MCC Tournament Break Point Analysis
Author: Alan Hodge
March 7, 2000
These
thoughts and recommendations are offered in connection with the question of
where the break points should be for two- and three-section tournaments played
at the MCC. They are my personal observations, conclusions and opinions.
Supporting data from 1999 are represented in the following attachments:
Attachment
1: Distribution of Tournament
Participants by Rating Range, a bar chart showing (a) distribution of members
by rating range (Note: Member ratings are
snapshot data as of November 1999 [I think]. Only members who played during
1999 are represented, not the entire membership of the club.), and (b)
average number of games played per tournament by rating range (Note: Averages are based on ten tournaments
only; the December tournament [short time control] was excluded.)
Attachment
2: Section Participants by
Rating, showing distribution by section and rating range of participants in
every 1999 tournament
Attachment
3: Analysis of Three-Section
Tournaments
Attachment
4: Analysis of Big-Event and
Two-Section Tournaments
General Considerations
§
The MCC Board decided
that four-round tournaments should be three sections and that five- and
six-round tournaments should be two sections. The issue is to determine where
break points might be fixed in order to optimize the number and competitiveness
of players in each section.
§
Some players habitually
play up, including particularly a few serious scholastic players who are
presumably being advised or encouraged by their teachers to play up. These
players are included in the “played up” numbers discussed below; however,
because they are expected to play up regardless of what the break points are,
decisions about where to fix break points should be made irrespective of these
players.
§
Some analysis is based
on the distribution of active members (those who played at least one tournament
during 1999). Obviously the club attracts non-members. Attachment 1 illustrates
that generally speaking the distribution of non-members by rating is very
comparable to that of members. Anomalies are the Master range and the 1700s
(and, in the opposite direction, unrateds), where we attract non-members
disproportionately to our member population. Accordingly I concluded that the
distribution of members by rating is a valid representation of the distribution
of all players.
Three-Section Tournaments
The
distribution of members by rating range (see Attachment 1) suggests that break
points for a three-section tournament should be (1) either 1800 or 1700 and (2)
1400. The rationale for these breaks is as follows.
§
Higher break point: The
population of players above 1800 is so sparse that the open section must
include at least the 1800s to be large enough to work for Swiss pairings. The
1700 range includes only two players, and so will not have great affect whether
it is included in the open section or not.
§
Lower break point: The
greatest concentration of active members is in the range 1300–1699 (36 of 82
total players). Two considerations favor putting the break point at 1400 rather
than 1300. First, the 1300s are not needed to make the middle section workable,
considering the base of 25 1400–1699 players. Second, 1300s probably are needed for the lowest section,
considering that below 1200 the population again is sparse and is artificially
inflated by a high number of players (especially unrateds) who play only a
tournament or two and don’t return.
Attachment
2 indicates the frequency with which players play up, and Attachment 3 is an
attempt to take this factor into account rationally.
§
Break points at 1900
and 1500 (January and September tournaments): An average of 7 players played up
in the open, with ratings averaging 246.5 points below the break point.
Significantly, players playing up represented 44% (14 of 32) of the players in
the open section. If these players had not played up, the open section would
have been below “regulation” size for a Swiss (12 and 6 players respectively
for January and September). An average of 6.5 players played up in the middle
section, with ratings averaging 103.0 points below the break point. These
players were likewise necessary to make the middle section large enough (13 of
34, or 38%). Despite the number of players that played up, the lowest section
was well populated (18 and 25 for January and September).
§
Break points at 1800
and 1400 (July and October tournaments): An average of 8.5 players played up in
the open, with ratings averaging 223.4 points below the break point. Players
playing up represented 38% (17 of 44) of the players in the open section. Once
again, if these players had not played up, the open section would have been
below “regulation” size for a Swiss (13 and 14). An average of 5.0 players
played up in the middle section, with ratings averaging 86.5 points below the
break point. However, in July 9 played up, whereas in October only 1 did. In
July these players were necessary to make the middle section large enough. The
lowest section had 15 and 18, barely sufficient on average.
The
numbers of players playing up was not greatly different between the two sets of
break points. In fact, the total number is the same; the difference is how
players playing up are distributed between the open and middle sections. Nor is
there a significant difference in the rating “deficit” represented by the
players playing up: –246.5 for 1900 versus –223.4 for 1800, and –103.0 for 1500
versus –86.5 for 1400. The average populations of the three sections did vary
significantly, however:
Distribution of Players by Section |
1900/1500 |
1800/1400 |
Open Section |
16.0 |
22.0 |
Middle Section |
17.0 |
18.5 |
Lower Section |
21.5 |
16.5 |
From the standpoint of optimizing competition in the
higher sections, break points at 1900 and 1500 appear to be preferable.
One of the arguments put forth in favor of varying
break points was that those players persistently at the low end of the section
range would have improved chances to win prizes, because in some tournaments
they would be just below the break point rather than just above it. The data
suggest that this has not been a major consideration for players. With the
break point at 1900, 5 players in the 1800s played up anyway, as compared with
4 who played in the middle section. With a break point at 1800, 3 players in
the 1700s played up, as compared with 2 who played down, while 7 players in the
1600s played up, as compared with 6 who played down. (See Attachment 3.) Moving
the break points has not clearly not caused large numbers of players to stay in
their “natural” section to compete for prizes. Presumably the players who
played up were more attracted by the prospect of stiffer competition provided
by Masters and Experts.
