Talk:Swiss system tournament

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chess. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Chess Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-Importance on the importance scale.
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:

Contents

[edit] Odd number of rounds

Can somebody explain why in chess tournaments usually have odd number of rounds, not even ? There is some good reason for this, it even compensates the fact that u cannot play the same number of games with white and black. But I forgot the reason :(

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.188.85.61 (talk) 22:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

The reason is that with an even number of rounds, it is hard to maintain color equity between black and white. With 5 rounds, usually everyone will be 3-2 or 2-3. With 6 rounds it would be very diffuclt or impossible to make everyone 3-3, under normal Swiss pairing rules. Players probably would object to being 2-4. Bubba73 (talk), 21:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Konrad and Monrad

Under "Variations of the Swiss system" 194.48.84.1 changed the name of the flexible system described from Konrad to Monrad. What is described is definately the Konrad. Monrad is very similar to the Swiss System proper, although it does not take the ELO rating into account as much as the Konrad system. Monrad is a common tournament system in Norway, and far more popular than Konrad, but I did not feel it merited separate mention due to its similarity with Swiss. 129.177.61.123 08:10, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] accelerated pairings

Another modification of the Swiss system is "accelerated pairings", which is to reduce perfect scores faster. Players are ranked according to their rating and in the first round the top 1/4 plays the second 1/4, the third 1/4 plays the botton 1/4. In the second round, winners in the top half play each other, losers in the top half play winners in the bottom half, and losers in the bottom half play each other. It almost has the effect of another round. Someone can write this up, or maybe I'll get around to it after checking the details. Bubba73 (talk), 03:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I went ahead and did it. Bubba73 (talk), 03:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rounds and matches/games

Although single-elimination games have the same number of rounds as a swiss tournament, they do not have the same number of matches or games. With 8 players, there are 7 games in a single-elimination tournament, while in swiss style, there are 12.70.111.251.203 02:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes. assuming that there are three rounds in an 8 player Swiss. But large Swiss tournaments usually don't have the optimal number of rounds per number of players. Bubba73 (talk), 14:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Double-Elimination

Someone care to compare Swiss with double elimination? 70.111.251.203 13:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, they are completly different. In a double elimination, two losses and you are out of the tournament. In a Swiss, everyone plays all rounds, total number of points wins. Bubba73 (talk), 13:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation

I think there should be a better explanation, perhaps a picture from a chess tournament that used it? A visual would help compare it to the other systems out there. (They have pictures).70.111.251.203 13:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Karpov on Swiss

Karpov recently said he didn't like the Swiss and commented on why. Might be a nice add in the disadvantages section, full info in a video (currently bottom of list) found here

[edit] Text removed from "analysis, advantages and disadvantages"

I have removed the following text from the analysis section

"However, this system does NOT work well if players are not properly seeded. For example, say a major squash tournament, like the British Junior Open (BJO) has 64 players in a specific age group. Players in the BJO will be seeded as per the latest European Squash Federation (ESF) rankings. Say there is one top player from Canada who does not have an ESF ranking and is therefore NOT seeded in the tournament. Say this player is randomly drawn to play the 1st seed in the tournament. If this top international player looses in the first round, the best he or she can come is 32nd. Other weaker players may advance and the outcome is not a true reflection of the positions obtained."

The text seems based upon a misunderstanding of the Swiss System. The Swiss is not a knock-out tournament, even when it comes to the competition for first place. It is perfectly possible for a player who loses the first round to win the tournament simply by scoring the most points. It is not so that in a 64-player field, players losing round 1 compete for positions 33-64. If there are many players and few rounds, a first-round loss might knock you out of contention for first place, but if you proceed to win the rest of your games you are virtually assured at least a high spot.

If you look at this crosstable from a Norwegian Swiss-system tournament, you will see that the winner of group A lost the first round, but 4.5/6 points was still enough to win the tournament in the end. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)