First question: Bill Smythe - did you develop or just refine this format? Should we call this “Smythe System?”
Second question: Wondering about a plus score variant: Has anyone looked at awarding prizes in a plus score based on the number of games actually played by the person? I know there can be several issues with this, but curious if anyone has looked at it and considered the issues?
Well it comes down to what to do with 1/2 byes and full pt byes.
My my events at the chess center if someone takes a half-pt bye, we use it for pairing calculations but not for prize calculations. However for full-pt byes that goes fully towards pairings and prizes (not their fault that they received the odd-man out bye), but this could change in the future where the odd-man out bye is a full point for pairing but 1/2 pt for prizes. Haven’t decided on that yet.
I provide, for club members, a break even prize at 2.0 as well (EF returned).
When I came up with this idea in the 1970s, I had not heard of anybody else having used it. However, it’s an obvious enough idea, so I’m sure many others thought it up, independently, also.
My contribution, if any, may have been to have a (roughly) geometrically decreasing prize for each score, so that, for example, the prize difference between 4.0 and 3.5 is greater than that between 3.5 and 3.0, etc. This ensures that decisive games are the worst case for the organizer, or, to put it another way, the organizer will make more money if there are a lot of draws.
Bill Smythe
Then I think for the next Rulebook, there should be consideration to calling this “Smythe System” or “the Smythe prize system” or some such.
Thank you, but I’d prefer not to have this idea named after me. I’m sure a bunch of other people have come up with the same idea, independently, and I was probably not the first.
Now, having other people use my ideas, well, that’s different. It’s a nice ego stroke.
Bill Smythe