- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

Mailbag: OTB Tournaments

#2

for me, who have never played outside of Europe, but hearing that one might be expected to bring their own chess sets to an official tournament is a whole new level of it
To be fair, many kid tournaments in our country have the "one set for every odd player" rule, meaning that each group of players coming together (usually from the same club) has to bring the number of sets equal to half of their count rounded up. It's much less common in adult rapid tournaments, though, and I have never seen it in classical tournaments.

A standard structure in Magic: the Gathering is to have a Swiss portion followed by a single elimination top eight for the championship.
This format is surely better than the pure elimination system but for some part of the player pool it would still mean that they do not know in advance how long they are going to play (and stay). This probably works for top level players (IIRC the blitz world championship was played this way) who are either full professionals or have very flexible work arrangement. Not so much for those who only have chess as a hobby and need to plan their time schedule, expenses and vacation days in advance.

I suspect this appeal for elimination system (which I personally consider horrible idea in general) may have something to do with the American mentality where "the winner takes it all" and nothing else matters. (Hikaru Nakamura had some interesting thoughts about this when reacting to the Christopher Yoo incident.) When I participate in a tournament, I almost never think about winning it and I don't even think about the prizes much (they definitely don't play any role when deciding whether I'm going to join or not). And I also have other criteria than the final rank to decide if the tournament went well or not: the rating update, rating performance, whether I felt well about my games or if I feel that I sould have played better, ...

Likewise, if your playing strength at a reasonable rapid time control is significantly lower than your strength at an excessively long time control, you're probably over-relying on conscious deliberation to make up for weak intuition
A heretic thought: is it actually wrong? Is something inherently wrong with a less gifted player being able to make up for the lack of intuition and "feel" by thinking more deeply that it would justify discrimination of such players? If you like rapid more, you are welcome, play rapid. But why this crusade against longer (yes, "longer", not "excessive") time controls? The extra time may not be of much use for you; but that does not mean that it's of no use for anybody or that "slower" players who benefit from having more time are less valuable.

> for me, who have never played outside of Europe, but hearing that one might be expected to bring their own chess sets to an official tournament is a whole new level of it To be fair, many kid tournaments in our country have the "one set for every odd player" rule, meaning that each group of players coming together (usually from the same club) has to bring the number of sets equal to half of their count rounded up. It's much less common in adult rapid tournaments, though, and I have never seen it in classical tournaments. > A standard structure in Magic: the Gathering is to have a Swiss portion followed by a single elimination top eight for the championship. This format is surely better than the pure elimination system but for some part of the player pool it would still mean that they do not know in advance how long they are going to play (and stay). This probably works for top level players (IIRC the blitz world championship was played this way) who are either full professionals or have very flexible work arrangement. Not so much for those who only have chess as a hobby and need to plan their time schedule, expenses and vacation days in advance. I suspect this appeal for elimination system (which I personally consider horrible idea in general) may have something to do with the American mentality where "the winner takes it all" and nothing else matters. (Hikaru Nakamura had some interesting thoughts about this when reacting to the Christopher Yoo incident.) When I participate in a tournament, I almost never think about winning it and I don't even think about the prizes much (they definitely don't play any role when deciding whether I'm going to join or not). And I also have other criteria than the final rank to decide if the tournament went well or not: the rating update, rating performance, whether I felt well about my games or if I feel that I sould have played better, ... > Likewise, if your playing strength at a reasonable rapid time control is significantly lower than your strength at an excessively long time control, you're probably over-relying on conscious deliberation to make up for weak intuition A heretic thought: is it actually wrong? Is something inherently wrong with a less gifted player being able to make up for the lack of intuition and "feel" by thinking more deeply that it would justify discrimination of such players? If you like rapid more, you are welcome, play rapid. But why this crusade against longer (yes, "longer", not "excessive") time controls? The extra time may not be of much use for you; but that does not mean that it's of no use for anybody or that "slower" players who benefit from having more time are less valuable.
#5

960 has not been raised by you, but it is an obvious solution to get established older players such as myself to take part. South Africa also often has tournaments with up to 3 classical games per day. The young players like the opportunity to prove themselves, only to find the players who have already discovered what their peak is are not interested in giving away points to fitter, better prepared players. Whereas with 960/959 they can just jump in and play, and even if they don't do so well it does not affect the hard to come by classical standard points. By no means is it normally a plus to have something FIDE rated.

World championship time limits should be reserved for that and events linked to that. Hybrid (invigilated online) is necessary for qualification stages and expenses paid for finals, as so many players drop out because of travel expenses even at the regional level.

Black should always get more time than white e.g. 30+30 vs 40+30 (blitz 3+5 vs 4+5). Look at the top games and you will mostly see black having burnt a lot of time to prevent an opening loss (certainly a good use of time).

Rapid could be divided into fast rapid 15+10 and a longer standard.

With only 6 rounds or 5, one slip, possibly still in opponent's prep, is enough to make all the 3 hours game a trying experience. A faster time limit enables more rounds.

The problem with stretching the days of a classical tournament is again the increased costs. Playing classical at 60+10 makes 3 games a day more manageable. Long breaks help locals, who can relax at home.

Classical (when necessary) Saturday Game 1 10h, game 2 13h, game 3 16h, Sunday prize giving 30 minutes after 13h round 5 finishes. Obviously if instead of 60+10 we use 30 + 10, around 9 rounds is feasible.

