Well, both berger AND swiss have their appealing points, but as I understood about present situation, organizers are having some difficulties organizing a swiss as it requires a well organized software (it's usually managed with progs like "SwissPerfect or alike); therefore a Berger seems a bit more "manageable" for a moment. Concerning claymore's fears that all higher ranket player would pick up all the "scalps" over the lower ranked ones, there IS a solution for that, too - for example, a certain future would-be round-robin could limit its participants according to their rating. For example: round-robin 1 min/game, limited to 8 players rated from 1800-2000. Sound quite ok to me.
Current tournament score system IS interesting...but...why not keeping a "normal" score system as well, at least as an "alternative" option, for the ones who want to participate in a tournament with "standard" scoring system?
I already suggested something like this...
- Pools of 8 or 10 players
- Each plays against the other
- Initially, the pools are arranged according to rating
- Abolish the 'side by side' rating, which is meaningless
- Each week, the top and bottom couple of players are promoted or relegated between pools
- Pool A might have players 2000+, Pool B for those on 1800-1999, Pool C for 1600-1799, Pool D for 1400-1599, and Pool E for 1399 or less
- This would give people the chance to play those about their own level and then get to higher pools as they improve, or go to lower ones if they are beaten too often
- Pools of 8 or 10 players
- Each plays against the other
- Initially, the pools are arranged according to rating
- Abolish the 'side by side' rating, which is meaningless
- Each week, the top and bottom couple of players are promoted or relegated between pools
- Pool A might have players 2000+, Pool B for those on 1800-1999, Pool C for 1600-1799, Pool D for 1400-1599, and Pool E for 1399 or less
- This would give people the chance to play those about their own level and then get to higher pools as they improve, or go to lower ones if they are beaten too often
In my opinion it would be far more popular than standard pools
I'm sure that there won't be much trouble developing an effective Swiss pairing mechanism. We're all pretty skilled programmers and mathematicians back here.
Well, great then; we're all eagerly waiting for that to happen here - the sooner, the better...
...I agree... but also round robin would be great.
Sure. I believe we may more or less conclude the following: round-robin is great solution for a limited number of players (of similar rating) and a swiss is great, too, and it doesn't need a limitation in number of participants/players. The only about swiss is - do we need to somewhat limit player's ratings for it, too?
Swiss is designed to work with players of varying ratings as well.
The primary sort is the swiss rank ( +1 for win, +1/2 for draw, 0 for loss ), and the secondary sort is rating. So, as long as there's enough players, there's no need to break up the players into rating groups.
This is what the pools are based on, hence why I'm opposed to demands to break the players up into rating groups and then waiting a week to re-organise the groups - it's too slow, and problematic. There are 600+ new accounts made daily, you can imagine the implications if a higher/lower level player joined this circuit - they'd immediately be a big/small fish.
The only difference between Swiss tournaments and the current Pools is a change of the ranking method ( +1 Win, 0 Draw, -1 Loss ), and the wavelength ( some periodicity < average game length ), to a wavelength marginally longer than the maximum game length. Then adding a starting point and fixed number of rounds.
Just a bit of backstory. Pools use "+1, 0, -1" compared to "+1, 1/2, 0" because the former system starts you half-way up the ladder. You can either move up or down the ladder. But the latter system starts you at the bottom of the ladder, this has obvious problems.
The issue with pools is the amount of players, always has, and always will be. The amount of players using pools is the amount of players using pools. Breaking the players up into divisions in the above example will not create new players out of thin air. The current system is highly scalable, the more players the better and more appropriate the pairings. All you're going to do is isolate players by adding divisions in the way you have proposed.
I recommend you sit on this idea until there are enough players. The idea of 'league' matches has been brought up in the past. It requires much more players, and much more organisation.
The primary sort is the swiss rank ( +1 for win, +1/2 for draw, 0 for loss ), and the secondary sort is rating. So, as long as there's enough players, there's no need to break up the players into rating groups.
This is what the pools are based on, hence why I'm opposed to demands to break the players up into rating groups and then waiting a week to re-organise the groups - it's too slow, and problematic. There are 600+ new accounts made daily, you can imagine the implications if a higher/lower level player joined this circuit - they'd immediately be a big/small fish.
The only difference between Swiss tournaments and the current Pools is a change of the ranking method ( +1 Win, 0 Draw, -1 Loss ), and the wavelength ( some periodicity < average game length ), to a wavelength marginally longer than the maximum game length. Then adding a starting point and fixed number of rounds.
Just a bit of backstory. Pools use "+1, 0, -1" compared to "+1, 1/2, 0" because the former system starts you half-way up the ladder. You can either move up or down the ladder. But the latter system starts you at the bottom of the ladder, this has obvious problems.
The issue with pools is the amount of players, always has, and always will be. The amount of players using pools is the amount of players using pools. Breaking the players up into divisions in the above example will not create new players out of thin air. The current system is highly scalable, the more players the better and more appropriate the pairings. All you're going to do is isolate players by adding divisions in the way you have proposed.
I recommend you sit on this idea until there are enough players. The idea of 'league' matches has been brought up in the past. It requires much more players, and much more organisation.
Scoring is not the only difference; one major difference between Swiss-system tournaments and the current pools is that with a Swiss system, you don't get paired against the same opponent twice (or in the generalized case, 1+n where n is the min. number some players have been paired together).
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.