Tweet
this is not intended to be a full answer to some of the other questions about pairings on this site but I'll give my take on it.
Firstly, I agree that some of the pairings do not appear to conform to what one might regard as "normal" and when I say "normal" i mean
1 vs 6, 2 vs 7, 3 vs 8, 4 vs 9, 5 vs 10.
that being said, since it was announced that accelerated pairings would be used, this does not guarantee that the exact FIDE pairings will occur necessarily during the rounds of accelerated pairings.
one thing that would help is to understand what accelerated pairings are supposed to be for.
one important goal of accelerated pairings is to reduce more rapidly the number of players in the top point group, making it easier to identify a possible clear winner. another goal of accelerated pairings is to make it difficult for players in the bottom half of the crosstable to maintain perfect scores (reducing the number of low rated players appearing on the top boards).
Now some people are going to say "Wait! there were some low rated players on top boards in some rounds!"
I didn't say PREVENT. people saw larger rating differences in the round 3 pairings BECAUSE there were fewer large rating differences in the previous two rounds. in a big tournament with a large overall rating range, you simply cannot eliminate the big rating differences entirely and still pair it like a regular swiss. the more you do to reduce rating differences in the first two rounds, the larger you will make SOME rating differences in rounds 3 and 4. I don't think this can really be avoided. i do think that "OVERALL" in the whole tournament over all the rounds there will be fewer large rating differences.
the accelerated pairings are supposed to HELP people get norms, because it a) makes it less likely that strong players will get opponents far below their rating in the first couple of rounds and b) makes it tougher for the low rated players to make it up to the top boards later on, by pairing mid level players with fewer points against weaker players with more points, thus eliminating a larger number of weaker players from the higher point groups. there may be players who think the pairings worked against their norm chances, but I do not believe this is the fault of accelerated pairings. this is the fault of the general haphazardness of the whole swiss pairing system for large groups of players. you need some luck in some cases to get pairings favourable to your norm chances.
As for the perceived anomalies regarding the 1vs 10, 2vs 9, 3 vs 8, 4 vs 7, 5 vs 6 type of pairings that seemed to surface in some parts of the tournament particularly in round 3, I can't at the moment offer a detailed reason why that happened (in terms of how the software is programmed, that is) However I can offer a rationale for why it is a sensible thing for an accelerated pairing system to do.
The reason is that pairing like 1 vs 10, 2 vs 9, 3 vs 8 etc does a BETTER JOB OF PREVENTING THE LOWER RATINGS FROM MAKING THEIR WAY TO THE TOP BOARDS, since the lowest players (8, 9, 10) in the hypothetical group are getting paired against the toughest players in the group (1, 2, 3).
is this different from what players may be accustomed to? YES.
does it give people a reason to think something could be going wrong? I suppose so, if there isn't an explanation for why it is going on.
IS THIS TYPE OF PAIRING CONSISTENT WITH THE OBJECTIVES OF ACCELERATED PAIRINGS? ABSOLUTELY! it takes more lower rated players out of the higher point groups faster. So in my view, some of the pairing method used by the computer may be throwing people off, but I do not believe the pairings are doing something that doesn't make sense. To fulfil the goals of accelerated pairings, this method of high vs low in the mid ranges in my opinion may actually work better than the regular method of swiss pairings. (thus is is not "equivalent' to "random" pairings, which would do nothing to accomplish the objective of accelerated pairings.)
anyway that's my two cents. it may be tough for some to take my word for it when I make comments about the general statistical behaviour of the whole tournament (such as when I say "generally lower rated players will get removed from the top point group), but I do believe I have a good ability to look at large mathematical systems and perceive trends that ought to occur based on what the rules seem to be.
i do recognize that some of the concerns about pairings are legitimate concerns based on what a lot of players (and tournament directors, too) are used to hopefully this response helps add more sense to what has been going on.
In defense of Hal Bond, the decision of the system of pairings used in the tournament was made at the organizer level and then he was asked to use that method. In defense of the pairing method, I disagree that it did not make sense (though I can't expect everyone to share my perspective there). I do agree that it was different than expected.
in defense of the organizers choosing this method of pairing, accelerated is a common approach for big events and they had no way of anticipating that there could be complaints of the nature that we have seen arise. We use the standard program that is compatible with sending rating reports to the CFC, the organizers asked Hal Bond to run double accelerated pairings, this is what he did, and the pairings you saw were the result of this program running double accelerated pairings. If someone wants to say the pairings were "done wrong" the shortest answer I can give is that the pairings were done by the program of choice for the event. If the computer program does not in fact pair the tournament according to what would be viewed as the correct method, ultimately this matter would have to be taken up with the creators of the pairing software I would suppose. But I do think there is a legitimate rationale for the top vs bottom method in the mid sections during the acclerated rounds, unexpected as it may have been.
