Galway Congress 2015

Pete Morriss

This is advance notice that the 2015 Galway Chess Congress will take place in the Menlo Park Hotel, from Friday 2nd to Sunday 4th October. Please mark in your diary. In response to feedback last year, we are thinking of changing the format by adopting an exciting new structure for the event. The basic idea is that the sections will be "porous" rather than rigid, so that players who win can automatically float up, to play people from the section above theirs. A full explanation of how this would work can be found at the Congress link on our website. [I can't post links here, but go to GalwayChess [dot] com, and then Galway Congress 2015.] We very much welcome feedback on this idea, as well as proposals for improving it or pointing out drawbacks which we haven’t considered. Please either post your responses to the Congress page at the link above, or send them privately to us at galwaychess [at] gmail [dot] com - or, of course, discuss it here, but we will pay more attention to comments that are not anonymous.

Mustafa Chess

This is a wind up ?
"Porous"? "An exciting new structure for the event" ?

I played last year, but I am afraid to now play this year.

"players who win can automatically float up, to play people from the section above theirs."

sure maybe some can sprout wings and fly away with a pawn or two extra hidden in their shoe.

Lucena

Direct link here:

http://www.galwaychess.com/galway-congress-2015/

I've just had a look at the proposal, isn't it just the same as an Open with accelerated pairings?

Mustafa Chess

Lucena wrote: »

I've just had a look at the proposal, isn't it just the same as an Open with accelerated pairings?

It's Greek to me. I find chess a bit complex, but this is much harder. Anybody able to break it down to a sentence or two?

Pete Morriss

Lucena wrote: »

I've just had a look at the proposal, isn't it just the same as an Open with accelerated pairings?

No, it's a hybrid of an accelerated Open and a sectioned tournament. As we try to explain on the website, after the accelerated pairing finishes it becomes a normal sectioned tournament. Also, I'm not aware of any tournament in Ireland that has used this sort of accelerated pairing, so that would be new in itself.

brilliantboy

Excellent idea. Looking forward to seeing how it all plays out.
One thing you can count on is there'll be a few red faces in the higher sections.

reunion

Pete Morriss wrote: »

No, it's a hybrid of an accelerated Open and a sectioned tournament. As we try to explain on the website, after the accelerated pairing finishes it becomes a normal sectioned tournament. Also, I'm not aware of any tournament in Ireland that has used this sort of accelerated pairing, so that would be new in itself.

The idea is an interesting one but a little too unique to explain to anybody willing to part with money. It's just too complex. Like the 84, 94, 103, 108 and 110 seeds are joint in the 1200-1600 section on 3 points (4 N points) each but the 46th and 60th seed are on 2 points (1600+ section) and should be on 4 N points as well but it seems the 46th seed is playing the 60th and the 1200-1600 are playing each other. By round 5 have the sections reset to being based on ratings again? It certainly isn't clear.

I could see players withdrawing from the tournament after losing round 1. This system may be more suited to players who wish to play up rather than players who don't want to play down.

How about permitting say players rated within 200 points of the next section on 2 points after round 2, may play up in the next section starting on 0 points for the final 4 rounds? But have to declare that they wish to do this prior to the tournament starting?

Or how about a blitz tournament run using this technique? Might be a better way to test this out than a 3 day event with a substantially more cost wise to players.




Personally I think if you are going to permit people to play up sections based on performance, do so based upon their recent (other tournament) performances. So if their rating performance (say 1600 rating performance for a 1400 rated player) is greater than the next section rating requirement or they scored 4/6 or greater in a similar section (in this case a 1200 - 1600 section) within the last year in Ireland, they would be permitted to play up.

Lucena

I hope this comes across as constructive criticism, but to be honest, if the system is too complicated for people to understand, it's likely to put a lot of people off. I wouldn't sign up if I didn't know exactly how it would work.

Why not have three sections with overlap? So for example:

- Under 1700
- 1600 to 2000
- 1900 and over

e2e4 chess used to have certain tournaments (or maybe all of them) organised on this basis. That way, a 1635 who feels 'too strong' to play in the Under 1700 can 'play up'. A 1950 who wants to win a prize can stick to the 1600 - 2000 section. And it's certainly a lot easier for the public and organisers to understand and explain.

brilliantboy

reunion wrote: »

It's just too complex.

