chess tournament rating sections

[Mate Milinkovic]

I remember when I started playing chess about 10 yrs ago ( the good old days). The sections for tournaments were exactly the rating divisions. So there would be an open section. an 1800 - 2000 section, 1600 - 1800 section and so on. It was a heirarchy system that made sense. No one was allowed to play up a section and you had to earn your right to play in a section.

Lets fast forward to todays situation. I am enrolled in a Hal Bond tournament which are always excellent. My problem is the sections are 400 rating points apart. 1600 - 2000 is the section I am playing in. I hope and pray they wont allow anyone to play up. The rating section is already 400 points huge and allowing someone to play up with just be a joke.

The argument I hear is that there is not enough players to have 200 point rating sections but I dont buy that at all. It was never a problem in the past and the tournaments were way more competitive making everyone in the section feel like they could win the whole thing. I would like to have some feedback on this from the players to see if they are happy with the current situation of would like to see the old rating sections come back into vogue. If the players would prefer the old rating sections instead why should the players not get what they want.

I wonder if they will let me play in next years Tata Steel tournament. I would be willing to pay the 10 bucks to play up ofcourse as my rating is not high enough to play in that section. Why have rating divisions at all if you dont have to earn your way into a section anyways.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: chess tournament rating sections

I wonder if they will let me play in next years Tata Steel tournament. I would be willing to pay the 10 bucks to play up ofcourse as my rating is not high enough to play in that section. Why have rating divisions at all if you dont have to earn your way into a section anyways.

An entry to Tata Steel Tournament: is € 40,-.
http://www.tatasteelchess.com/amateurs/events2013
Though it is not clear how they divide into sections. Erwin might know better :)

If the players would prefer the old rating sections instead why should the players not get what they want.

Because non of them become a TD for a such event :)

[Mate Milinkovic]

Re: chess tournament rating sections

darn I should have read the Guelph tournament registration information before I booked the 2 days off of work. The rating sections are 400 point divisions. Even with the 400 monstor gap divisions they are letting people play up if they are withing 100 points of the floor. Basically they are 500 point rating divisions!!! I thought tournaments were supposed to be about getting tough competition so you can test yourself and learn from the games you played in that tournament. The last time I played one of these events I was paired up with a kid way below my rating that played up in my section. I crushed him over the board which I guess was a surprise for him as he started to cry at the board while he was looking at his lost position. I also had to deal with his mom watching us play the game. The degenerate chess nerd in me wants to play in this tournament but the rational me wants me to find something else to do on my 2 days off.
I guess the only solution might be to become a tournament director and run some tournaments with the parameters I think are fair and make sense.

[Bindi Cheng]

Re: chess tournament rating sections

How do you think I feel whenever I enter an open tournament? Quit whining and take your losses like a man.

[Mate Milinkovic]

Re: chess tournament rating sections

How do you think I feel whenever I enter an open tournament? Quit whining and take your losses like a man.

Take my losses like a man?. I dont lose to those players playing up I crush them. Anyways I knew I was going to get comments like the one you posted for going against the grain and whining so badly. I am not sure if posts like the one I started are welcome on chesstalk. If so than let me know people and I will keep my comments to myself. Anyone that knows me understand I speak my mind and am not trying to hurt or offend anyone. I just wanted some feedback on the matter. I am not trying to change how tournaments are run.

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: chess tournament rating sections

Hi Mate:

I for one, depending on where my rating is at, and what the floor is for the section above me, often decide to pay and play up. I just find I play better games against stronger players, and actually seldom get crushed - in fact, it does happen sometimes, that I have the advantage by the middle game. So I think one should not say all those playing up are crushable.

Secondly, I think you are stating the problem worse than it is. With the swiss system, you'll play down in the first or second rounds. But if you win, you will not likely see those playing up again for the last 3-4 rounds. But if you lose to those playing up, then it is true that you will face more of us - but what did you do, losing in the first place to someone playing up?? So I think what happens is that after the first 2 rounds, we " player-uppers " start playing each other, if we've been losing, as expected. We generally will not then meet again the stronger players in the section.

Thirdly, as to more sections. I have not organized a sections swiss, but I would think it is somewhat more complicated, even with the help of the computers, and computers won't help with multiple complaints arising in multiple sections. As you say, you may have to organize one like this yourself, to establish that it is not that much more work for a tournament organizer or an arbiter.

