Backgammon Mailing List 23 May 2001
Michael Crane
Join the debate on the Biba Message Board. Have your say and make your vote
count by going to http://www.backgammon-biba.co.uk/ and clicking on the
message board.
Michael Crane
Biba & MSO
Osman Guner
many participants and too few rounds? For some time I thought swiss would
be a nice format for backgammon tournaments, but I am starting back off from
this idea.
First, the obvious problem with the dependancy on the quality of ratings for
more accurate pairings. A bigger problem, I think, is the level of
granularity (or lack thereof)... whereas in chess you can divide the group
into three piles after the first round, in backgammon you will have only
two: winners and losers. Hence, you may have to put more rounds into the
tournament in order to have a better differentiation of performance. The
increased number of rounds will also minimize the unfortunate consequences
of forced "unfair" pairings, etc. However, this may defeat the purpose of
swiss (to obtain a clear winner out of a large group of players within a
small number of rounds).
On the other hand, I can see some benefits too like everybody gets to play
all the rounds. What is your reason for chosing a rather unconventional
format? ... or maybe this is the norm in the UK.
Cheers...osman
--
Osman Guner
os...@san.rr.com
"Michael Crane" <michael...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:90UO6.17621$m93.2...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Michael Crane
had just four tournaments a year and to give players maximum playing
opportunities I ran them all as Swiss. Because they were Ranking Tournaments
the main benefit was that everyone played the same number of matches and
their rankings were dependent upon their performance. Gradually, over the
years I have grown from four to twelve tournaments a year and now offer both
formats and a combination of the two.
Many players prefer the Swiss format as they are never 'knocked out' in the
first round. If you read Paul's Epistle you'll see that this fact is the
reason for his letter - the big problem with Swiss is deciding a position
within the tournament; hence I have used the sum of opponents' scores. It
might not be an ideal way but no-one, even Paul who devised that one, has
come up with anything better.
Michael
"Osman Guner" <os...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:H4_O6.11007$Ox.68...@typhoon.san.rr.com...
JP White
>
> Biba has both Swiss and KO tournaments. Initially, when I founded Biba we
> had just four tournaments a year and to give players maximum playing
> opportunities I ran them all as Swiss. Because they were Ranking Tournaments
> the main benefit was that everyone played the same number of matches and
> their rankings were dependent upon their performance. Gradually, over the
> years I have grown from four to twelve tournaments a year and now offer both
> formats and a combination of the two.
>
> Many players prefer the Swiss format as they are never 'knocked out' in the
> first round. If you read Paul's Epistle you'll see that this fact is the
> reason for his letter - the big problem with Swiss is deciding a position
> within the tournament; hence I have used the sum of opponents' scores. It
> might not be an ideal way but no-one, even Paul who devised that one, has
> come up with anything better.
>
> Michael
You seem to know quite a bit about the Swiss Format.
Is there a description on the net somewhere that explains how this type
tournament is run?
I'm interested in alternative formats. At the Nashville BG Club the
members like round robin format because they get to play a lot. However
round robin is awkward when you have more than 6 players. Would the
swiss format be appropriate or not?
JP
--
JP White
mailto:jpwh...@bellsouth.net
Douglas Zare
> [...]
> Is there a description on the net somewhere that explains how this type
> tournament is run?
http://scichess.org/faq/swiss.html is one of many possibilities.
> I'm interested in alternative formats. At the Nashville BG Club the
> members like round robin format because they get to play a lot. However
> round robin is awkward when you have more than 6 players. Would the
> swiss format be appropriate or not?
In my experience, the Swiss system is very good when the number of players is
about 2^(# rounds). There are quite a few hybrid systems that one can use such as
using a Swiss system to seed single elimination rounds if you have between n and
2^n players and want to have time to play n rounds. However, if one tries to
follow the Swiss procedure with too few players, the result might be that the top
players play each other repeatedly, possibly with meaningless matches at the end.
One problem with the Swiss system: The incentives are often unequal for "odd"
opponents who have different scores, particularly in the last two rounds. For
example, in the last round of a minor tournament (5 rounds, 29 players), I played
the only person with a perfect record. Since I won, I split first place with 5
people (worth $150), and if I had lost or drawn I would have gotten nothing,
whereas my opponent would have had a clear first place finish ($400) if he had won
or drawn, but instead he shared first place. So, between the two of us, we would
get $400 if he won and $300 if I won. This imbalance means that it would be
rational for him to offer me $200 to resign once I had a winning position; we
would both be $50 better off, and 3 people would be $33 worse off splitting second
place. Of course, in chess, this would result in a double forfeit if caught. In
backgammon, though, players may be used to hedging, and who would fault a player
with no chance of winning money for giving up against an opponent who can while
trailing Crawford 7-away at 2 am? This suggests that one should use a hybrid
system, or make sure that there are at least token incentives for players not to
throw matches in the last round. Of course, the problem is much smaller for the
Swiss system than for a round robin format.
