On the CCA website, chesstour.com/, there is a link that says “not enough entries in my section?” but the link doesn’t work. I’m curious what CCA does if there are not enough entries in a particular schedule within a section.
I think I’ve seen this before, and as I recall, the link says something like “don’t worry, there will be enough entries, they just haven’t come in yet.”
Bill Smythe
We will get the link repaired.
It is true that our answer is that more entries will happen. This almost always solves the problem.
If it does not solve the problem, our first alternative is to find a houseman of comparable rating. That almost always solves the problem.
If push really comes to shove, then players may have to play again. If my memory serves, this has only occurred in events I’ve directed prior to the merge - i.e. 2 players enter a 2 day section and we can’t find a houseman (highly, highly unusual). If memory serves, I’ve only had to do this once in over 5 years of directing CCA events comprising hundreds of sections.
We design tournaments so this doesn’t happen. However, sometimes the design of the tournament has too many sections and too many schedules (4 day, 3 day, 2 day with 200 point sections). When that happens we redesign the tournament (less sections or eliminate 2 day option for some/all sections) the following year and acknowledge that that format didn’t work even though we thought it would.
Dave Hater
Continental Chess Association
Once upon a time, I think in the 1970’s, I was directing a CCA tournament in Chicago (yes, I used to do that in the olden days) which had 2 schedules and about 6 sections. One schedule had a Friday night option, the other did not. The merge occurred after just one round (not the usual way to handle merges nowadays).
In the class E section, there were only 2 players in the 3-day (Friday night) schedule, and I think only 1 in the 2-day schedule. So on Friday night, of course I paired those 2 players against each other.
On Saturday morning, enough players registered at the door so that there were now 4 players in the 2-day schedule of the class E section. This made for a perfect 6-player round robin (it was a 5-round tournament). What luck!
Of course, I had to watch out for the infamous 6-player trap, but I was well aware of that trap even in those days, so I had no problems.
Bill Smythe
The six player trap only comes up in a four round tournament. If you have 6 players and five rounds you just use rule 29L, which converts this into a RR tournament if there are no withdrawals or late entries. I assume this is what you did?
There used to be events (like the Cardinal Open) that would have a Friday evening round, and players in it weren’t paired again until round 2 on Saturday, allowing them to sleep in if they choose, though they could also choose to withdraw, re-enter in round 1 on Saturday and hope they play better. I don’t know if they had a choice of whether to take their Friday round 1 result into round 2 or their Saturday round 1 result, I just remember reading the ads in Chess Life.
I always thought it was a sneaky way to get additional entry fees.
I did something somewhat similar once. In a two-day event, we ran a separate plus-score event on Sunday. Several strong players, dissatisfied with their score after 3 rounds on Saturday, withdrew and entered the plus-score event, convinced they would go 4-0 and ‘bust’ the prize schedule. Of course, a properly designed plus-score event with enough players guarantees that the entry fees more than cover the prizes that will be paid.
Not true. It can come up in five rounds as well. But if it does, the trouble will already be apparent when you try to pair round 4. If you can pair round 4 successfully (i.e. without “they’ve already played each other” difficulties), you can always pair round 5. Just pair each player against the one opponent he has not yet faced.
You could do that, but in this case I’d already made one round 1 pairing before I knew how many players there were going to be. So I would have had to finagle the pairing numbers to fit the RR tables. Possible, but not necessary.
Nope. No need for that. With 6 players, it’s far easier (IMHO) to simply make tentative round 3 pairings, then check to see if any possible round 4 pairings exist (even without regard to scores or colors, just anything where nobody gets the same opponent again). If no such round 4 pairings exist, just change the round 3 pairings, and check again for possible round 4 pairings.
Once you have made round 3 pairings in such a way that any round 4 pairings exist, you’re golden. Just post those round 3 pairings and start the round, then do anything you want in round 4 (that doesn’t involve a repeat pairing). Then in round 5, just do the only thing left – you’ll find there’s only one way.
Bill Smythe
To each his own. I think using 29L is far easier than what you did. It doesn’t matter that you’ve made the round one pairings already. Just assign the pairing numbers to fit what you’ve already done, and then using 29L it’s just plug and chug. You don’t have to worry about checking anything.
+1
29L may be easier for you than for me, and my way may be easier for me than for you.
My way lets me make the pairings (or at least the colors) “look” more Swiss-like for the players that expected to be playing in a Swiss to begin with. So I’ll stay with that.
Bill Smythe
It can also handle a late add.
Yes – and we had four of those in this case, if you want to look at it that way.
Bill Smythe
Thanks Dave!