I made a post about the confusing playoff / tiebreak structure of the 2010 US Championship a few days ago (thankfully there were no massive ties and tiebreaks were not needed).
Some of the players who are currently playing in this US Championship told me the same thing. They were as equally confused with the tiebreaks structure and none of the people I spoke with could explain it. They were afraid to speak up publicly in fear of retaliation by the USCF (as happened to some players in the past) and of course I will not reveal their names to protect their chess careers.
By the way, every player I spoke to so far praised the sponsor of the US Championship. They all said that they are treated very well by the sponsor and the staff at the Chess Club and Scholastic Center of St. Louis. They are very thankful for the sponsor’s generosity and love for the game. Not a single person complained about the conditions.
During this US Championship, I received hundreds of emails from various chess fans about this same issue. Here are a few samples but I am withholding their names:
XXX
below is finnishing procedures for us championship, a nine round tournament, but after 7 rounds the four players tied for 1st place,(kamsky, nakamura, shulman & onischuk) will play a quad, while the rest of the players play rounds 8 & 9, i assume for 5th place and on down?. as a brit would say, “bloody confusion”.
if tie break games are needed after the above, they will be Armageddon games (referred to as draw odds). two different time limits will be used, 60min. +5sec. increment or 40min. +5sec. increment depending on circumstances. at certain times players can bid (auction) for less time, with the low bidder getting his choice of color. still confused. you might have to hire another lawyer to figure this out.
XXX
——————————
XXX
When you first mentioned these rules to me I just figured that you must have missed something. And perhaps you did (along with everyone else). One might conclude that intelligence does not prevail among American Chess Organizers.
On a more positive note, I am a proud American that can honestly say that I am not a player or organizer for the 2010 US Chess Championships! Let us hope that American chess leadership does not infect other chess nations.
Oh, by the way, don’t plan to meet me in St Louis!
XXX
——————————–
Since some anonymous posters decided to take cheap shots at IM Shahade and the organizer, I feel that I must defend them.
IM Greg Shahade is doing his best for U.S. chess. And if he is successful in what he does while making a few bucks from it, so what? You may or may not agree with his approach. That is your right. But please be respectful of him.
I personally find the tie-breaks confusing. But that does not mean that the event is not well run. I am not knocking this tournament at all. I think we should all applaud and appreciate what the sponsor is doing for U.S. chess.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
——————————–
Tiebreaks and Playoff Procedures
Playoff Procedures
1. If the 2010 U.S. Championship ends in a tie for first, all tied Players will contest a playoff match for the title of 2010 U.S. Champion. Prize monies for all Players tied for first place shall be pooled and $5,000 of those pooled funds shall be awarded to the 2010 U.S. Champion with all remaining monies from the pooled fund being equally divided amongst all tied Players. (For example, if there is a tie for 1st and 2nd, the U.S. Champion shall receive $30,000 and the runner-up shall receive $25,000).
2. 4th Place Playoff Rules: If after seven rounds, there are ties for the four places into the Championship Quad Final, a 4th place playoff shall take place on the rest day May 21, starting at 2 PM. See 4th Place Playoff Rules below.
3. 1st Place Ties: In the event that there is no clear U.S. Champion after the Championship Quad Final, there will be a playoff for U.S. Champion. (See 1st Place Playoff Rules below).
4. Tiebreaks: For the purposes of ordering the crosstable, and if there are any special prizes for 5th place in the Swiss tournament, the following tiebreaks shall be used: 1. Most Blacks; 2. USCF Tournament Performance Rating; 3. Direct Encounter; 4. Won Games; 5. Average USCF Rating of Opponents.
1st Place Playoff Rules:
If the 2009 U.S. Championship ends in a tie for first, all tied players will contest a playoff match for the title of 2010 U.S. Champion and a bonus $5,000 to be taken from the prizefund. The tiebreak will take place at 10 AM on May 25. For the purposes of pairing players in the following scenarios, the following math tiebreaks will be used: 1. Most Blacks; 2. USCF Tournament Performance Rating; 3. Direct Encounter; 4. Won Games; 5. Average Rating of Opponents. (If there is no need for a playoff, these tiebreaks will also be used for the purposes of trophies/crosstable).