On the logistical side, most people don't have to wait for the last game of the
previous round to finish for the next round of a round robin tournament to be
played, but by some pairing rules for the Swiss system one does have to wait.
Tournament directors seem to look more stressed under the Swiss system.
Douglas Zare
Walter Trice
too
> many participants and too few rounds? For some time I thought swiss would
> be a nice format for backgammon tournaments, but I am starting back off
from
> this idea.
>
> First, the obvious problem with the dependancy on the quality of ratings
for
> more accurate pairings. A bigger problem, I think, is the level of
> granularity (or lack thereof)... whereas in chess you can divide the group
> into three piles after the first round, in backgammon you will have only
> two: winners and losers.
Just a thought... how about having each pair of players play a pair of
matches? E. g., in place of one 7 point match have two 3 point matches. That
way you could have in effect wins, losses, and draws :-)
-- Walter Trice
neghe Onegu
I think you can avoid Douglas Problem by eleminating the winner.
Why should the final always be the last game?
A soon as someone is the only one with the highest score he is
declared winner and eleminated. If you have one next round again he is
second and eleminated.
So with 29 you have one or two eleminated in the last round instead
of 27.
Swiss system will serve backgammon I think. It is designed for those
who want to play. Ko is designed for those who want to win. After one
loss you can't longer win the tourney so you stop playing. In Swiss
you go on playing wether you win or not.
At Swiss chess tourneys, people have fun winnig less then 50%, they
are happy getting a Grand Master first round against whom they surely
will loose. Suppose they won't be happy about that if they are send
home after first round.
In Swiss system if you play say 7 rounds you have propably always a
reason to come back next year. If you didn't win any match last year
you try to win one this year and two next year and one more every
year.
Swiss seem's ok for both those who want the money and those who wan't
the fun.
Douglas Zare <za...@math.columbia.edu> wrote in message
news:<3B0DF157...@math.columbia.edu>...
spurs
As an extra... in subsequent rounds through the whole tournament there will
be more than one interesting match for the spectacle!
--
spurs
Roy Passfield @ Oxnard, California
http://www.dock.net/spurs
"Making a living is NOT the same as making a life"
(Roy Passfield, 1999)
"neghe Onegu" <artur...@yahoo.de> wrote in message
news:58b1388.01060...@posting.google.com...
Gregg Cattanach
good effect, and as far as I can tell, all the players like it. There are 8
rounds of Swiss, and you keep playing in all rounds unless you accumulate 4
losses. All of the players with 2,1 or 0 losses go into a knockout bracket
(progressively seeded based on the number of wins), for the championship.
The players with 3 losses compete in the consolation flight.
It works out really well, and keeps most everyone playing a lot of
backgammon. But it also has the finals knockout brackets which leads to the
clear-cut winner effect that seems important in BG tournaments. A little
bit of both worlds, and it is always expertly run by Butch and Mary Ann
Meese (this format takes GREAT skill by the organizers, not for the novice
:)
See their web site at: http://home.att.net/~meese/49indopn.htm
Gregg Cattanach
Zox at GamesGrid, Zone
http://gateway.to/backgammon
gcattana...@prodigy.net
"spurs" <sp...@dock.net> wrote in message
news:PjuT6.657$7d.9...@newshog.newsread.com...
Hank Youngerman
thoughts:
1) Swiss is NOT good for people who feel "I can't win money anymore,
why am I playing?"
2) The best number of rounds for a Swiss, in my opinion, is MORE than
is needed for a clear winner. As a result, even after you lose a
match you still have a chance to win the event.
3) There is no need whatsoever for ratings. You pair the first round
randomly, and thereafter pairings are based on record. You can, if
you choose, seed the first round by pairing the top half of the field
against the bottom half, but I think that in backgammon that would be
a pretty bad idea. It's possible, though.
4) The suggestion of having each round be a number of shorter matches
rather than one longer one is quite a good one. The number of shorter
matches does not have to be an odd number. You do NOT score it as
"best of." If you play 7 rounds where each round is 2 3-point
matches, the maximum possible score is 14.
