Swiss Movement in Sections
#22
Posted 2012-April-17, 12:30
Oof Arted, on 2012-April-17, 12:02, said:
That would be unfair, after all noone responded to my post yet either!
-- Bertrand Russell
#23
Posted 2012-April-18, 09:21
#24
Posted 2012-April-18, 10:07
Quote
This is really good news.
I'm not sure that I can suggest a tournament size at which a break into sections is a good thing.
Presumably, the original figure of 50 tables was OK and might well remain so.
It seems to me that anything less than 30 tables destroys the whole principle of a swiss tourney.
Thanks for looking at this again
jandrew
#25
Posted 2012-April-18, 11:18
jandrew, on 2012-April-18, 10:07, said:
We ran a Swiss Pair game at our club last week, and we only had 9 tables. Was it a waste of time because we have such a small club?
We made the section sizes smaller so that we could have more winners and give out more masterpoints in the new BBO speedball swiss tourneys (although so far we haven't had large enough games to get multiple sections). So what we may end up doing in the fix is have small sections for pay tourneys, but return to big sections for free tourneys.
#26
Posted 2012-April-18, 11:51
(still learning)
#27
Posted 2012-April-18, 12:34
barmar, on 2012-April-18, 11:18, said:
We made the section sizes smaller so that we could have more winners and give out more masterpoints in the new BBO speedball swiss tourneys (although so far we haven't had large enough games to get multiple sections). So what we may end up doing in the fix is have small sections for pay tourneys, but return to big sections for free tourneys.
No. I don't think that it a waste of time running a Swiss Pairs game with only 9 tables. That is all the tables and every pair is in contention with every other
My suggestion is that, had there been 16 tables, your members would have thought the splitting up into two sections of 8 tables rather missed the excitment and the point of a Swiss match.
Perhaps I am wrong in the case of your club, but I have a fair amount of pained feed-back in our tourney which is a weekly affair and varies around the 16 table mark. We accumulate results over a 13 week period and changes from 1 to 2 sections then back again makes it difficult to keep the accumulated score or for payers to estimate how they are doing.
An alternative might be to give the host the choice to create small sections with the default being some arbitrary high figure (like the original 50). (I ask for that to be the default because we continue to use the Windows software to create tourneys restricted to a list on our computer which procedure is not available on the "flash" programme. As we understand that you do not intend to add features to the Windows software, the large section limit would have to be the default for it to work in the Windows software.)
A choice for hosts using the "flash" software might give everyone the best of all worlds.
That will depend on BBO's priorities. This change has, however, been a big problem to us and I thank you for looking at it again with a view to giving us back our single section Swiss tourney.
jandrew (webmaster and scorer for the Acol PLayers' Club)
#28
Posted 2012-April-18, 12:57
barmar, on 2012-April-18, 11:18, said:
We made the section sizes smaller so that we could have more winners and give out more masterpoints in the new BBO speedball swiss tourneys (although so far we haven't had large enough games to get multiple sections). So what we may end up doing in the fix is have small sections for pay tourneys, but return to big sections for free tourneys.
As Jandrews says No if your club has only 9 tables (or 'n' Tables) then it is no problem especially as you are pitted against ALL the other pairs not only Portion of them
But thankyou for the re-think it is much appreciated
#30
Posted 2012-April-18, 13:05
barmar, on 2012-April-18, 11:18, said:
Or you could just...
mgoetze, on 2012-March-25, 08:08, said:
...make it customizable?
Have I mentioned I'd really really really love to have a Howell movement?
-- Bertrand Russell
#31
Posted 2012-April-18, 13:44
#32
Posted 2012-April-18, 16:13
barmar, on 2012-April-18, 13:44, said:
That sounds good to me.
jandrew
#33
Posted 2012-May-28, 15:01
There were 16 tables and it was NOT split into Sections.
So it looks like changes have been made - and that is a welcome improvement.
Thanks, well done.
Out of interest - at what number of tables does a clocked swiss pairs tourney get split into sections?
jandrew
#37
Posted 2012-May-30, 02:36