# Proposed Replacement for Rule 28 (Accelerated Pairings) **URL:** \ **Category:** Running Chess Tournaments\ **Created:** [February 28, 2020, 6:59pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/proposed-replacement-for-rule-28-accelerated-pairings/24140 "2020-02-28T18:59:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![jwiewel](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.uschess.org/jwiewel/32/104_2.png) [@jwiewel](https://forum.uschess.org/u/jwiewel)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2020, 12:28am UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/proposed-replacement-for-rule-28-accelerated-pairings/24140/21 "2020-03-04T00:28:36Z")
> [@wintdoan](#): > > > [@dennisk](#): > > > > > [@ILfish](#): > > > > > > What nobody is talking about is the idea of accelerated pairing being used for more than 2 rounds. I will admit that this is the standard in the US, and I have never heard of a US tournament accelerating more than 2 rounds. That can not be said for the rest of the world. A few years back I played in Sardinia and accelerated pairings [100 players with 9 rounds of play]. were used for the first 5 rounds. They used a system developed in France call “Degraded Accelerated Pairings”, and I think the name says it all about that crazy system. In the third round of the event a 2200 rated player with 2 losses was playing a 1600 rated player with 2 wins. > > > > > > Larry S. Cohen > > > > What makes this even more bizarre is that there is no reason to use accelerated pairings at all with 100 players and 9 rounds. With plain old normal pairings, there would be guaranteed to be no more than one perfect score after 7 rounds, let alone 9. > > If it’s 9 rounds, it may be some system devised to make it easier for higher finishers to earn FIDE norms. FIDE pairings aren’t allowed to be ad hoc (i.e. you can’t have player A play up rather than down in the last round to increase chances of a norm) but if you come up with a byzantine system of adjustments based solely upon scores and ratings (and not title possibilities) it would probably pass muster. > > However, note that I did add an extra category for acceleration beyond round two. I can see the potential need for further acceleration when A) There are more than (2**n) + 1 scores of X-0 where X is the number of rounds played and n is the number of rounds remaining (i.e., more than five 5-0 players in a seven round tournament or more than nine 2-0 players in a five round event). If it is no more than 2**n then no acceleration is needed. If it is exactly 2\*\*n+1 then the extra person is getting the top player in the next scoregroup anyway and acceleration won’t do any better. and B) The reasonably expected number of draws (or ties in team matches) in the top score group would not be enough to reduce the number of perfect scores to one. My prime example for this has been an accelerated four round weighted board team event (8 boards worth 68 points) where ties are very rare (2% would be high) with more than 40 teams. Four high-rated teams were 2-0 as expected and two middling-rated teams scored upset wins in round two and were also 2-0. Normal round three pairings would have left three 3-0 teams with a strong likelihood that the third 3-0 would stand a good chance of beating its potential 2-1 opponent in the final round and the tournament ending up with two 4-0 teams. I paired the two four teams against each other and put the bottom two 2-0 teams against the top two 1-1 teams (they lost). That left a natural final round pairing of the only two 3-0 teams and finishing with only one 4-0 team. I had no qualms doing that in a non-USChess-rated event, and a rule change would open the possibility to US Chess rated events. One suggested modification would be to strongly advise against acceleration in the final round (one upset could cause a lot of complaints about a team getting an undeserved trophy). ---
**Author:** ![wintdoan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/eada6e/32.png) [@wintdoan](https://forum.uschess.org/u/wintdoan)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2020, 4:38am UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/proposed-replacement-for-rule-28-accelerated-pairings/24140/22 "2020-03-04T04:38:12Z")
> [@jwiewel](#): > > One suggested modification would be to strongly advise against acceleration in the final round (one upset could cause a lot of complaints about a team getting an undeserved trophy). I did include: In general, top half players will face stronger opposition (and bottom half players weaker opposition), so this will distort the standings for any rounds for which you have applied acceleration. Perhaps not strong enough? ---
