#6 1630 WB 0.5 points LEE,ROBERT E #7 1595 BW 0.5 points EDISON,THOMAS A
#8 1550 WB 0.0 points HOOVER,HERBERT C
PATTON-JONES is not in dispute #3-#6 have not played each other at all. I brought up #6 into the 1.0 group and paired top to bottom and came up with:
GRANT-ADAMS
LEE-FRANKLIN
and finally HOOVER-EDISON is not in dispute
But the answer key says
GRANT-FRANKLIN
LEE-ADAMS
The colors look fine in my solution, so why a transposition?
Was I wrong to bring up #6? Is dropping the lowest 1.0 more proper than bringing up the highest 0.5? Isn’t my way more natural (top v. bottom with no color problems)? I admit I haven’t consulted my book yet but perhaps someone’s rebuke of my shortsightedness will make the lesson stick.
Is the 3 round the last round, or is this a 4 round or more event? Directors would rather have the top point players play in the last and final round.
A tournament with ranking one 2230, ranking two 2205 and ranking three 1420: with 20 more players under 1420. You could have 2230 and 2205 play in 3 three of a 4 round event, it is more of a given that 2230 and 2205 would play in round 4. That would leave the players see little action in round 4, as it is almost a given who would win the prize fund for first place in round 3 not round 4. As in round 4 you would have to pair 2230 and 2205 with players that are at 1420 or less.
When there is an odd number in a score group, you pair the bottom-rated player in that group against the top-rated in the next score group. So Adams should play Lee. This leaves an even number in the 1.0 group, which can then be paired top-vs-bottom as normal.
What you did, instead, was to pair the top player in the 0.5 group AS THOUGH he were at the bottom of the 1.0 group. You also proposed, in the next sentence, the alternative of pairing the bottom player in the 1.0 group AS THOUGH he were at the top of the 0.5 group.
You should substitute “against” for “as though” in your reasoning. Pair the bottom 1.0 AGAINST the top 0.5.
Of course, minor transpositions from this standard are sometimes necessary to improve colors, but in this example the colors work fine.
Doug, you are bringing up a red herring, and confusing a newbie Club TD who really wants to learn.
Apparently you are suggesting that, if two masters are the only players with a perfect score, but there are still two rounds remaining to be played, they should not be paired against other just yet, because then the last round will be anti-climactic.
While your idea is not completely without merit (although it’s close), it is certainly never suggested in any rulebook I know of. It has pitfalls, too. There is at least a fair chance that one of the masters could lose, or draw, his 3rd round game against his lower-rated opponent, and then the climax will be spoiled anyway – especially if the anticipated master-vs-master pairing in the 4th round now turns out to be inappropriate based on the scores of other players in the tournament.
Thanks for the guidance. I went home and promptly found out where I went wrong in the rulebook. There’s an NTD locally who likes to bring a lower-point player up into an odd group before pairing top half v. bottom half. This is written in his pre-tournament announcements. I see now that I was learning an unofficial way of pairing. Somehow the USCF way didn’t sink in when I read the book.
Actually, there are several (probably not the majority of) NTDs who prefer the method you described. It’s equivalent to pairing the middle player (instead of the lowest player) in a score group against the highest player in the next score group. It has its merits (sometimes, at least) but, in my opinion, the “official” way is usually better.
As I recall, in the early 70’s the rule WAS to drop the middle player to the lower score group. I don’t recall exactly when it changed. I’ve never heard an explanation as to why dropping the bottom player is best. The best argument I can come up with is that it increases the odds that the player with the higher score loses, thereby reducing the number of perfect scores and improving the chance of getting a clear winner. That reasoning, however, isn’t very convincing for a 4th round pairing between a 2.0 and a 1.5.
Bill, can you shed some light as to why dropping the bottom score is superior?
It isn’t, especially. It’s an arbitrary rule to allow more or less consistent pairings by directors all over the country.
The middle-man-drop rule goes back to the old Harkness rulebook. When the USCF revised and published the ORC in the early 70s, they had to choose one rule as standard, and the result was “low man drops.”
Arguments about whether minor variations like this are “better” than others strike me as pretty futile – they eventually reduce to “I like this pairing better.” This is why (contrary to some previous posters) I am strongly in favor of leaving flexibility on the rules for regional variations. Let the market decide.