Tourneygeek grows in a haphazard fashion. For me, that’s what makes it fun to write – I can speculate when I’m feeling speculative, analyze when I’m feeling analytical, draw new brackets when I’m feeling (slightly) artistic, or add new features to my tournament simulator when I’m feeling geeky. But readers can be forgiven for not sharing … Continue reading “A Guide to Tourneygeek”
Tourneygeek grows in a haphazard fashion. For me, that’s what makes it fun to write – I can speculate when I’m feeling speculative, analyze when I’m feeling analytical, draw new brackets when I’m feeling (slightly) artistic, or add new features to my tournament simulator when I’m feeling geeky.
But readers can be forgiven for not sharing my mood of the moment. So in this post, I try explain how the various threads – theory, practice, individual games, resources, and geekery – have developed, and show how to follow the main themes from post to post.
Continue reading “A Guide to Tourneygeek”
A reader asked for advice about how to run a league for Padel – a racquet sport that’s somewhat akin to tennis or squash. He expects to have about 30 teams, and wants to play the league in three months, at one match per week for each player.
First, a side observation about the request. I find that I’m more likely to be asked about games and sports I haven’t heard of than about the ones that I’m already familiar with. Perhaps that’s because the well-established sports also have established traditions for how their tourneys are run. It’s the new sports, or at least the less common ones, for which organizers seek the help of the likes of tourneygeek. And so it’s these less common sports that are likely to generate interesting new ideas about how tourneys should be run.
The reader suggested a creative format: Start with a group stage, with groups of four. Then use the group stage to seed a double-elimination bracket thus: group winners go to round 2 of the upper bracket; group runners-up go to round 1 of the upper bracket; third-place teams go to round 2 of the lower bracket; and fourth-place teams go to round 1 of the lower bracket. Will this work? Is there a better way?
Continue reading “A Padel League”
It is time, finally, to venture with gun and camera into the heart of darkness – making Swiss pairings. As our trusty native guide, we’ll use Bwana USCF – Chapter 2 of the USCF Official Rules of Chess (7th edition). Chess players have been running Swiss tournaments for years, so darkest Switzerland holds no terror for Bwana USCF. Still, we must be alert to the possibility the Bwana USCF will try to lead us into occult rituals peculiar to the needs of Chess.
Continue reading “Into Darkest Switzerland”
There was one eye-catching feature of the small backgammon tourney we discussed yesterday. That was that it included only a partial last chance. Why would anyone run a partial last chance? Presumably, it’s because there isn’t enough time to run a full one. Let’s take a closer look at that issue.
Continue reading “Last Chance for Some”
Before discussing the ways that the Swiss system might be adapted to run small backgammon tournaments, let me show why I think something along these lines is needed by discussing the current practice for many such tournaments.
Continue reading “Why We Need the Swiss”
The Official Rules of Chess discus only two tournament types: the round robin, and the Swiss system. Why is it that the round robin is so popular, and why is it used so rarely for other kinds of tourney?
The Swiss is sort of an elimination tourney in which no one ever gets eliminated. For the second round, first-round winners play other first-round winners and losers play losers. In subsequent rounds, players are grouped by won/loss record, with, for example, players with two wins and two losses facing each other in the fifth round.
The Swiss system makes sense whenever the limiting factor is the number of rounds to be played. With a bit enough room and lots of chess sets, there’s no reason why some players should have to drop out of the tourney early, or to wait around for a match to become available. It would seem a natural choice not just for chess, but for other games like backgammon. Why shouldn’t backgammon players enjoy the same maximum participation that chess players do?
[apologies to Jonathan Steinberg, author of Why Switzerland?, which is the best book I know for understanding Switzerland, the country.]
Continue reading “Why Switzerland?”
The United States Chess Federation’s Official Rules of Chess (7th Edition, 2019) contains unusually detailed and precise rules governing how chess tourneys are to be run. And there is tournament software available that implements these rules.
I’ve been experimenting with one of these software packages to see if it can be adapted to run a backgammon tourney that I’m going to be directing early next year. In doing this, I’ve run across a rule about the distribution of prize funds that I find, frankly, bizarre. Continue reading “Playing Tournament Chess for Money”
The previous post discussed a way in which the game of tennis is broken. The advantage accruing to the server has become so great that it is no longer sensible to play and score tennis in the traditional way.
The response of the tennis establishment has been the invention of a new type of game, the tiebreak, in which the advantages of serving are shared more equally because in a tiebreak both players get a chance to serve. And this solution is probably, now, a permanent part of tennis – it’s hard to imagine going back to the days before the tiebreaker.
There is still a need, however, to address the underlying problem lest the imbalance between serve and return grow so large that all games except the tiebreaks become meaningless. And this should probably be done in a way that requires the smallest possible alteration of the existing rules of tennis.
I have a modest proposal.
Continue reading “A Modest Proposal”