**Author:** ![timjust](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.uschess.org/timjust/32/44_2.png) [@timjust](https://forum.uschess.org/u/timjust)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2020, 8:24am UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/proposed-replacement-for-rule-28-accelerated-pairings/24140/23 "2020-03-04T08:24:40Z")
> [@wintdoan](#): > > > [@jwiewel](#): > > > > One suggested modification would be to strongly advise against acceleration in the final round (one upset could cause a lot of complaints about a team getting an undeserved trophy). > > I did include: > > In general, top half players will face stronger opposition (and bottom half players weaker opposition), so this will distort the standings for any rounds for which you have applied acceleration. > > Perhaps not strong enough? I suspect this is one of those statements that will hardly be read but, more likely the result will be noted by TDs and players. The procedures of this rule in general are often not noted at all. Why? Just fire up WinTD (or whatever)–point–click–press a few buttons and the round is accelerated. No rulebook reading required. So, a warning(?) like the one above would probably be missed by most folks. ---
**Author:** ![jwiewel](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.uschess.org/jwiewel/32/104_2.png) [@jwiewel](https://forum.uschess.org/u/jwiewel)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2020, 11:55am UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/proposed-replacement-for-rule-28-accelerated-pairings/24140/24 "2020-03-04T11:55:54Z")
> [@wintdoan](#): > > > [@jwiewel](#): > > > > One suggested modification would be to strongly advise against acceleration in the final round (one upset could cause a lot of complaints about a team getting an undeserved trophy). > > I did include: > > In general, top half players will face stronger opposition (and bottom half players weaker opposition), so this will distort the standings for any rounds for which you have applied acceleration. > > Perhaps not strong enough? You might want to make a change similar to changing > [@](#): > > Variation 28R4. Multiple Rounds. > It’s possible to extend the method of 28R1 to more than two rounds, though that is unlikely to significantly reduce the number of perfect scores—if accelerated pairings worked perfectly through two rounds, the perfect scores will all be top half players and so will be naturally paired against each other without acceleration in later rounds. In general, top half players will face stronger opposition (and bottom half players weaker opposition), so this will distort the standings for any rounds for which you have applied acceleration. to > [@](#): > > Variation 28R4. Multiple Rounds. > It’s possible to extend the method of 28R1 to more than two rounds, though that is unlikely to significantly reduce the number of perfect scores—if accelerated pairings worked perfectly through two rounds, the perfect scores will all be top half players and so will be naturally paired against each other without acceleration in later rounds. In general, top half players will face stronger opposition (and bottom half players weaker opposition), so this will distort the standings for any rounds for which you have applied acceleration. Distorting the standings in the final round is especially inadvisable so accelerating the final round is questionable. For those people that just click on settings and don’t bother to read the rulebook, when a TD clicks on the WinTD final round flag you could have a follow-up verification as to whether or not the final round would still be accelerated (assuming you program that into WinTD). If you don’t program latter-round acceleration into WinTD then a TD using latter-round acceleration would have to know enough about it to do it with manual pairing overrides (not a bad way of limiting it to when it is really needed and making sure it is done by somebody who has a better chance of knowing what is involved). ---
**Author:** ![kevin\_bachler](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.uschess.org/kevin_bachler/32/667_2.png) [@kevin\_bachler](https://forum.uschess.org/u/kevin_bachler)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2020, 8:05pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/proposed-replacement-for-rule-28-accelerated-pairings/24140/25 "2020-03-04T20:05:11Z")
> [@Tim Just](#): > > > [@wintdoan](#): > > > > > [@jwiewel](#): > > > > > > One suggested modification would be to strongly advise against acceleration in the final round (one upset could cause a lot of complaints about a team getting an undeserved trophy). > > > > I did include: > > > > In general, top half players will face stronger opposition (and bottom half players weaker opposition), so this will distort the standings for any rounds for which you have applied acceleration. > > > > Perhaps not strong enough? > > I suspect this is one of those statements that will hardly be read but, more likely the result will be noted by TDs and players. The procedures of this rule in general are often not noted at all. Why? Just fire up WinTD (or whatever)–point–click–press a few buttons and the round is accelerated. No rulebook reading required. So, a warning(?) like the one above would probably be missed by most folks. Perhaps if it were simultaneously accompanied by a mild electric shock through the keyboard? ---
