improve attendance. Yet you aren't complaining about those issues. You are complaining that class players are afraid to play people rated higher than them. But the reality is, we're not. We, like you, just want to have good games of chess and pairings that make sense. 1400s no more like to find themselves playing someone well out of their range down than you like having some odd pairing in your section.

They get to play for free if they dont win anything ? Really ? Are the organizers paying for their hotel, food and travel ? I didnt know they get all that paid too ! If they dont get all that paid then they are NOT playing for free. You would really hate chess in Europe because IMs and GMs here DO get EVERYTHING PAID at some of the larger Open events. In some events GMs over 2600 even get " spending money" / allowance !  This place would be a nightmare for you !  Even worse is that you would probably have to play in the same section with the IMs and GMs ! <GASP> I dont think there are any sub 500 players in Europe for you to take your baseball bat to either !  

Sorry, but food and travel may well be part of the expense to go to a tournament, but it may not be and is not required that you spend money on either of them to play. You might well live right next door and have a large garden in your backyard, however unlikely that might be. So yes, they get to play for free.

'Cause you know what, everyone else has those same concerns when deciding to attend a tournament or not. The cost of playing for them is $0.

And, btw, Reb, I don't like or not-like more sections. I don't care!! And I think that most class players are like me. We go when we can go and don't when we can't because we aren't treating it as a profit generating adventure. We just like to play chess.

I'll say it again -- I don't even know structure beyond number of rounds before I show up. I sometimes don't even know hos long the games are. I don't care!!

The folks I know playing the game are pretty much like me, or like my son and his friends, the question is only "how much does it cost and what time do I have to be there?" If those two elements work out then it's game on. If they don't, then it's not.

As far as paying GM's to play -- I think that's one of the main culprits of the "draw death" that everyone is continually complaining about. If those guys actually had to win for it to "pay," I bet we'd see a lot more aggresive play at things like the candidate's matches and a lot fewer draws in the first 20 moves. But hey, I don't begrudge anyone whatever money they can make in this life. More power to them.

I have played over 500 Tournament games over the years and directed and/or organized close to 75 events. I was even President of hte SC Chess Assn for several years and thus (then) a USCF voting delegate. One thing I have learned - CHESS PLAYERS ARE THE HARDEST PEOPLE ON EARTH TO PLEASE.

Aside from spending a LOT of my own  money on the game I dropped over 200 rating points suring the time I was organizing - just when my rating was shooting up in every tournament before I got involved with that end of it. 

That's why I am now content to let somebody else take the heat and pay my money and play when the tournament suits me. AS I have only played in two in the last 15 years, that isn't often!