Talk:Tie-breaking in Swiss system tournaments

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tie-breaking in Swiss system tournaments article.
Article policies
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.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-Importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Rename

If the article's only purpose is to describe chess-related tiebreaking procedures, that should be made clear in the title. I propose a move to Tiebreaks in chess or the like. (The non-hyphenated spelling is generally accepted and I prefer it.) Tiebreaker already exists but there's enough material on this page that it can stand on its own. youngvalter 03:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if these systems are used other than in chess or not. I din't know about the other article. I used the hyphen because the USCF rulebook does it that way, but I'll go along without the hyphen. Bubba73 (talk), 03:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
"Tiebreak" (without hyphen) is not a standard word, but "tiebreaker" is. Bubba73 (talk), 03:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
It seems like some of these methods might be used in Go. Even so, the title as it stands now would encompass all games and sports. Maybe Tie-break systems in chess then? youngvalter 21:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Probably all of these can be used in Swiss-system tournaments, so maybe it should be Swiss system tie-breaks or Swiss system tiebreakers. Some of the methods can also be used in Round Robin tournaments. Bubba73 (talk), 21:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
These tiebreakers are also used in Go tournaments, but the names are slightly different. I think leaving the title as it is is preferable.--ZincBelief (talk) 11:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sonneborn-Berger / Neustadtl / Gelbfuhs

The article currently states that what we commonly call the Sonneborn-Berger system was in fact invented by Oscar Gelbfuhs, citing a book by Kennth Harkness. I don't have the Harkness book, but do have the Oxford Companion to Chess (OCC). It says that Gelbfuhs' method was different to Neustadtl's (which is what we know today as Sonneborn-Berger), though it worked on the same principle. Gelbfuhs' method was designed for tournaments where participants play an unequal number of games. To quote the OCC: "Each defeated opponent's score is divided by the total number of games played by that opponent; for each opponent drawing, half the score is similarly divided. The sum of these fractions is a player's Gelbfuhs score." Of course, in cases when all players have played the same number of games (the only situation when Neustadtl can be used), the finishing order generated by Neustadtl and Gelbfuhs will be the same, but Gelbfuhs' method is clearly unnecessarily complicated for modern touraments. (The OCC asserts, incidentally, that Neustadtl made no mention of Gelbfuhs when he proposed his own system, though who knows whether this was sly appropriation or an innocent coincidence.)

I don't really have the time to fix all this up (and as I say, I don't have the Harkness book anyway, which for all I know provides absolutely certain proof that the generally reliable OCC is mistaken), so I'm just sticking this info in here in the hope it'll be of use to somebody. I might get round to it one day if nobody else does. --Camembert 17:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to sort this out and understand it. The Harkness book doesn't mention Neustadtl at all, and neither does Golombek's Encyclopedia of Chess, which I just got today. Golombek also says the S-B method came from Gelbfuhs, in 1873. BTW, I appreciate you help in this topic. Bubba73 (talk), 00:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
The Oxford Companion seems to be more complete than Harkness or Golombek, but I'm still a little confused. Bubba73 (talk), 00:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Armageddon blitz games

"Armageddon" games (White gets more time but must win) as adopted by FIDE should be mentioned. In fact FIDE's whole tiebreaking method for the 2007 world championship could be mentioned. (it's here in Section 3.7) youngvalter 21:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kashdan

The Kashdan system is designed so that a win and a loss is better than two draws. However, it has some strange effects: three losses are better than one draw and two unplated games; five loses are better than one draw and four unplayed games! Bubba73 (talk), 22:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

The article as it is now is quite good, but somewhat confusing. I found a link which is imo a bit clearer, at least in structure. It also explains the differences in terminology FIDE-USCF. Perhaps this article should have a similar structure. Here is the link: [1]. If nobody objects, I might have a go at this. Voorlandt 12:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection. I wrote most of the article, but I'm only familiar with the USCF and not FIDE. Bubba73 (talk), 23:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed {Globalize/USA} tag

I removed the tag that says that the article is USA-centric, which has been there for several months. I couldn't find anything on Swiss system tie-breaks used in different countries. A book by the US Chess Federation (USCF) is used as a reference for the technical details of the tie-break systems. In addition, there is a little bit about the order in which the USCF recomends they be applied. But this isn't mandatory for a US tournament, the director can use any order he wants to (stated beforehand, of course). So if anyone has any information about the Swiss tie-breakers used outside the US, please add it. Bubba73 (talk), 00:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)