It's quite straightforward. You win your games or your next one might be against someone more appropriate to your strength. And if you don't win that one then maybe you should reconsider your inflated opinion of your chess ability

Mustafa Chess

That is not straight forward and has nothing to do with an inflated opinion of chess ability. Terms like "hybrid" are confusing. Why make it complex when it can be so simple. Have rating bands for example.

Open section anybody can play but price goes up if you are below a certain rating.
Challengers 1600 to 1999
Major 1200 to 1599
Minor under 1200

With a higher price in the Open section for people below say 1900 or 2000.

Problem solved!

If people want to play in the Open let them, just charge a higher price according to rating with standard fee over say 1900 or 2000 and then higher for players from say 1600 and the double that for anyone below that. Whats wrong with that?

Ficheall

reunion wrote: »

It's just too complex.

This is the only real problem with the idea, but not an insignificant one.

reunion wrote: »

Like the 84, 94, 103, 108 and 110 seeds are joint in the 1200-1600 section on 3 points (4 N points) each but the 46th and 60th seed are on 2 points (1600+ section) and should be on 4 N points as well but it seems the 46th seed is playing the 60th and the 1200-1600 are playing each other. By round 5 have the sections reset to being based on ratings again? It certainly isn't clear.

Rounds 1, 5, and 6 are all played against players in one's own original section. An example complete simulation is now up on the website, which might clarify things.

reunion wrote: »

I could see players withdrawing from the tournament after losing round 1. This system may be more suited to players who wish to play up rather than players who don't want to play down.

It probably is moreso a setup for optimists, aye. If you're having a bad weekend, then your rating will probably suffer more than in a normal tournament - but conversely, if you're having a good weekend, you could scoop a few extra points. This set-up would decrease the likelihood of a player ending up with extremes like 0 or 6 points.

reunion wrote: »

How about permitting say players rated within 200 points of the next section on 2 points after round 2, may play up in the next section starting on 0 points for the final 4 rounds? But have to declare that they wish to do this prior to the tournament starting?

Doesn't that mean that they can't win a prize at all? And affects those "left behind" in the lower group, favouring "submarines"?

reunion wrote: »

Or how about a blitz tournament run using this technique? Might be a better way to test this out than a 3 day event with a substantially more cost wise to players.

This probably would be a good idea, if there were a blitz tournament with such a large number of entrants.

reunion

brilliantboy wrote: »

It's quite straightforward. You win your games or your next one might be against someone more appropriate to your strength. And if you don't win that one then maybe you should reconsider your inflated opinion of your chess ability

This just isn't true. Statistically a 1400 v a 1700 player should work out as a score of ~0.2 (1400) to ~0.8 (1700). So the 1700 player is more likely to get 0.5 or 1 in the game. However, it IS possible the 1400 player can get a win in the game without being due to a poor performance or a good performance (so the 1700 player is still a 1700 player and the 1400 player is still a 1400 player). 1 game isn't enough to determine playing strength or even say someone is playing poorly.

Ficheall wrote: »

Doesn't that mean that they can't win a prize at all? And affects those "left behind" in the lower group, favouring "submarines"?

When someone wants to play up a section, it's never because they want the prize money. If they do, they can go for a grading prize. This is why they must say they wish to play up prior to the tournament starting.



If you step back a little and think about ALL the entrants, how does this affect them? A survey of players or an online chess tournament might be an idea?

This was an idea to cater for those looking to play up sections (And if they couldn't wouldn't play) and entice them to play in Galway. Personally, I believe that this would turn away some people who would have went if it were just standard sections.

The easiest (and best) solution, make 4 standard sections 0-1200, 1200-1600, 1600-2000, 2000+ (or 3, I can't remember for Galway) but charge an extra €15 (or maybe €20) per 100 point leeway. So if a 1400 wishes to play in the 1600-2000 section, they must pay entry fee + €30. €10 could go to the organisers back pockets for the hassle and €20 to a grading prize for players below say 1650/1700. That way the <1650/1700's who typically, would have to play these lower rated players have a chance at a larger prize (or an increased number of prizes), meaning the trade-off isn't that bad. The players who normally compete get access to more chances of prizes for playing players outside of their sections (effectively).

eclipsechaser

I think there's something to be said for overlapping sections. We saw in Gonzaga a fair few upsets at the top.