I attempted some consideration of lowering the higher
break point to 1700. There are no actual data to consider, because 1700 was
used as a break point only in two-section tournaments. I assumed that the
rating deficit of players playing up would be comparable to those discussed
above; I used –230.0 for the open section, and –95.0 for the middle section. I
assumed that half the player population within these deficit ranges would play
up on the basis that the lower break points would encourage some to play up who
otherwise would not. Given the population of the ranges immediately below those
breakpoints, I derived the following hypothetical section populations:
Distribution of Players by Section |
1700/1400 |
1700/1300 |
Open Section |
25.3 |
25.3 |
Middle Section |
14.2 |
20.1 |
Lower Section |
15.8 |
9.9 |
My conclusion is that dropping the upper break point
to 1700 will produce results contrary to our intention, i.e., it will encourage
more people to play up, thus both further “diluting” the rating strength of the
open section and increasing its population, which probably will lead to
unsatisfactory pairings (from a competitive point of view) and more shared
prizes.
On the basis of this analysis, which is admittedly
very limited, my conclusion is that the best break points for a three-section
tournament are 1900 and 1500. There is some risk inherent in this conclusion,
however, in that sections defined by these break points will work well only if
players continue to play up in numbers comparable to our 1999 experience. I
have already noted the apparent incentive of competition, but I would suggest
as a further encouragement/assurance that an “under 2000” class prize be
considered in the open section additionally to the three place prizes. Our
resident Masters almost without exception claim the first and second prizes;
third place provides something for the Experts (typically). A class prize for
Class A players will reward their participation in the open section. Moreover,
having two avenues for Class A players to pursue prizes (open section class
prize and middle section place prizes) might attract other strong area players
to the club (if there are any to be attracted within a reasonable drive
radius).
Big-Event Tournaments
These are two-section, six-round tournaments (April
and November) and the break point for both is 1800. Analysis of these is more
speculative because they attract an unusually large number of non-members. I
noted the following, however, from the 1999 data (see Attachment 4):
§
Numbers of players
playing up was comparable to three-section tournaments (8 in April and 7 in
November), and the average rating deficit for these players was also comparable
or even a little smaller (190.3 for April and 249.9 for November).
§
Again, without the
players who played up (8 of 26 in April, 7 of 26 in November), the open section
would have been too small.
§
Players in the top
ranges below the break point did not play up in unusual numbers; in fact, given
the presence of additional Masters and Experts, I would have expected more to
play up than did. For both tournaments, 4 players in the 1700s played up and
none played down, but for the 1600s only 2 played up and 10 played down; in the
1500s, 4 played up and 7 played down.
§
Players were evenly
split between sections in April (26 and 27), whereas in November 26 played in
the open and 44 played in the under 1800. Given that the tournament was six rounds,
44 was not an unwieldy number of players, but in case we attract larger numbers
in the future, perhaps we should be prepared to make either of these
tournaments three sections.
My conclusion is that a break point of 1800 is
appropriate for these tournaments. A lower break point, if a third section were
justified, could be determined (if rules of published notice permit) at
registration depending on the actual turnout.
Two-Section Tournaments
The February and December tournaments were excluded
from this analysis. I believe the February tournament was intended to be three
sections, but the low initial turnout made it necessary to combine the lower
two sections. The December tournament used an unusual time control and drew an
unusually small number of players; for these reasons I did not consider it
appropriate to include it in an analysis intended to resolve issues pertaining
to the club’s usual tournaments. The two-section tournaments considered are
June, with a break point at 1900, and March and August, with a break point at
1700.
In the June tournament 14 players played up,
including 5 of 7 players in the 1800s and the only 1700 player. In the 1600s,
however, only 3 players played up while 6 played down; in the 1500s, 2 played
up and 5 played down. The data indicate that 1700 was a pretty clear line of
demarcation.
In contrast, only 6 players
played up in March and 7 in August. For these tournaments in the aggregate, 2
players in the 1600s played up while 7 played down. In the 1500s 6 played up
and 5 played down; in the 1400s, 3 played up and 11 played down. These data, in
my opinion, confirm 1700 as a serviceable break point for two-section
tournaments.
It is worth noting the population of the sections in
these tournaments (see Attachment 2): 25 and 25 for March, 20 and 34 for June,
and 20 and 40 for August. Once again, we should be prepared to make any of
these tournaments three sections in case we attract larger numbers in the
future.
Summary
My conclusions regarding break points are as follows:
§
Three-section,
four-round tournaments: break points at 1900 and 1500, with consideration for
adding an “under 2000” class prize.
§
Two-section, six-round
(“big event”) tournaments: break point at 1800, but acknowledging the potential
need to add a third section at a break point to be determined.
§
Two-section, five-round
tournaments: break point at 1700, but acknowledging the potential need to add a
third section at a break point to be determined.
§
Some thought should be
given to defining the criteria on the basis of which a section will be split
into two sections, and the method and policy for determining the relevant break
point.
§
The above
recommendations are made independently of any considerations particular to a
club championship tournament.