Tweet
Favouring the Playing Up Option
Hi Aris:
It is my experience that there is acceptance of " playing up " amongst many upper section players, where the lower section player does pay a " playing up premium " into the upper section prize fund. This is in my view, a somewhat altruistic viewpoint, allowing the lower section players to get experience at their expense in a sense. There is some compensation in addition to the $$ however, in that they expect an " easier point " when they play one of us interlopers. However, I have been often told by upper section players that they do not take the lower section players for granted. They often have to work just as hard to win against a lower-rated player, though their odds of winning in the end are high. But again this may not be true in one case - I have noticed that a lot of the players playing up are juniors with fast-rising ratings. They have been consistently beating their peers throughout their rise, and their actual potential is uncertain. They may be a handful for many of the upper section players.
But I think the lower section player should pay a premium for the privilege, which is what I consider it. And I would be willing to pay more than the current $ 10. So I do not favour the 2011 Canadian Open policy: " There is no charge for playing up to a higher section in the Canadian Open Championship. " However, I think I understand why they have done this, and I think it runs counter to one of your arguments against playing up. The CO organizers believe they will get more " class " players out, because they are allowed to play up, than they lose upper section players, because they refuse to play down. The lower section players all want to play stronger players ( within reason ), often feel they work harder, and feel they do have chances to knock an upper section player off. So they are attracted by the playing up option. But I think we will see many players from the U 1600 section playing up in the U 2000 section in particular, and it will dilute the upper section somewhat, where there is no $$ disincentive to playing up.
Personally, I like to play up when given the chance, though only one section. I like to stay in striking range, where I think I have some chance I might win in a good game. So for example, I am not playing up in the Open section at the CO. I am in the mid 1700's at the moment ( have been somewhat higher in the last five years ), and playing players in the 1900's in my own section will satisfy me - usually I only play up to the U 2200 section, depending on the break lines in the lower sections, and so I do not really think I would give a satisfactory game to players over 2199 ( and I'm sure there are some U 2200's who say I didn't give them much of a game either ).
I am also, not averse to the practice that is becoming more common, of limiting playing up to those within 100 points of the upper section floor. This is a compromise position, and I think it is a legitimate restriction, to maintain a relatively high level in the upper section. We have that in our Scarborough CC 2-section swiss club tournaments during the year. And it seems well accepted by both the upper and lower players.
But we " playing uppers " often do so because we have got some decent track record. Of the last four years, where I have played up, I have won rating points in 2/4 years. So some of us ( most ? ) feel we can give the higher rated players a good game, and sometimes win or draw. Most of all it's just fun to play up - winning is not the standard which determines the satisfaction of playing up. I work harder playing up, and if it is generally acceptable to the upper tier players, in my case, I will opt for the more challenging tournament ( the prize money and the rating points loss do not enter much into the equation - I'm willing to give up the former, and accept the latter as the likely outcome, to have a more enjoyable tournament ).
Lastly, where an upper tier player is playing well, s/he will only likely have to " play down " at most twice in a six-round weekender. It is not the case they will play many lower rated players, unless they themselves are playing badly.
So bottom line is that I support the playing up option, so long as there is a " premium ", and so long as many of the upper section players find the system acceptable.
Bob
Hi Aris:
It is my experience that there is acceptance of " playing up " amongst many upper section players, where the lower section player does pay a " playing up premium " into the upper section prize fund. This is in my view, a somewhat altruistic viewpoint, allowing the lower section players to get experience at their expense in a sense. There is some compensation in addition to the $$ however, in that they expect an " easier point " when they play one of us interlopers. However, I have been often told by upper section players that they do not take the lower section players for granted. They often have to work just as hard to win against a lower-rated player, though their odds of winning in the end are high. But again this may not be true in one case - I have noticed that a lot of the players playing up are juniors with fast-rising ratings. They have been consistently beating their peers throughout their rise, and their actual potential is uncertain. They may be a handful for many of the upper section players.
But I think the lower section player should pay a premium for the privilege, which is what I consider it. And I would be willing to pay more than the current $ 10. So I do not favour the 2011 Canadian Open policy: " There is no charge for playing up to a higher section in the Canadian Open Championship. " However, I think I understand why they have done this, and I think it runs counter to one of your arguments against playing up. The CO organizers believe they will get more " class " players out, because they are allowed to play up, than they lose upper section players, because they refuse to play down. The lower section players all want to play stronger players ( within reason ), often feel they work harder, and feel they do have chances to knock an upper section player off. So they are attracted by the playing up option. But I think we will see many players from the U 1600 section playing up in the U 2000 section in particular, and it will dilute the upper section somewhat, where there is no $$ disincentive to playing up.
Personally, I like to play up when given the chance, though only one section. I like to stay in striking range, where I think I have some chance I might win in a good game. So for example, I am not playing up in the Open section at the CO. I am in the mid 1700's at the moment ( have been somewhat higher in the last five years ), and playing players in the 1900's in my own section will satisfy me - usually I only play up to the U 2200 section, depending on the break lines in the lower sections, and so I do not really think I would give a satisfactory game to players over 2199 ( and I'm sure there are some U 2200's who say I didn't give them much of a game either ).
I am also, not averse to the practice that is becoming more common, of limiting playing up to those within 100 points of the upper section floor. This is a compromise position, and I think it is a legitimate restriction, to maintain a relatively high level in the upper section. We have that in our Scarborough CC 2-section swiss club tournaments during the year. And it seems well accepted by both the upper and lower players.
But we " playing uppers " often do so because we have got some decent track record. Of the last four years, where I have played up, I have won rating points in 2/4 years. So some of us ( most ? ) feel we can give the higher rated players a good game, and sometimes win or draw. Most of all it's just fun to play up - winning is not the standard which determines the satisfaction of playing up. I work harder playing up, and if it is generally acceptable to the upper tier players, in my case, I will opt for the more challenging tournament ( the prize money and the rating points loss do not enter much into the equation - I'm willing to give up the former, and accept the latter as the likely outcome, to have a more enjoyable tournament ).
Lastly, where an upper tier player is playing well, s/he will only likely have to " play down " at most twice in a six-round weekender. It is not the case they will play many lower rated players, unless they themselves are playing badly.
So bottom line is that I support the playing up option, so long as there is a " premium ", and so long as many of the upper section players find the system acceptable.
Bob
Comment