Bob ( who met every Kitchener player ever at the last Hart House - not playing up that time )

[Mate Milinkovic]

Re: chess tournament rating sections

Hi Mate:

I for one, depending on where my rating is at, and what the floor is for the section above me, often decide to pay and play up. I just find I play better games against stronger players, and actually seldom get crushed - in fact, it does happen sometimes, that I have the advantage by the middle game. So I think one should not say all those playing up are crushable.

Secondly, I think you are stating the problem worse than it is. With the swiss system, you'll play down in the first or second rounds. But if you win, you will not likely see those playing up again for the last 3-4 rounds. But if you lose to those playing up, then it is true that you will face more of us - but what did you do, losing in the first place to someone playing up?? So I think what happens is that after the first 2 rounds, we " player-uppers " start playing each other, if we've been losing, as expected. We generally will not then meet again the stronger players in the section.

Thirdly, as to more sections. I have not organized a sections swiss, but I would think it is somewhat more complicated, even with the help of the computers, and computers won't help with multiple complaints arising in multiple sections. As you say, you may have to organize one like this yourself, to establish that it is not that much more work for a tournament organizer or an arbiter.

Bob ( who met every Kitchener player ever at the last Hart House - not playing up that time )

Ty for your answer. What you said makes sense. I just see the rating divisions as a heirarchy where you have to earn your way up to the section by gaining the rating points needed. I guess like in life you can pay money to get what you want if hard work does not get it for you.

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: chess tournament rating sections

Ty for your answer. What you said makes sense. I just see the rating divisions as a heirarchy where you have to earn your way up to the section by gaining the rating points needed. I guess like in life you can pay money to get what you want if hard work does not get it for you.

Hi Mate:

Perhaps lack of hard work in this case. But for many playing up, just lack of talent ( my problem too ). But we still like to pay and play if allowed.

Bob

[Ken Kurkowski]

Re: chess tournament rating sections

You can pay for the privilege of playing up and meeting stronger players. But you can't pay for a higher rating (not ethically at least :) ) - only hard work & talent will achieve that.

[Aris Marghetis]

Re: chess tournament rating sections

I have not run any weekenders for about a year now, but when I was really into it over the preceding few years, I almost never allowed playing up. I believe that over time, that was one of the key points in raising the median rating of the players in my events.

The following points might hurt some folks' feelings, but in my humble opinion, the vast majority of higher-rated players dislike playing overly lower-rated players. I believe these sentiments should take precedence over the lower-rated players' desire to play higher-rated competition. This might sound harsh, but if someone like me (rated 1900) wants to play 2300s, then I simply need to get my rating up, to EARN such opposition.

Finally, many lower-rated players believe that they are giving higher-rated players decent games, but the majority of the time, the higher-rated player does NOT have the same appraisal of the game. This makes complete sense, as the lower-rated player is understandably far less capable of evaluating the games than the higher-rated player. Once in a while, when I stumble into a 2300 in an Open section, I can tell that my opponent is kinda just being polite in the postgame. Like, how much time should he be expected to spend explaining stuff he knows I do not fully understand, otherwise I would have done them in the game, lol. On the other side of it, I cannot tell you the number of times an 1100 player will say something like "that is the most number of moves I have ever lasted against someone as high rated as you, I must be getting better, eh? EH?! ;)

[Tyler Longo]

Re: chess tournament rating sections

I have not run any weekenders for about a year now, but when I was really into it over the preceding few years, I almost never allowed playing up. I believe that over time, that was one of the key points in raising the median rating of the players in my events.

The following points might hurt some folks' feelings, but in my humble opinion, the vast majority of higher-rated players dislike playing overly lower-rated players. I believe these sentiments should take precedence over the lower-rated players' desire to play higher-rated competition. This might sound harsh, but if someone like me (rated 1900) wants to play 2300s, then I simply need to get my rating up, to EARN such opposition.

Finally, many lower-rated players believe that they are giving higher-rated players decent games, but the majority of the time, the higher-rated player does NOT have the same appraisal of the game. This makes complete sense, as the lower-rated player is understandably far less capable of evaluating the games than the higher-rated player. Once in a while, when I stumble into a 2300 in an Open section, I can tell that my opponent is kinda just being polite in the postgame. Like, how much time should he be expected to spend explaining stuff he knows I do not fully understand, otherwise I would have done them in the game, lol. On the other side of it, I cannot tell you the number of times an 1100 player will say something like "that is the most number of moves I have ever lasted against someone as high rated as you, I must be getting better, eh? EH?! ;)

Just wanted to say I basically agree with this whole post. I'll admit, I still occasionally play up a section so I guess I'm being a bit hypocritical (or I guess I'm just taking advantage of the opportunity given to me), but I really can appreciate events where playing up a section is not permitted.

