I’m thinking of suggesting my club add an upset prize at a big one section tournament we run annually. For those of you who have given upset prizes in the past, has it worked well? Should you limit the prize to players with established ratings and those who have played a certain number of recent US Chess rated games?
It really depends what you want to encourage. Another thing to consider is whether you want to count a draw as an upset with 50% of the difference.
Alex Relyea
A large one section tournament is the right kind of place for an upset prize. Personally, I would limit it to players with established ratings. If you want to let provisionally rated players be eligible for this I would at least require that they have a significant number of games played. A rating based on only a few games is too indeterminate. I would not require that they have played games recently because at least in my experience those who haven’t played rated games in years tend to be older players who are now weaker than their ratings.
I guess I worry about the prize going to a player who hasn’t played a US Chess rated game in a couple of years and is much stronger than his rating indicates. However, I guess that could be an issue with any under prize.
Another question, would you make the upset prize a bonus prize that a player could win in addition to a place or under prize?
I have done some events with upset prizes. Did not set any rating conditions or that one had to be an “established” player. But do not settle for one prize. Have two or more. If they are small non-cash prizes, like a free pizza at a local shop, then you can do one each round. The only ones to complain will be the high rated players because they are not eligible.
Bonus prizes are separate or extra prizes. I put them in the same category as door prizes. A person can win a place prize or class prize and still be eligible for an upset prize. If you have enough door prizes, upset prizes, and any other thing you make up, like they do at the USAT, then the players will be excited and motivated to come back to your next events.
Not always. You have perhaps forgotten John Lattier, who played in high school and ended up with a class D rating, then didn’t play for a decade or so. In between he played a lot of bullet on line, and he played 10-20 minute games with me at work, holding his own. When I coaxed him into a few tournaments he performed at a class B level, winning prizes in two of three tournaments before his rating caught up.
That said, I agree that disqualifying someone for inactivity is more likely to backfire. We want to encourage people to come back.
Upset prizes are definitely special prizes that can be won in addition to a place or class prize. If they are cash prizes they should not be too large. I would make them smaller than the EF.
There are exceptions to every rule. Nevertheless, I think in this case the rule holds true, and I wouldn’t require recent activity to be eligible for an upset prize for the reason you state in your last sentence - we want people to come back.
You also reward people who intentionally stayed away a while and worked on their games, and that is fine, too.
A much more important question is why would you wish to hold a big ONE section tournament??
Rob Jones
what? you mean like the US Open?
…scot…
I think a bit of variety in how tournaments are structured is a good thing.
Exactly. Most of the tournaments sponsored by the Portland Chess Club have multiple sections. Having the occasional one section tournament is good since some lower rated players like the challenge and opportunity of playing higher rated players but don’t want to have to play much higher rated opponents every round, which would likely happen if they play up in our multiple section tournaments. It also gives higher rated players a break from constantly having to play against each other.
For whatever it’s worth, in the next eight days I have a 2 section regular rated tournament, a one section quick rated tournament, and a one section blitz round robin. They’re also in three different states.
Alex Relyea
The old “Master Challenge” tournaments had a single section with accelerated pairings in rounds one and two. An upper half player who won the first couple of rounds pretty much avoided playing any of the bottom half. That helps bring in the top (or bottom) players who end up skipping over the huge mismatch in the first round.
Acceleration noticeably affects the top and bottom quarters. Players in the middle don’t see a lot of change unless they are playing abnormally well or abnormally poorly. Acceleration when the number of players is less than the two raised to the power of the number of rounds doesn’t change the average pairings for any but the top and bottom eighths.
I’d say no but am willing to listen to arguments on why a draw should count as an upset with 50% of the difference.
SwissSys does, so if you calculate it using software, you should be aware. Also, it makes a certain amount of sense given that the rating system treats two draws as exactly equivalent to one win and one loss. I’m of the opinion that it is significantly more difficult to defeat a player 400 points higher than I am than to draw three or four such players. That may be a function of my rating, and my not necessarily be true if I were rated around 200.
Alex Relyea
Considering you have to get that draw against someone twice as much higher than you, it is a similar accomplishment. Plus the person who does this is likely to be more upset at being denied than then guy who won against a lesser light.
The upset should be minor. This should influence your decisions. Why give anyone something to be upset about if you can help it. That applies to the questions in the original post too.
There’s no mathematical basis for that. The assumption underlying the Elo calculations is that the probability of a draw is 2p(1-p) where p is the “winning expectancy” value given the rating calculations. It’s very well-known that that’s a bit low for IM/GM level players, and way high for players in the 800-1400 range where draws are rather rare, even for evenly matched players. However, if you use that as the basis, then the probability of a win with a rating difference dR is close to the probability of a draw with rating difference 3(dR) (rather than 2(dR)) across much of the range from dR=100 to dR=300.
Thank you for this. I’ve never seen the formula for the probability of a draw.