I've been looking into the topic of tie-break systems again, and one of the challenges is how to define the difficulty of the field. Opinions on this seemed to be split pretty evenly, so I am interested in what other people think or prefer.
Here are the general choices
A) The more points my opponents score, the harder the field is for me (eg Buccholz)
B) The higher my opponents ratings are, the harder the field (eg Average of Opponents Ratings)
C) The earlier I hit the lead, the stronger my opponents will be (eg Sum of Progressive Scores)
D) If I have more games with Black, then the tougher it is to win (eg Most games with Black)
1 comment:
I would go:
C - This is effectively the reverse of the Swiss Gambit
B - Higher ratings, should indicate a stronger field played overall. Not always, but on average
A - More points of opponents is often used, but this tie break quite often leaves prizes for players being determined by results on boards 40 or so, who have no interest at all in the tiebreak outcome, or even the result of the game they are playing as they just want to go home.
D- Whilst playing more blacks than whites can indicate a harder event, if you get black in round one and are in the top half, then that black does not mean much. The other tie breaks tell more about overall performance than number of wins with black, especially when it is not guaranteed that the entire field will play the same number of black games.
Post a Comment