5) Collusion is always a possibility, but you really can't KNOW what
is going to happen behind you. Also, if you don't weight the prize
money so heavily toward first, it won't be as much of a problem.
6) In the later rounds of the event, it will get more awkward to make
pairings for round N until round N-1 is completed. The American
Contract Bridge League has a program that does a very nice job of
Swiss pairings, but it is available only to sanction ACBL tournaments
and clubs. They might license it though.
7) The best thing about a Swiss is that no one is ever elimnated. You
came to play backgammon and you get to play backgammon.
8) Another thing is that it materially reduces the factor of random
byes. So long as you have an even number of players, you never have
byes.
9) Withdrawals are easy to handle. If someone is doing badly and
wants to leave, you just let them drop out. It's more convenient of
course if they drop out in pairs. However, since you always assign a
bye to the lowest-scoring player, byes will almost never affect the
top placings. Also, in the event that you run an event with three
short matches per round, you can conveniently assign a score of 2-1
for a bye.
10) If you MUST break ties, strength of opposition is a good
tiebreaker, but why break them at all? Even if - let's say that thrd
place pays $100 and 4th pays $50, and you have a tie for 3rd-6th.
Just pay each one $37.50.
11) One EXELLENT reason for a swiss is that you can combine divisions.
If you want to be "fair" you can do the following. You have a single
event. Championship players pay $200, Intermediate players pay $100.
The event is paired as though it is one event. When it is over, you
create two separate prize lists, one from among those in the
Championship, the other from among those in the Intermeidate. If you
finsih 4th but the top 3 are all Championship (and you are
Intermediate) you are first in Intermediate. This means that
Intermediate players can compete financially with other Intermediates,
but over-the-board with the better players.
12) If you want to create a more fun tournament which may not be as
fair financially - you can run a single event with a single prize list
and charge players according to their level. Or if you haee a rating
sytem, you can handicap it based on rating.
13) It IS a drawback that the pacing can be uneven. In an elimination
tournament, you know who you play and can focus on that match. In a
Swiss, your next assignment is based more on when the whole bracket
finishes. Howver it is not ridiculous to do this: Schedule rounds for
fixed times - say, Round 1 at noon, Round 2 at 1:15, Round 3 at 2:30,
etc. If a match runs overtime, you assign both players a temporary
win solely for pairing purposes, then have them finish the match
during a break and correct the temporary scores. Obviously though,
you won't want to do that in the last few rounds.
14) If you want to have a more important championship, you can do the
following. Hold a qualifying of, say, 8 rounds. Take a portion of
the field and they continue into the finals. Start them with a score
in the finals equal to a portion of their score in the qualifying (50%
seems most logical to me) and then have them play another set of 8
rounds, with replays from the qualifying stage permitted. You can
hold a consolation opposite the finals, with or without a new entry
fee, and using the same or a different format.
15) If you choose to, you can eliminate most of the field and let the
remainder play an extra round or two. For example, if you are paying
4 places, it will be quite difficult for someone ranked lower than
about 10th to advance to 4th within 2 rounds. So you could designate
the event to be 7 rounds,but the top 10 play two more rounds for a
total of 9.
16) If you are keeping a point system, this is great because you can
easily assign a small point award for each match won. (In a bridge
event that might award 20-40 masterpoints for winning, each match win
is worth about 1/3 of a masterpoint.) If you are keeping ratings, it
is even better! Obviously, you cannot enter Intermediate or Novice
matches into a rating system, because it's comparing apples and
oranges. But you can easily hold an open swiss with class prizes and
all the matches can be rated.
17) If you do hold an event where different classes play together, I
promise the following will happen. 3 intermediates, call them Moe,
Larry, and Curly, will all have a record of 5-2, pretty good day for
them. And some Championship player named Johannes will be 5-2, pretty
bad day for him. Moe will be assigned to play Larry, and Curly will
be assigned to play Johannes, and will whine and moan that he is an
INTERMEDIATE player and since 6-2 will win the Intermediate, he is not
supposed to have to play Johannes.
I hope this helps.
On Thu, 24 May 2001 02:10:47 GMT, "Osman Guner" <os...@san.rr.com>
wrote:
Michael Crane
Michael
"Hank Youngerman" <Red...@RedTopBG.com> wrote in message
news:3b2048e9....@netnews.att.net...
Nis Jørgensen
<michael...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Very comprehensive. Want a job, Hank?
Very long post, very little content. Want a course in quoting,
Michael?