I played in Bournemouth last Summer. There was no restriction at all on lower rated players.


OPEN (Any player may enter)
CHALLENGERS (Under 165)
INTERMEDIATE (Under 135)
MINOR (Under 110)

People generally seemed to find the right level and there were no big abuses of the non-restriction.
Lowest rated player for:
Open 145
Challengers 123
Intermediate 99


Results are here: http://www.bournemouthchesscongress.org.uk/grand/archive/2014/php/crosstables.php

Lucena wrote: »

I hope this comes across as constructive criticism, but to be honest, if the system is too complicated for people to understand, it's likely to put a lot of people off. I wouldn't sign up if I didn't know exactly how it would work.

Why not have three sections with overlap? So for example:

- Under 1700
- 1600 to 2000
- 1900 and over

e2e4 chess used to have certain tournaments (or maybe all of them) organised on this basis. That way, a 1635 who feels 'too strong' to play in the Under 1700 can 'play up'. A 1950 who wants to win a prize can stick to the 1600 - 2000 section. And it's certainly a lot easier for the public and organisers to understand and explain.

Pete Morriss

reunion wrote: »

Like the 84, 94, 103, 108 and 110 seeds are joint in the 1200-1600 section on 3 points (4 N points) each but the 46th and 60th seed are on 2 points (1600+ section) and should be on 4 N points as well but it seems the 46th seed is playing the 60th and the 1200-1600 are playing each other. By round 5 have the sections reset to being based on ratings again? It certainly isn't clear.

Yes. I'm sorry if it wasn't clear; we have now changed the presentation on the website to try to make it clearer. The idea is that there will be head-to-head games to determine the section winners in rounds 5 and 6, which should be more exciting than if these prizes were decided, as grading prizes now are, in games against players not in contention.

Mustafa Chess

No need to be sorry. You have good intention but why make so much work for yourself and confusion.

Pete Morriss

Thanks for all your feedback – and also that sent to our email address and given to me in Bunratty. There seems to be quite a lot of misunderstanding about what the proposed system is, and it really isn’t particularly complicated to get the hang of it. It’s based on the view that people like playing opponents higher rated than them if they can. Obviously for everybody who has a higher rated opponent there is someone else who has a lower rated one, but at present there are people at the top of the lower sections who are prevented from playing anybody higher rated than them. So it is an attempt to allow a bit more flexibility. Yes, it is a hybrid; but if it is a hybrid that keeps the good bits and leaves out the bad, that is presumably an improvement. And anybody who doesn’t want to work out exactly how the system works can just turn up and play whoever they are drawn against – as most people do as it is.

@Lucena. Having overlapping rating bands, as you suggest, is what we do at the moment, since anybody rated 100 points below the advertised rating floor is allowed to “float up” if they wish. But this just moves the crucial cut-off point down 100 points, as most people who are eligible to float up choose to do so: over 80% did that over the last three years in Galway, for instance. So someone whose rating is just slightly too low to be allowed to float up is condemned to always playing weaker opponents.

@eclipsechaser. What works in England might not work here, particularly when people are not used to it. Some Irish tournaments adopt your suggested structure, with an Open alongside a tournament with a rating ceiling. In Limerick, for instance, there is an under-1400 tournament alongside an Open, but in the last Limerick tournament well over a quarter of the entrants in the Open were under 1400. I’m not sure how that would be more appealing to higher-rated players than this proposal.

@Mustafa Chess and Reunion. We have considered charging people more to play up, but rejected it, at least for now, as it doesn’t really address the main issue, as we see it, which is doing what we can to ensure that those who choose to come to Galway can play against the people they would like to play against. We also aren’t suggesting this to cause embarrassment to anybody who might have inflated ideas of their own strength; the rating system should deal with that, not the tournament structure.

@Mustafa Chess. Thanks for your kind words. Yes, this would involve some extra work for us as tournament organizers, although it would be partly balanced by not having to make decisions about whether to allow entrants to float up. The extra work would be worth it if it makes for a better tournament; but not worth it for its own sake, of course. Hence our interest in whether potential players would indeed consider this would make for a better tournament.