Bryan Lamb.
Firstly, I agree that some of the pairings do not appear to conform to what one might regard as "normal" and when I say "normal" i mean
1 vs 6, 2 vs 7, 3 vs 8, 4 vs 9, 5 vs 10.
that being said, since it was announced that accelerated pairings would be used, this does not guarantee that the exact FIDE pairings will occur necessarily during the rounds of accelerated pairings.
one thing that would help is to understand what accelerated pairings are supposed to be for.
one important goal of accelerated pairings is to reduce more rapidly the number of players in the top point group, making it easier to identify a possible clear winner. another goal of accelerated pairings is to make it difficult for players in the bottom half of the crosstable to maintain perfect scores (reducing the number of low rated players appearing on the top boards).
Now some people are going to say "Wait! there were some low rated players on top boards in some rounds!"
I didn't say PREVENT. people saw larger rating differences in the round 3 pairings BECAUSE there were fewer large rating differences in the previous two rounds. in a big tournament with a large overall rating range, you simply cannot eliminate the big rating differences entirely and still pair it like a regular swiss. the more you do to reduce rating differences in the first two rounds, the larger you will make SOME rating differences in rounds 3 and 4. I don't think this can really be avoided. i do think that "OVERALL" in the whole tournament over all the rounds there will be fewer large rating differences.
the accelerated pairings are supposed to HELP people get norms, because it a) makes it less likely that strong players will get opponents far below their rating in the first couple of rounds and b) makes it tougher for the low rated players to make it up to the top boards later on, by pairing mid level players with fewer points against weaker players with more points, thus eliminating a larger number of weaker players from the higher point groups. there may be players who think the pairings worked against their norm chances, but I do not believe this is the fault of accelerated pairings. this is the fault of the general haphazardness of the whole swiss pairing system for large groups of players. you need some luck in some cases to get pairings favourable to your norm chances.
As for the perceived anomalies regarding the 1vs 10, 2vs 9, 3 vs 8, 4 vs 7, 5 vs 6 type of pairings that seemed to surface in some parts of the tournament particularly in round 3, I can't at the moment offer a detailed reason why that happened (in terms of how the software is programmed, that is) However I can offer a rationale for why it is a sensible thing for an accelerated pairing system to do.
The reason is that pairing like 1 vs 10, 2 vs 9, 3 vs 8 etc does a BETTER JOB OF PREVENTING THE LOWER RATINGS FROM MAKING THEIR WAY TO THE TOP BOARDS, since the lowest players (8, 9, 10) in the hypothetical group are getting paired against the toughest players in the group (1, 2, 3).
is this different from what players may be accustomed to? YES.
does it give people a reason to think something could be going wrong? I suppose so, if there isn't an explanation for why it is going on.
IS THIS TYPE OF PAIRING CONSISTENT WITH THE OBJECTIVES OF ACCELERATED PAIRINGS? ABSOLUTELY! it takes more lower rated players out of the higher point groups faster. So in my view, some of the pairing method used by the computer may be throwing people off, but I do not believe the pairings are doing something that doesn't make sense. To fulfil the goals of accelerated pairings, this method of high vs low in the mid ranges in my opinion may actually work better than the regular method of swiss pairings. (thus is is not "equivalent' to "random" pairings, which would do nothing to accomplish the objective of accelerated pairings.)
anyway that's my two cents. it may be tough for some to take my word for it when I make comments about the general statistical behaviour of the whole tournament (such as when I say "generally lower rated players will get removed from the top point group), but I do believe I have a good ability to look at large mathematical systems and perceive trends that ought to occur based on what the rules seem to be.
i do recognize that some of the concerns about pairings are legitimate concerns based on what a lot of players (and tournament directors, too) are used to hopefully this response helps add more sense to what has been going on.
In defense of Hal Bond, the decision of the system of pairings used in the tournament was made at the organizer level and then he was asked to use that method. In defense of the pairing method, I disagree that it did not make sense (though I can't expect everyone to share my perspective there). I do agree that it was different than expected.
in defense of the organizers choosing this method of pairing, accelerated is a common approach for big events and they had no way of anticipating that there could be complaints of the nature that we have seen arise. We use the standard program that is compatible with sending rating reports to the CFC, the organizers asked Hal Bond to run double accelerated pairings, this is what he did, and the pairings you saw were the result of this program running double accelerated pairings. If someone wants to say the pairings were "done wrong" the shortest answer I can give is that the pairings were done by the program of choice for the event. If the computer program does not in fact pair the tournament according to what would be viewed as the correct method, ultimately this matter would have to be taken up with the creators of the pairing software I would suppose. But I do think there is a legitimate rationale for the top vs bottom method in the mid sections during the acclerated rounds, unexpected as it may have been.
Bryan Lamb.
Comment