--
Nis
Ric Gerace
And, Hank, take the job offer with a grain of salt. He offered me a job
once, but insisted I pay a $1,755.54 fee for processing paperwork.
Fortunately I had a dispensation from the Queen and didn't have to pay. But
if you like, you can forward the fee to me and I'll see that Crane gets his
fair share ($1.38, I think, more or less). Swiss money is fine.
Ric
--
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Work like you don't need the money, dance like nobody's watching, and love
like you've never been hurt...
Visit me at http://www.ricgerace.com
"Nis Jørgensen" <n...@dkik.dk> wrote in message
news:et14itkbm1ds9a2l2...@4ax.com...
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Michael Crane
"Nis Jørgensen" <n...@dkik.dk> wrote in message
news:et14itkbm1ds9a2l2...@4ax.com...
Michael Crane
Michael
"Ric Gerace" <rge...@cxxapecod.net> wrote in message
news:3b2368d7$1...@rti-ns1.runningtide.com...
Butch&Mary Ann Meese
Since I have the experience of running the Indy Swiss Format,
I would like to comments. We will be using the format at the
up and coming Indiana Open, Labor Day Weekend.
Hank Youngerman wrote:
>
> Swiss is used extensively and very successfully in bridge. A few
> thoughts:
>
> 1) Swiss is NOT good for people who feel "I can't win money anymore,
> why am I playing?"
I do not agree with this. With a min of 4 matches and an average of
over 7 matches per player, it is a great format to gain experience.
> 2) The best number of rounds for a Swiss, in my opinion, is MORE than
> is needed for a clear winner. As a result, even after you lose a
> match you still have a chance to win the event.
This is one of the positives for the Swiss. In a elimination type
format, when you lose can make a difference. But in the Swiss,
it is the total win-lose record after 8 rounds. A lost in the first
round is equal to lost in round 8.
> 3) There is no need whatsoever for ratings. You pair the first round
> randomly, and thereafter pairings are based on record. You can, if
> you choose, seed the first round by pairing the top half of the field
> against the bottom half, but I think that in backgammon that would be
> a pretty bad idea. It's possible, though.
No more seeding of players. Everyone is equal.
> 4) The suggestion of having each round be a number of shorter matches
> rather than one longer one is quite a good one. The number of shorter
> matches does not have to be an odd number. You do NOT score it as
> "best of." If you play 7 rounds where each round is 2 3-point
> matches, the maximum possible score is 14.
> 5) Collusion is always a possibility, but you really can't KNOW what
> is going to happen behind you. Also, if you don't weight the prize
> money so heavily toward first, it won't be as much of a problem.
We do check if players have played before. But it if two players
have played before and they are the only two with a 6-1 record after
7 rounds, they play again. It happens.
> 6) In the later rounds of the event, it will get more awkward to make
> pairings for round N until round N-1 is completed. The American
> Contract Bridge League has a program that does a very nice job of
> Swiss pairings, but it is available only to sanction ACBL tournaments
> and clubs. They might license it though.
We do wait for a round to complete before starting the next round.
We do the draw if one match is not done, we include a WINNER and
LOSER. It works very nice. We have a schedule for each round and
we do not start before.
> 7) The best thing about a Swiss is that no one is ever elimnated. You
> came to play backgammon and you get to play backgammon.
This is how format was before I started making modifications. Players
DO NOT LIKE to play meanfulless(sp) matches. We eliminate players after
4
rounds in the Championship and Advanced Divisions. But if we
use the format for the Intermediate, no elimination: they want to play!
> 8) Another thing is that it materially reduces the factor of random
> byes. So long as you have an even number of players, you never have
> byes.
There are BYES. They count as a win. The BYES are awarded to the group
of players with the most loses. With 58 players, in the Championship
last year we only had 3 BYES.
> 9) Withdrawals are easy to handle. If someone is doing badly and
> wants to leave, you just let them drop out. It's more convenient of
> course if they drop out in pairs. However, since you always assign a
> bye to the lowest-scoring player, byes will almost never affect the
> top placings. Also, in the event that you run an event with three
> short matches per round, you can conveniently assign a score of 2-1
> for a bye.
We have never had a withdraw in the 7-8 years I have run it. Every
match
has meaning. Each win gets you closer to $$. Each match (round) is
worth
one point. KISS=Keep It Simple
> 10) If you MUST break ties, strength of opposition is a good
> tiebreaker, but why break them at all? Even if - let's say that thrd
> place pays $100 and 4th pays $50, and you have a tie for 3rd-6th.
