It’s probably not very likely that very many lower rated players will choose not to play because of the remote possibility of a 2400+ FIDE showing up AND them getting paired against said player, thus depriving them of the fifth FIDE rated game, either. I know I wouldn’t be thrilled at the possibility of one of my games not being rated, but it’s such a long shot it wouldn’t be a deal breaker. I’m far more likely to be deprived of the fifth game by a forfeiting opponent or a bye.
Just to be clear, it is allowable within the FIDE rating regulations to run 3 rounds of G/90;+30 in one day. This reaches the maximum of 12 hours play per day according to the rating regulations. There are many tournaments within the USA that run 3 rounds on Saturday and 2 rounds on Sunday at this time control to get 5 FIDE ratable rounds in 2 days.
Note that this is not allowable for norm events where the title regulations state that a maximum of 2 rounds per day may be played.
One minor point should be set forth about your option (2).
Some organizers FIDE-rate their top two sections. Depending what the upper rating limit is for the second section, you might be able to get away with a faster schedule in that section than in the top section.
For example, if the second section is for under 2000, you could get away with G/60 inc/30 in that section, while still running the top section as G/90 inc/30.
Come to think of it, though, you’d have to make the second section for under 2000 FIDE.
Bill Smythe
Yes but I think playing 3 rounds of G/90;+30 in one day is ridiculous.
With any luck you’ll have a Friday night round, and you’ll get exactly 5 players, one of whom can’t play Friday night.
That way, everybody gets a bye (or a half-point bye, or an unplayed game) in one of the rounds. The player who can’t play Friday gets the unplayed game in round 1.
Or, I guess, you could use ceiling fan pairings, where everybody plays two games at the same time. That would take only 2 double rounds, one on Saturday, one on Sunday. No byes. Since everybody is playing two games at a time, you could double the time control to G/180 inc/60, or perhaps G/210 inc/30.
Bill Smythe
We used to regularly run tournaments with 3 Saturday rounds at longer TCs than that – and with possible adjournments. USCF didn’t have any rule against it (and still doesn’t, as far as I know), and I don’t remember anyone complaining about it. Some players (especially older ones) would take 3rd-round byes, but these same people tend to do so even with shorter TCs.
I have never been involved in a FIDE event as an organizer or TD (and extremely rarely as a player – such events basically don’t exist in Wisconsin), and don’t plan to be in the future, so I’m not concerned about what they require. But for the USCF events that I do play and direct, I’m perfectly fine with 5 rounds (including 3 on Saturday) at G/90 +30 (although I would prefer G/120 d5, as I like delay better than increment). I don’t find it ridiculous at all.
ETA: What I do find ridiculous is any TC shorter than G/90. Yet we have (or had, before COVID) many single-day tournaments with 4 rounds at G/60 or shorter, and these are our most popular events. People seem to like that format. In my opinion, that’s way too quick to play decent chess. I don’t play these events. But I don’t get to make that decision for anyone else, and I’m OK with that. Different strokes for different folks, as we used to say back in the hippy days.
You are confused. You think Mr. Smith wants discussion. He only wants validation of what he has determined is best. After all, he knows more than anyone else.
Bill, if FIDE officials are skeptical of the US Chess practices of different schedules or time controls based on the round, they’ll be apoplectic over your ‘ceiling fan’ idea.
Incorrect.
Allen, how about you knock off the attitude?
In my area, three, 4-hour games on the Saturday used to be common. Many players (and not just older players) would take a bye for the third round which showed the format wasn’t great. There were also people who complained about it.
Around here it was common in a 3/2 schedule for players to take off the Sunday morning round. YMMV.
Was that mainly due to church?
Perhaps for some, but also just a desire to sleep in after playing chess from 9AM to 9PM on Saturday.