A. Two Players:
The base time for the game is 60 minutes+ 5 second increment. It will be a draw odds game (Black wins on a draw.) The Players will both bid on the amount of time (minutes and seconds, a number equal or less to 60:00) that they are willing to play with in order to choose their color. The Player who bid the lower number of time chooses his or her color and is allowed the amount of time they bid; the other side shall receive 60:00 time. If both Players pick exactly the same number, the chief arbiter will flip a coin to determine who shall choose their color.
B. Three players:
If there are three Players tied for first, the Player with the highest tie-breaks has the option of a bye in the first round. If he or she chooses to play the first round, the bye will be passed onto the next Player by tiebreak, and if the second Player by tiebreak also declines the bye, the third Player shall have a bye in the first round.
Round One:
Players ranked 2 and 3 by tie-break will contest a draw odds game as described in Section A. above except the base time will be 40 minutes+ 5 second increment.
Final round for Championship title:
After a ten minute break, the winner of round one will play the Player with a bye in another 40+5 increment draw odds game. This will not be a bidding game. The Player who won round one will chose whether he or she prefers white or black and draw odds.
C. Four Players:
Round One
Tie-breaks will be used to determine pairing numbers: 1 plays 4 and 2 plays 3. Each Player will contest two preliminary 40+5 second increment bidding games as described above.
Final round for Championship title:
After a ten-minute break, the winners of each game in round one will contest a final 40+5 second increment draw odds bidding game.
4th Place Playoff Rules:
All tiebreakers to make the Championship Quad Final will use a knockout elimination format using 40 minute+5 second increment bidding games as described above in the 1st Place Playoff Rules. Pairing numbers for the scenarios below will be determined by math tiebreaks: 1. Most Blacks; 2. USCF Tournament Performance Rating; 3. Direct Encounter; 4. Won Games; 5. Average USCF Rating of Opponents.
If two Players are tied for one spot: the Players will play each other to qualify for the Championship Quad Final.
If three Players are tied for one spot, 2 will play 3 in round one. The winner of round one shall play the Player who had a bye in round one for the spot. If three Players are tied for two spots, then 1 will automatically qualify for the quad, while 2 will play 3 for the last spot.
If four Players are tied for one spot, 1 shall play 4 and 2 shall play 3. The winners shall play each other to qualify for the Championship Quad Final. If four Players are tied for two spots, 1 will play 4, 2 will play 3, and the winners will both automatically qualify. If four Players are tied for three spots, 1 and 2 will automatically qualify, while 3 plays 4 for the final spot.
If five Players are tied for one spot, 5 will play 4 while Players 1-3 will get a bye into round two. In round two, 1 plays the winner of 4 vs.5 and 2 plays 3. In round three, the round two winners play for the Championship spot. If five Players are tied for two spots, in round 1, 5 will play 4 while Players 1-3 get byes. In round two, the winner of 5 vs.4 will play 1 and 2 will play 3. The winners advance to the Championship Quad Final. If five Players are tied for three spots, Player 1 advances to the quad automatically. The other four Players are ranked 1-4, 1 plays 4 and 2 plays 3 and the winners advance. If five Players are tied for four spots, Players 1-3 advance to the Championship Quad Final while 4 plays 5 for the final spot.
If more than 5 Players are tied, a tiebreak using similar rules as the examples shown above will be used. Please contact CHESS CLUB for further details. Any questions regarding 4th place tiebreaks will also be addressed at the Players’ Meeting.
It’s a stupid tiebreak structure. I’m curious who came up with this idiotic idea?
Was the tiebreak system in this tournament created by a non chess player?
There are essentially three choices with tie-breaks:
1. Don’t use them, split the prizes. (Not an option when prizes cannot be split, e.g., moving to the next round, big trophies, etc. This doesn’t work here.)
2. Computer tie-breaks. (Quasi-arbitrary and unsatisfying.)
3. Break ties OTB is the most satisfying, especially if there is enough time available to play long time controls or rapids instead of blitz. The pairings and the ideas behind them are simple, but because there are so many possible ways to tie, it takes quite a bit of ink to write out. Writing out all the rules and contingencies for computer tie-breaks also takes a lot of ink. The real question is not which sounds the most complicated (computer tie-breaks are undoubtedly more complicated, but when you put it into a black box called “computer tie-breaks” it looks easy compared to writing out all contingencies for OTB tie-breaks), but whether it is better to decide tie-breaks over-the-board or on something else technicalities.
