This is a crucial round in this U.S. Championship. I am not sure who came up with the idea but the tournament basically stops after 7 rounds. My general understanding is the top 4 will then play a quad while the rest of the players resume the normal Swiss System format.
What happens if there are 5-6-7-8 players tie for 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th after 7 rounds? I believe a complicated tie break system will then be used to decide who will move on to play for the title. If someone can understand the exact details, please feel free to offer your input.
Round 6 pairings:
| 1 | GM Onischuk, Alexander | 4.0 | 2699 | GM Kamsky, Gata | 4.0 | 2702 | |
| 2 | GM Nakamura, Hikaru | 3.5 | 2733 | GM Kraai, Jesse | 3.5 | 2492 | |
| 3 | GM Stripunsky, Alexander | 3.5 | 2570 | GM Shulman, Yuri | 3.5 | 2613 | |
| 4 | GM Akobian, Varuzhan | 3.0 | 2599 | GM Yermolinsky, Alex | 3.0 | 2528 | |
| 5 | GM Christiansen, Larry | 3.0 | 2578 | IM Krush, Irina | 3.0 | 2455 | |
| 6 | GM Shabalov, Alexander | 2.5 | 2585 | GM Kaidanov, Gregory | 2.5 | 2577 | |
| 7 | GM Finegold, Benjamin | 2.5 | 2539 | GM Benjamin, Joel | 2.5 | 2565 | |
| 8 | GM Robson, Ray | 2.0 | 2569 | GM Ehlvest, Jaan | 2.0 | 2591 | |
| 9 | IM Altounian, Levon | 1.5 | 2454 | GM Hess, Robert L | 2.0 | 2590 | |
| 10 | GM Lenderman, Alex | 1.5 | 2598 | GM Kudrin, Sergey | 1.5 | 2571 | |
| 11 | GM Bhat, Vinay S | 1.5 | 2547 | IM Shankland, Samuel | 1.5 | 2507 | |
| 12 | GM Gurevich, Dmitry | 1.0 | 2488 | GM Khachiyan, Melikset | 1.5 | 2539 |
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
The logic of the present system is that with a straight 10-round Swiss in a field of 24, the leaders would probably all have played each other before the last round or two.
The tournament would then hinge on games by the leaders against also-rans.
Of course, that happens all the time with last rounds in round-robins. Getting #1 vs. #2 in the last round is only by luck-of-the-draw.
So to put the current system more positively, it assures that head-to-head matchups decide the title in the last rounds.
Nice win by Irina Krush over Ron Hess. She could have 4.5/5 from her games…but then she’d have been paired up more.
Regarding the tiebreaks, the tournament schedule (unusually labeled “Calendar of Events”) provides for a “Possible 4th-Place Playoff” on the Friday 5/21 rest day. So no Sonnenborn-Berger or etc.—it gets fought over the board!
Mr. Regan, but this is too complicated for an average chess player like me. We need to understand it without having to search for rules and regulations and tiebreaks method. There is very little interest in this tournament other than from the organizer and the USCF.
2 words: Stupid format!
I don’t understand why it’s complicated? Just seems like the top four qualify for a final where they all play each other. I don’t know the specific details of the tiebreaks, I just know that I’m told they will play each other to break ties. Not sure what more I need to know. It doesn’t seem too complicated for anyone who is willing to put 5 seconds of thought into it.
Personally I am enjoying the format very much. It makes the games much more dramatic and as KWRegan said, the final rounds will likely be played by those who are actually in contention for the title, which seems like a more interesting finish to the competition than the usual chess tournament.
If you can’t explain how the tiebreak system works then it is complicated. Why not have the 4 players after 9 rounds play a quad or the top 2 after 9 rounds play a match? Why stop at 7. In this case then everyone else should go home. How do you explain to a new player that a person who did not qualify for the quad may end up with more points than the players who qualified for the quad. This is ridiculous. Obviously it is designed by some irrational individuals.
This is a weird system. Who came up with it?
It’s a great format. Seven rounds Swiss is a lot for 24 players, and the top players will have all already played each other but will all have similar scores. How to break ties? Computer tie-breaks are arbitrary. Blitz playoffs are ridiculous. Instead, just schedule a round robin between the players at the top of the leader board! That way the winner will be decided at the board, against other top players, with long time controls. If there is STILL a tie, only then go to the arbitrary and ridiculous.
Imagine if Nakamura has 1 bad game in round 6. He could be eliminated from the final quad. Ridiculous! I hope they’ll never use this system again.
Nakamura has drawn three games in a row and if he then loses with white to Kraai who is rated about 200 FIDE and 300 USCF points less than him, I don’t think it’s so ridiculous that he shouldn’t get to be U.S. Champion.
Anyway I think even if he somehow loses in Round 6 he might still be able to get in if he wins the last game and wins some tiebreak.
my point from previous post is that if you cannot finish in the top 4 after 7 rounds, it’s not unfair or ridiculous as it was put, to say that you shouldn’t be U.S. Champion.
Usually it’s a 9 round swiss the last few years, and I imagine it’s very rare for the winner to be someone outside of the top 4 after 7 rounds.
This system does open up that unlikely possibility, while having the advantage of the top players getting to play each other in the final rounds. I like the trade off.
http://saintlouischessclub.org/content/tiebreaks-and-playoff-procedures
I have a lot of interest in this tournament, and many of the games are exciting.
However, no one is providing detailed written annotations or comments of the games. I must work and cannot listen to the five hours of live commentary. The daily reports on the USCF website don’t provide much information on the games themselves.
I like the idea of the top few players playing each other for the championship. Much more exciting than the leaders playing the also-rans in the final rounds.
Tie-break system is an issue, but almost always will be because of the the limited number of rounds versus the larger number of participants.
It would be great to have daily bulletins with comments explaining the games.
Detailed comments would help those of us below master level understand the games better and increase our interest in following the tournament closely.
During last year’s women’s championship, the organizer engaged Ben Finegold to do so and it increased my interest in the tournament greatly.
The live commentary is fine, but many of us don’t have the time to listen for hours each day.
Why is Kamsky missing from your list?