> Just pay each one $37.50.
After 8 rounds, we switch to elimination type format according to w-l
record.
> 11) One EXELLENT reason for a swiss is that you can combine divisions.
> If you want to be "fair" you can do the following. You have a single
> event. Championship players pay $200, Intermediate players pay $100.
> The event is paired as though it is one event. When it is over, you
> create two separate prize lists, one from among those in the
> Championship, the other from among those in the Intermeidate. If you
> finsih 4th but the top 3 are all Championship (and you are
> Intermediate) you are first in Intermediate. This means that
> Intermediate players can compete financially with other Intermediates,
> but over-the-board with the better players.
No combining of divisions.
> 12) If you want to create a more fun tournament which may not be as
> fair financially - you can run a single event with a single prize list
> and charge players according to their level. Or if you haee a rating
> sytem, you can handicap it based on rating.
> 13) It IS a drawback that the pacing can be uneven. In an elimination
> tournament, you know who you play and can focus on that match. In a
> Swiss, your next assignment is based more on when the whole bracket
> finishes. Howver it is not ridiculous to do this: Schedule rounds for
> fixed times - say, Round 1 at noon, Round 2 at 1:15, Round 3 at 2:30,
> etc. If a match runs overtime, you assign both players a temporary
> win solely for pairing purposes, then have them finish the match
> during a break and correct the temporary scores. Obviously though,
> you won't want to do that in the last few rounds.
We wait until all matches for done for each round or as I stated
earlier.
Our schedule is such that we have not had any problems.
For those who get done early in the round, we run side events.
2-pt Quickie, MicroBlitz. Always something to do.
> 14) If you want to have a more important championship, you can do the
> following. Hold a qualifying of, say, 8 rounds. Take a portion of
> the field and they continue into the finals. Start them with a score
> in the finals equal to a portion of their score in the qualifying (50%
> seems most logical to me) and then have them play another set of 8
> rounds, with replays from the qualifying stage permitted. You can
> hold a consolation opposite the finals, with or without a new entry
> fee, and using the same or a different format.
> 15) If you choose to, you can eliminate most of the field and let the
> remainder play an extra round or two. For example, if you are paying
> 4 places, it will be quite difficult for someone ranked lower than
> about 10th to advance to 4th within 2 rounds. So you could designate
> the event to be 7 rounds,but the top 10 play two more rounds for a
> total of 9.
Everyone competes to 8 rounds or 4 losses. The numbers of places
paid is determined by the number of players.
> 16) If you are keeping a point system, this is great because you can
> easily assign a small point award for each match won. (In a bridge
> event that might award 20-40 masterpoints for winning, each match win
> is worth about 1/3 of a masterpoint.) If you are keeping ratings, it
> is even better! Obviously, you cannot enter Intermediate or Novice
> matches into a rating system, because it's comparing apples and
> oranges. But you can easily hold an open swiss with class prizes and
> all the matches can be rated.
> 17) If you do hold an event where different classes play together, I
> promise the following will happen. 3 intermediates, call them Moe,
> Larry, and Curly, will all have a record of 5-2, pretty good day for
> them. And some Championship player named Johannes will be 5-2, pretty
> bad day for him. Moe will be assigned to play Larry, and Curly will
> be assigned to play Johannes, and will whine and moan that he is an
> INTERMEDIATE player and since 6-2 will win the Intermediate, he is not
> supposed to have to play Johannes.
Labor Day Weekend provides 3 1/2 days to have a tournament.
I picked the Swiss format because it provides more backgammon for
a tournament of 3 1/2 days. It requires more work for the staff.
I have created a Excel spreadsheet to handle the paper work.
There are tradeoffs from using one format over another.
I sure there are some players who do not like it, but they simple
do not tell us and do not attend. But we are still using the format
after
8 plus years because players (my customers) tell me they like.
Come out and see for your...the proof is in the pudding.
Butch Meese
Director, Indiana Open
--
Hoosier Backgammon Club /\ /\
Home Page: http://home.att.net/~meese { `---' }
{ O O }
Butch & Mary Ann Meese ~~~~~> V <~~~~~
1008 Tuckahoe ~~~~\ \|/ /~~~~
Indianapolis IN 46260 `-----'__
(317) 255-8902 / \ `^\_
{ }\ |\_\_ _
Email: me...@worldnet.att.net | \_/ |/ / \_\_( )
\__/ /(_/ \__/
(__/