Short comment about accelerated pairings

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re : Re: Short comment about accelerated pairings

    Originally posted by David Ottosen View Post
    My personal feeling is that the Canadian open should be the annual get-together of Canadian chess players, and having one big section (norms be damned) fosters that much more. Serious norm hunting tournaments and the Canadian open are, to me, two very different beasts.
    Somehow, it should be possible to walk and think at the same time. It is very debatable that multiple sections take away from the get-together thing, but the one big section tournament certainly creates a one big pairing problem for the organizers if preventing an inordinate amount of silly mismatches is a concern.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Short comment about accelerated pairings

      Originally posted by Egidijus Zeromskis View Post
      I think so.

      There are normalized points distributions at CO'10 (accelerated^2) and CO'09 (normal pairings).




      Don't make any far going conclusions, as the plot was not peer-reviewed :D
      Great gratuitous graph'itti, Egis:-)
      Francis

      ++ some alliteration!

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Short comment about accelerated pairings

        Great graph.

        The primary purpose for accelerated pairings is to produce more games amongst the top players, if things work well with few upsets, it's like adding an extra round at the top.

        We can see the pairings did this, since the % of players with 7+ points is almost 1/2 that of last year.

        I think the comments about norms in a single section event are valid, don't even bother trying (from the organizer's perspective).

        Jonathan, I recall only 3 or 4 people getting norms in the 2 large International Opens in Saint John, 1988. These events had only FIDE rated players and at that time you had to be 2200.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Short comment about accelerated pairings

          Originally posted by Fred McKim View Post
          Jonathan, I recall only 3 or 4 people getting norms in the 2 large International Opens in Saint John, 1988. These events had only FIDE rated players and at that time you had to be 2200.
          EP #90, page 42 says four IMs achieved GM norms: Krum Georgiev, Jonathan Levitt, Bjarke Kristensen, and Tihomir Toshkov. (The tournament bulletins confirm that for International #2). In the tournament bulletins, for International #1, Jerome Bibuld states that Michael Rohde and Alex Fishbein achieved norms. For Rohde, it must have been a GM norm, Fishbein's looks like an IM. So five GM norms and one IM norm in all. As you indicate, they weren't Opens, because of the FIDE rating requirement. They weren't even called Opens, that was reserved for the still very strong class events, the top sections of which, if extended to 9 or 10 rounds, could have been norm events in 2010. Norms were tougher back in '88.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Short comment about accelerated pairings

            Originally posted by Fred McKim View Post
            We can see the pairings did this, since the % of players with 7+ points is almost 1/2 that of last year.
            It might be that the CO'10 had more players (265 vs 203)
            We need more date, i.e., tournaments.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Short comment about accelerated pairings

              At which tournament was it that there were sections, but you could pay extra to "play up" a section, to the point that if you paid enough you could play in the top section, even if your rating qualified you to the bottom section?

              To me that seems the best of both worlds. You want to play for cash prizes, enter your section. You want the prestige of playing a GM, pay for it.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Short comment about accelerated pairings

                Garland wrote:

                At which tournament was it that there were sections, but you could pay extra to "play up" a section, to the point that if you paid enough you could play in the top section, even if your rating qualified you to the bottom section?
                They had that feature at the Quebec Open a couple of years ago - if you wanted to enter the top section - the lower your rating, the more you paid. I think there was someone who actually paid $500 or $600 to play.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Short comment about accelerated pairings

                  Bryan, I see you don't have a thread for this years Labour Day Open.

                  Are you considering having the U2100 section FIDE rated also?

                  Many of us A players have provisional ratings, but are barred from

                  the Open section.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X