960 has not been raised by you, but it is an obvious solution to get established older players such as myself to take part. South Africa also often has tournaments with up to 3 classical games per day. The young players like the opportunity to prove themselves, only to find the players who have already discovered what their peak is are not interested in giving away points to fitter, better prepared players. Whereas with 960/959 they can just jump in and play, and even if they don't do so well it does not affect the hard to come by classical standard points. By no means is it normally a plus to have something FIDE rated. World championship time limits should be reserved for that and events linked to that. Hybrid (invigilated online) is necessary for qualification stages and expenses paid for finals, as so many players drop out because of travel expenses even at the regional level. Black should always get more time than white e.g. 30+30 vs 40+30 (blitz 3+5 vs 4+5). Look at the top games and you will mostly see black having burnt a lot of time to prevent an opening loss (certainly a good use of time). Rapid could be divided into fast rapid 15+10 and a longer standard. With only 6 rounds or 5, one slip, possibly still in opponent's prep, is enough to make all the 3 hours game a trying experience. A faster time limit enables more rounds. The problem with stretching the days of a classical tournament is again the increased costs. Playing classical at 60+10 makes 3 games a day more manageable. Long breaks help locals, who can relax at home. Classical (when necessary) Saturday Game 1 10h, game 2 13h, game 3 16h, Sunday prize giving 30 minutes after 13h round 5 finishes. Obviously if instead of 60+10 we use 30 + 10, around 9 rounds is feasible.
#6

@DuffyMaksymilian said in #3:

I prefer otb to online.
I agree it
I am having a 1565 fide rating on OTB and online rating of 1452
Lol

@DuffyMaksymilian said in #3: > I prefer otb to online. I agree it I am having a 1565 fide rating on OTB and online rating of 1452 Lol
#7

wow this man is devoted.
Also, I stand by my opinion that LONGER OTB IS BETTER. Faster time limits aren't my thing. If you make it faster, you won't have enough time to think. 3 rounds a day? Not enough experience for the vigorous tournaments like world open or cadets with longer controls. Therefore, longer OTB should stay. Perhaps for a casual player, they can choose between two schedules, like longer controls and shorter, though I wouldn't play chess if longer controls are eradicated.

wow this man is devoted. Also, I stand by my opinion that LONGER OTB IS BETTER. Faster time limits aren't my thing. If you make it faster, you won't have enough time to think. 3 rounds a day? Not enough experience for the vigorous tournaments like world open or cadets with longer controls. Therefore, longer OTB should stay. Perhaps for a casual player, they can choose between two schedules, like longer controls and shorter, though I wouldn't play chess if longer controls are eradicated.
#8
<Comment deleted by user>
#9

I also liked Alex’s suggestion of a 30+30 time control, which would ensure players have time to keep notation throughout the game, while removing excessively long thinks in the opening. In general, time trouble addicts spend far too much time early in the game, when it’s least valuable, so this time control would go a long way towards saving them from themselves.

We have run a few 30+30 time control tournaments in Adelaide Australia. Unfortunately they can't be FIDE rated for players over 1800, but can be nationally rated. Technically they are a short Classical, but they can feel a bit more like a long Rapid game. Whilst the 30 minute start time is short, the 30 second increment can still extend well beyond 2 hours for a long game.

Another alternative is a 60+10 (which is also restricted to under 1800 FIDE) where the start time is an hour, but the 10 second increment means games don't extend too long. Although with 10 second increment players often stop writing their moves down under 5 minutes, which has it's own issues (like claiming 3x repetition or other disputes).

In contrast, most chess tournaments are Swiss System, where every player plays every round. I wouldn’t suggest a straight elimination format for most chess tournaments – it would truly suck to travel to a tournament, lose one game, and be out – but it’s possible to combine the two formats. A standard structure in Magic: the Gathering is to have a Swiss portion followed by a single elimination top eight for the championship.

We've had a couple of tournaments with a Swiss then playoffs for the top 4. 95% of the players leave after the Swiss is completed with a handful of dedicated chess fans/family/friends watching the playoffs. Perhaps a bar/drinks or something else might have kept more people for the playoffs.

> I also liked Alex’s suggestion of a 30+30 time control, which would ensure players have time to keep notation throughout the game, while removing excessively long thinks in the opening. In general, time trouble addicts spend far too much time early in the game, when it’s least valuable, so this time control would go a long way towards saving them from themselves. We have run a few 30+30 time control tournaments in Adelaide Australia. Unfortunately they can't be FIDE rated for players over 1800, but can be nationally rated. Technically they are a short Classical, but they can feel a bit more like a long Rapid game. Whilst the 30 minute start time is short, the 30 second increment can still extend well beyond 2 hours for a long game. Another alternative is a 60+10 (which is also restricted to under 1800 FIDE) where the start time is an hour, but the 10 second increment means games don't extend too long. Although with 10 second increment players often stop writing their moves down under 5 minutes, which has it's own issues (like claiming 3x repetition or other disputes). > In contrast, most chess tournaments are Swiss System, where every player plays every round. I wouldn’t suggest a straight elimination format for most chess tournaments – it would truly suck to travel to a tournament, lose one game, and be out – but it’s possible to combine the two formats. A standard structure in Magic: the Gathering is to have a Swiss portion followed by a single elimination top eight for the championship. We've had a couple of tournaments with a Swiss then playoffs for the top 4. 95% of the players leave after the Swiss is completed with a handful of dedicated chess fans/family/friends watching the playoffs. Perhaps a bar/drinks or something else might have kept more people for the playoffs.