We generally have a significant number of people withdrawing before the 5th round (or even earlier), especially during football season. They want to go home and watch the game, or they’ve simply had enough chess for one weekend. And there are always some who lose interest when they’re no longer in the running for prizes. None of those things ever mattered to me. When I pay (and travel) to play 5 rounds of chess, I want 5 rounds of chess. I never take byes, I don’t care about prizes (that’s not what I’m playing for), and the worse I do in the early rounds, the more I want to play the later rounds – it’s a chance to redeem myself. I don’t quit until it’s over. But that’s just me.
As for people complaining, there are going to be complainers no matter what you do. Some people think 3 rounds in one day are too many (regardless of time control); others feel cheated if there are only 2 rounds on Saturday (I’m one of those). Some people don’t mind a Friday night round; others do. Some people prefer long time controls; some prefer shorter ones. Some like delay; some like increment. You can’t please everyone.
That might be an indication something is wrong with the format.
It’s possible, but I don’t think so. It tends to happen regardless of format. It even happens in the one-day G/60 events. Sometimes I know why people are withdrawing, some times I don’t, but when I do, it’s usually one of the following:
(1) They're not feeling well.
(2) They're not playing well, and they either want to cut their losses (in terms of rating points), or they've lost interest because they're no longer in the running for prizes.
(3) They [b][i]are[/i][/b] playing well, and have crossed some sort of rating threshold (e.g., from Class A to Expert, or from Expert to Master) and don't want to risk slipping back under that threshold.
(4) It's getting late, and they have a long drive to get home.
(5) There's a football game that they want to watch. This is especially common on football Sundays, because the Packers are very popular here, and are usually in playoff contention.
I’ve never had anyone tell me they’re withdrawing because the format has worn them out. People who don’t like the format tend not to come to the tournament in the first place. This might explain, for example, why the one-day G/60 events get higher turnouts than the 2-day events. But even if that’s the case, it doesn’t mean that there’s anything “wrong” with a 2-day tournament. Some people just prefer the one-day events. Like I said, you can’t please everyone.
I remember one player withdrawing from an event because the ratings estimator said he had just crossed either 2000 or 2200 (I forget which.)
I warned him that it is only an estimate and that the actual computations could be more or less, because they use most recent ratings and he was using published ratings. He withdrew anyway. When the ratings report came out, he was 1 point short of his goal.
Another high rated player had a habit of withdrawing after one or two rounds, because he felt he wasn’t playing well in them (generally meaning he didn’t win both games) and didn’t want to risk losing additional ratings points. Our entry fees weren’t all that high (less than $10 per round) and he was a local player so there weren’t travel expenses. I would assume that players are a bit less likely to withdraw from events with much larger entry fees.
I’m not so sure about that. A friend of mine played one of those big-money tournaments in Chicago (big entry fee, big prizes) and had forfeit wins in 3 of the 7 rounds. All 3 opponents had withdrawn (without notice), presumably because they had lost a game or two and were out of the running for the big prizes that they came for. This would really steam me (I want my money’s worth in terms of games played), and is one reason I stay away from such events. I think a significant number of people are drawn to those tournaments by the lure of big prizes, and as soon as their winning chances evaporate, so do they. They are also more likely to cheat, which is another reason I avoid such events.
On the other hand, I distinctly remember one guy (many years ago, in one of our low-budget Wisconsin tournaments) withdrawing with a 4-0 score. He didn’t care at all about winning the tournament; he just didn’t want to risk losing any of the rating points he had gained. It’s a strange world where rating points can be more important than winning.
Do you see a lot more people playing round 3 with your new, faster time control? That is, has your change provided the desired effect?
Alex Relyea
I remember 50/120,25/60 being the standard T/C in “serious” tournaments. I dug up some old CL&R’s to see how the 3 and 2 weekend tournaments were scheduled. A common design seemed to be rounds at (say) 10:00, 2:30, 7:00 on Saturday and 10:00 and either 2:30 or 3:00 on Sunday. The only way to do the Saturday rounds would be to adjourn pretty much any games still going after four hours. For anyone who doesn’t have an adjourned game, that works (worked) OK. I’m not sure I would want to run a G/90;+30 tournament with just 4.5 hours between rounds.