In the Hartford Open, the section breaks are Under-1805, Under-1605, etc., instead of the typical Under-1800 and Under-1600. Certainly people at their rating floors (1600, for example) now will be at the top of the section, instead of typically the bottom. Indeed, that’s how it is advertised.
However, are CCA minimum ratings adjusted upwards to account for possible sandbagging? (That is, someone won big in an under-1800 section at World Open, for instance, was assigned a CCA minimum of 1800, but in this tournament can now play in the Under-1805 section.)
If someone won big money in U1800 and have been assigned a floor, doesn’t necessarily means he/she is a sandbagger. If Bill G. wants to experiment with sections in his tournament, he can absolutely do it.
In fact my understanding is that it is exactly what he is trying do for this experiment : create an interest from those players who are sitting on the floors ar very close to the floor.
Michigan instituted a “Bottom Half” Class tournement several years ago. So you would have U2100, U1900, U1700, U1500, U1300, etc. It’s been fairly well received.
Tim, I don’t understand why what Michigan is doing is equivalent to what Goichberg is doing, it sounds like the same old 100 point class boundaries, just splitting the classes in two, but still on 100 point (ie, ratings floor) boundaries.
Maybe Bill thinks he’s created so many 1800 (etc) money prize floored players over the years that it’s affecting his turnouts?
There are lots of places where organizers alternate odd and even section cuts. It’s quite common. I have heard calls for xx05 sections cuts many times but have rarely seen them. Bill Goichberg deserves credit for giving it a try. I’m going to play in this event, my first visit to CT for a tournament since 1995.
Section/prize cuts at other than XX00 are rare but not unheard of. As a practical matter, what Bill is doing is giving players between XX00 and XX04 a shot at prize money. I doubt this will have much effect on turnout, but there’s nothing wrong with trying it.
I wonder if Bill has thought about one side effect to an U/1805 section. Someone who wins $2000 or more will get a 1900 floor, not an 1800 floor, because all floors end in 00.
The interesting question is why is Bill G. doing this. He usually has logical reasons for his various new ideas, and I’m sure this is no exception.
He has probably found that a lot of floored players are alienated because they can’t sandbag, and he’s trying to get them back. Or, he wants to give them a double-whammy by forcing them to play a lot of other floored players.
About 40 years ago he ran several events where the top section was “open to all rated over 500 or unrated”. I asked him why he did this (in those days there were few, if any, sub-500 players).
His reply? If he just said “open to all”, Chess Life would remove that phrase from his TLA. He wanted the entry requirements to be explicitly stated for each section, including the top section.
Assigning CCA ratings ending in numbers other than 00 is possible, but I didn’t see any need to do it for this event as the prizes are not enormous ($1000 projected, $667 minimum in most sections) and anyone on his floor who wins a section risks having his CCA rating raised without winning a huge amount. We have Under XX10 events coming up in Lake George in May and Vermont in September, but with even smaller prizes, and don’t intend to use XX05 or XX10 if the prizes are larger than Hartford.
Many floored players are overrated, and the combination of this and being at the bottom of their section means they have very little chance to win a prize. Move these to the top of the section below and many should become competitive, though not big favorites.
The downside is that if a player is on the floor as a result of sandbagging, such section prizes allow him to go one section lower, where he may dominate. However, most sandbaggers focus on class prizes of multi thousands, and they may not want to play for a lesser prize and risk having their CCA ratings raised if they win.