To break a tie in a football game, you play overtime. You don’t declare the team that gained more yards or had fewer fumbles the winner.
To break a tie in baseball, you play extra innings. You don’t declare the team with the more hits or fewer errors the winner.
And in chess, break ties OTB!
Kudos, St. Louis!
And a great idea to have the four top players play against each other for the title instead of having it be decided by which player happened to have more games against players at the bottom of the heap.
Kudos on the format!
If players in the tournament can’t explain the tiebreak system then it is stupid. This is why the world is laughing at the stupid american organizers.
I find it confusing. Why can’t they make it simple?
The tiebreaks can be simplified very easily, the only problem is then it doesn’t explain every possibility in detail, which was considered more important.
If it’s a tie, the players play a knockout tournament or Armageddon games to break the tie. That’s basically it, it’s not really rocket science or anywhere near as confusing as everyone is making it out to be. At the players meeting, where any topic could be breached and which is the point of the meeting, the tiebreak system was not even brought up by a single player out of 24.
I find it hard to believe that they cared so much about it, were so confused, and were somehow at the same time so scared to speak up, yet managed to discuss dozens of other things.
Greg Shahade
I like the tiebreak system. It’s confusing but if chess players (supposed to be smart) can’t understand it then they should play checkers.
The 4 player playoff is dumb. Do you understand that it’s a BIG BIG BIG handicap when 2 of the 4 players will have 2 Black games? That’s a big odd to overcome.
Why should anyone care? If you put up $200K then you can make the players wear pink dresses to play if you want to. Money talks and all the whiners walk.
It’s also a big handicap to reach the top four while having 4 black’s in the first 7 rounds.
The people who had the four whites could have come into the finals with an extra half point but they didn’t, and weren’t willing to fight hard enough for the win in the final round, which they had the chance to do, so I think the finalists deserve the extra whites.
Probably because they’re afraid of the possible retaliation from your sister and the USCF? Speak out against your idea and they’re doomed? How’s the under the table deal you made with St. Louis for a USCL team after you said that there’ll be no expansion? Now St. Louis wants to screw the Chicago team? Is it the job of a commissioner to help one team over another?
The difference between 4 black in 7 games vs. 2 black in 3 games is huge. Stop talking nonsense if you know nothing about chess.
It sounds like Mr. Greg Shahade can’t take criticism too well. Perhaps that’s why the players didn’t bring this up to you? I guess maybe they don’t wanna lose their paychecks? Are you related to the Capone family since you seem to run your business that way? And BTW, can we see the financial book for the US Chess League? Is it an open record or is it a Shahade family secret?
What was wrong with just a 9 round swiss to see who wins? Isn’t that what most national federations do?
I agree with Greg Shahade and the 3rd Anonymous commenter in this thread. The tiebreaks are consistent in purpose and application. Maybe they would look clearer if headers for the different situations were put in boldface.
Of course, here you have a mathematician praising a lawyer. We’re both used to this kind of writing :-).
IMHO the comments on people feeling gagged lack foundation—as Shahade also evinces. And for praise specifically of the USCF and STLCC over the event’s organization and promotion, see recent items in GM Kevin Spraggett’s blog (seems I can’t link the three individual items, but you can search “classy” in the blog to find the third). Of course GM Spraggett has his own axe to grind with the Canadian organizations, but I agree with his positive comments.
The tournament format is great – the leaders play each other for the championship – very exciting.
A straight Swiss all the way means the leaders play the also-rans in the final rounds – how boring.
Perhaps the tiebreak rules could be improved, but that’s always the case.
Your Chicago Southside Fan: Mr. Shahade is very articulate in his posts and is responding to criticism very well.
Your comment about the ‘financial book’ for the US Chess League is humorous; how much can it possibly be making?
If you truly believe that the league receives tremendous sponsorship monies or advertising revenue for the league, please let us know.
Your Chicago Southside fan, IM Greg Shahade is doing his best for U.S. chess. You may or may not agree with his approach. That is your right. But please be respectful of him.
I personally find the tie-breaks confusing. But that does not mean that the event is not well run. I am also not knocking this tournament. We should all applaud and appreciate what the sponsor is doing for U.S. chess.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
Well said Susan. Too many negative people on the net.