**Author:** ![seki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/74df32/32.png) [@seki](https://forum.uschess.org/u/seki)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2020, 11:31pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/proposed-replacement-for-rule-28-accelerated-pairings/24140/26 "2020-03-04T23:31:40Z")
My limited experience with accelerated pairings was with several 5 round 50 to 80 player opens. In a practical sense, it seemed to move the round 1 mismatches to round 3. It had two “advantages”: 1. I got to go home earlier in round 3. 2. The middle players had a better chance to score points in rounds 1 and 2. (This may be a better “marketing strategy” for chess.) “Win early and hope . . .” ---
**Author:** ![dennisk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/bbe5ce/32.png) [@dennisk](https://forum.uschess.org/u/dennisk)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2020, 11:41pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/proposed-replacement-for-rule-28-accelerated-pairings/24140/27 "2020-03-04T23:41:53Z")
> [@seki](#): > > My limited experience with accelerated pairings was with several 5 round 50 to 70 player opens. In a practical sense, it seemed to move the round 1 mismatches to round 3. > > It had two “advantages”: > > 1. I got to go home earlier in round 3. > > 2. The middle players had a better chance to score points in rounds 1 and 2. (This may be a better “marketing strategy” for chess. “Win early and hope . . .” Although I understand the rationale behind accelerated pairings, as a player, I would much rather get the mismatches out of the way early and play increasingly competitive games as the tournament progresses. Although this is partly because I’m used to such a progression, it also reflects the way I generally approach things. For example, I will generally start a weekend by getting all my chores done and out of the way first – and then I can enjoy the rest of the weekend. And I would much rather start a bicycle ride with a headwind and finish with a tailwind, than the other way around. ---
**Author:** ![jwiewel](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.uschess.org/jwiewel/32/104_2.png) [@jwiewel](https://forum.uschess.org/u/jwiewel)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2020, 11:53pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/proposed-replacement-for-rule-28-accelerated-pairings/24140/28 "2020-03-04T23:53:43Z")
> [@seki](#): > > My limited experience with accelerated pairings was with several 5 round 50 to 70 player opens. In a practical sense, it seemed to move the round 1 mismatches to round 3. > > It had two “advantages”: > > 1. I got to go home earlier in round 3. > > 2. The middle players had a better chance to score points in rounds 1 and 2. (This may be a better “marketing strategy” for chess. “Win early and hope . . .” When acceleration works perfectly, round one will seem similar to a standard round two, round two will seem similar to a standard round three, and round three in the middle will seem vaguely similar to a standard round one (perfect acceleration of 64 players will have 9-32 playing 33-56 instead of the normal round one having those players playing an opponent a mere 8 pairing numbers farther away) while round three at the top and bottom will seem similar to a standard round four. The players in the middle 3/4 will feel like they are kind of playing the round one mismatch and it may well make for an earlier night for them. They get an experience that is a little disjointed in comparison the a standard first three rounds and the later rounds have slightly larger mismatches than under standard pairings (the round three accelerated mismatch is not as much as the round one standard mismatch but the somewhat larger mismatches in later rounds may mean the the average mismatch under acceleration ends up to be more than under standard). The people at the ends get closer matches faster. ---
**Author:** ![BobMessenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/96bed5/32.png) [@BobMessenger](https://forum.uschess.org/u/BobMessenger)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2020, 9:22pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/proposed-replacement-for-rule-28-accelerated-pairings/24140/29 "2020-06-17T21:22:19Z")
For consistency, I’ve moved this topic from US Chess Issues to Running Chess Tournaments. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.uschess.org/system/32/2_2.png) [@system](https://forum.uschess.org/u/system)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2024, 8:41am UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/proposed-replacement-for-rule-28-accelerated-pairings/24140/30 "2024-04-22T08:41:43Z")
Closed on April 22, 2024, 8:41am UTC [Previous page](https://forum.uschess.org/t/proposed-replacement-for-rule-28-accelerated-pairings/24140.md?page=1)