It was your idea to use the plus-score format. If being a player not as the director at my event, with the other person during the last round being my personal friend. Would be more willing to offer a draw during the last round then play it out. Its’ not a pre-arrange draw, only willing to offer a draw if my score is at 2.0 or higher during the start of the last round.
During Western Michigan Open and the Western Michigan Open II, only had one draw during the last rounds. Both players did have a score of 2.0 at the start of last round. With both players having a draw, the final score was 2.5 – granting them prize money. With Western Michigan Open III, did have 8 draws out of 33 ratable games.
Bill, you like the plus-score format so there would be fighting chess with the 3-0 players. Have you thought of the ‘grand master draws’ for the 2-1 players? With 2-1 players that are friends, taking the draw and pocking the money is rational for some players.
Then where exactly do you draw the line? You already said that if they take a draw on move 1, you will “double forfeit both players, forfeit all your games, then fine you for the cost of the entry fee if you want to register again.” And in that example, there was no claim that the draw was pre-arranged.
It seems to me that the td needs some evidence that the draw was arranged before the start of the game. If both players independently looked at the wallcharts and thought to themselves maybe a draw would be wise and came to the board in that frame of mind, then I don’t think an agreed draw is a problem - even if before the 2nd move. (There are questions if Black has not made a move as then the game might not be considered rateable.)
My payout scheme for a 4-rounder is $100-$50-$25-$10. So even the 2-1 players are encouraged to have a decisive result, because $25 + $0 is larger than $10 + $10.
That’s the point of the “decreasing differences” feature. Each difference should be less than the preceding difference. $50-$25 is less than $100-$50, and $25-$10 is less than $50-$25, and (to make it work at the last step too) $10-$0 is less than $25-$10.
Thats nice with the payout scheme, but the one local master that has come to all my Western Michigan Open’s stands at 11.5/12.0. He even told me he would not mind having 4 blacks during the tournament. For whatever the payout scheme he wants to be at the events. Under your payout he would have won $350 or my payout of $155. He just wants to play.
For the players in the 3.0 = $25 and 2.5 = $10, just find it a little strange to give a prize award for half of the entry fee. Going into the 4th round with a score of 1.5, needing to win the last game just to win $10. With a G/60, then the time before the start of the round. If at your event with 1.5 points for the start of the last round, would be thinking of withdrawing from the event if the prize money is my goal. Finding it a little hard telling the class C and down they need 3.0 out of 4.0 to win a prize greater then the entry fee. If the prize was a ‘under prize’, would not find many players in the under 1400 wanting to play. Not that many people would be willing to come just to win the under 1400 prize if it was half of the entry fee.
With both prize funds, the 3.0 = $25 2.5 = $10, or the 3.0 = $30 2.5 = $25. In the school of someone wanted to have a pre-arrange draw is to change the ratings then the prize money. If two friends in your event were paired up with 2.5 points each. If its’ for the money, would not have a pre-arrange draw. As it would give both players $25 each. If someone sandbags the game, one would get $50 for 3.0 points and the other $10 for the 2.5 points. If they split the prize money between each other, they would have $30 each.
Under your prize system you have stopped the pre-arrange draws to the pre-arrange sandbaging. If it was a pre-arrange draw, they would split the money and win $25. If it was a pre-arrange sandbaging, they would split the money to win $30.
A plus-score event cannot possibly afford to award a prize greater than the entry fee for a score just barely above the break-even mark. Do the math. To compensate, either the perfect-score award would have to be slashed drastically (which, come to think of it, you have done in your Michigan events), or the organizer would have to lose his shirt.
Granted, it’s possible for two players to pre-arrange a result other than a draw. But it is far less likely in practice. And, it would be a RATED non-draw – hardly palatable to typical tournament players.
Having a 100 - 50 - 25 - 10 or the 40 - 35 - 30 - 25 would be around the same total pay out. With your system its’ a little top heavy for the Master and experts, myself want a little balance with the class B to class D. Since my events have the average rating for class C, with the plus-score do not see the players under class D having a rational chance to win a prize.
If the higher rated player accepts a pre-arrange draw or a pre-arrange lose. They are not thinking of the money from the event. With the higher rated player accepting the pre-arrange draw or accepting the pre-arrange lose. That is sandbaging their rating. Sandbaging ones own rating in a pre-arrangement, there is money being exchanged between the two players.