[Bindi Cheng]

Re: chess tournament rating sections

[QUOTE=Mate Milinkovic;63234]I dont lose to those players playing up I crush them./QUOTE]

Last 3 regular tournaments (I didn't count the heads-up matches you played)

http://chess.ca/crosstable?tournamen...024&key=130129
Your rating = 1729, performed 1519, beat 1161, beat 1642, lost 1791, lost 1483

http://chess.ca/crosstable?tournamen...006&key=130129
Your rating = 1732, performed 1576, beat 1472, beat 1893, lost 1852, lost 1501, lost 1564

http://chess.ca/crosstable?tournamen...016&key=130129
Your rating = 1665, performed 1739, beat 1464, beat 1649, draw 1518, lost 1925

So by my count, that's 13 games.

Against lower rated players you scored +5 =1 -3
Against higher rated players you scored +1 -3

I don't see how scoring 5.5/9 against lower rated players is anything close to crushing them. When you can consistently beat those 200-300 points lower rated than you, you'll be much higher rated than you are now.

[John Brown]

Re: chess tournament rating sections

I feel when you have sectional tournaments the fairest way is to provide a prize fund with First Prize that has 10 times the entry fee.
So if an U1600 pays $70 the First Prize should be $700. Second and third can be any amount you want.
Same goes for the other sections charge a different fee per section. The more you charge the bigger First Prize can be.
If you have a bigger entry fee per section then it could cover a play up fee or you can just add the play up fee as well and take in more money.

Hart House had an outstanding turnout in January and they did give out more prizes so I guess that was helpful.

My opinion has always been to eliminate sectional prizes and let every one play for a First Prize with the next 20 players winning prizes.

If we must has sections then make them Open and U2000 and give the Best ten in the section the prizes.

[Mate Milinkovic]

Re: chess tournament rating sections

[QUOTE=Bindi Cheng;63252]

I dont lose to those players playing up I crush them./QUOTE]

Last 3 regular tournaments (I didn't count the heads-up matches you played)

http://chess.ca/crosstable?tournamen...024&key=130129
Your rating = 1729, performed 1519, beat 1161, beat 1642, lost 1791, lost 1483

http://chess.ca/crosstable?tournamen...006&key=130129
Your rating = 1732, performed 1576, beat 1472, beat 1893, lost 1852, lost 1501, lost 1564

http://chess.ca/crosstable?tournamen...016&key=130129
Your rating = 1665, performed 1739, beat 1464, beat 1649, draw 1518, lost 1925

So by my count, that's 13 games.

Against lower rated players you scored +5 =1 -3
Against higher rated players you scored +1 -3

I don't see how scoring 5.5/9 against lower rated players is anything close to crushing them. When you can consistently beat those 200-300 points lower rated than you, you'll be much higher rated than you are now.

Dude do I have to send you the scoresheets for the games I lost to weaker players. Once in a blue moon do I lose to a weaker player that is not supposed to be in my section. They dont beat me I beat myself. Usually if I am playing a weaker player its because I am not doing well in the tournament and I just dont care anymore to try my best. My last loss as an example to Thomas Gou I won a peice on move 9 and had forced mate about 10 moves after that. But instead of taking my time I played fast and like I guy who did not care about the game and made a losing blunder. I just personally feel tournaments are supposed to be more competitive in nature. I pay my money to get games against people similar in rating to me, not to crush people alot lower rated than me and boost my ego.

[Mate Milinkovic]

Re: chess tournament rating sections

I feel when you have sectional tournaments the fairest way is to provide a prize fund with First Prize that has 10 times the entry fee.
So if an U1600 pays $70 the First Prize should be $700. Second and third can be any amount you want.
Same goes for the other sections charge a different fee per section. The more you charge the bigger First Prize can be.
If you have a bigger entry fee per section then it could cover a play up fee or you can just add the play up fee as well and take in more money.

Hart House had an outstanding turnout in January and they did give out more prizes so I guess that was helpful.

My opinion has always been to eliminate sectional prizes and let every one play for a First Prize with the next 20 players winning prizes.

If we must has sections then make them Open and U2000 and give the Best ten in the section the prizes.

It is like that in poker tournaments. The top prize is always atleast 10 times the buy in or entry fee. The thing is chess tournaments are more costly to run as you have to pay to rent the building and pay people to run the tournament. If your a prizefighther than you would never even think for a secong to play a chess tournament. I think of money I spend on chess tournaments as a sunk cost right off the bat.