understand is the tie breaking system used for assigning trophies. I put together this document to help explain the process, using fictitious names and results as an example. IMPOT!"T "OT#$ The %nited &tates Chess 'ederation (%&C') rules state that *hene+er there is a tie, any tied player is considered to ha+e finished in the tied position. 'or example, if there is a three, *ay tie for second, all three players may state that they finished in second place. !ny pri-es must be split e.ually bet*een the tied players. &ince there is typically only one trophy for each position, ho*e+er, some sort of ob/ecti+e system must be used to assign trophies. Interestingly, the %&C' rules also state that those *ho recei+e a trophy for a tied position may change the plate (at their o*n expense) to indicate the position they tied. That being said, let0s look at the tie breaking systems used. Tie Breaking &ystems The %&C' specifies the follo*ing tie breaking systems be used for scholastic tournaments, in this order$ 1. Modified Median 2. &olkoff 3. Cumulati+e 4. 5ashdan 6. 7ames bet*een tied players 8. Most times playing Black 9. Coin Toss If the first tie,breaking system is unable to break the tie, the second is used for the players that are still tied, and so on, until the order is decided. Tie breakers are only used bet*een players that ha+e the same score, not all players. To make this explanation easier, I:m going to use the follo*ing results for a fictitious tournament, *here 18 people finished more or less in alphabetical order... #xample Tournament, 'inal &cores$ !nn 4.; Bill 3.; Chip 3.; <an 3.; #d 3.; 'aye 2.6 7us 2.6 =al 2.; I+an 2.; >udy 2.; 5irk 1.6 ?ucy 1.; Mark 1.; "an 1.; O--y ;.6 Pete ;.; !s you can see, *e ha+e a four,*ay tie for 2nd place that needs to be resol+ed. Modified Median The Modified Median system *orks by comparing the scores of the opponents that the tied players faced during the tournament. The theory is to a*ard the person *ho played the stronger opponents. The system *orks by adding the scores of each player0s opponents, disregarding the lo*est score 1 . %sing the example tournament results, it *orks out this *ay for the four players tied for second place *ith 3 points$ Bill$ Chip$ <an$ #d$ #d 3 Bill 3 !nn 4 'aye 2@ =al 2 'aye 2@ =al 2 7us 2@ I+an 2 =al 2 ?ucy 1 >udy 2 Mark 1 ?ucy 1 Mark 1 5irk 1@ Total 9 Total 9@ Total 9 Total 9 &o, by the Modified Median tie breaker, Chip is a*arded the 2 nd place trophy, and Bill, <an and #d are no* tied for 3 rd . The Modified Median, like most tie breakers, only *orks bet*een players *ho ha+e all earned the same tournament score. If there is still a tie after calculating the Modified Median, the &olkoff system is used for the players that are still tied &olkoff The &olkoff system is similar to the Modified Median except that no opponent scores are disregarded. By the &olkoff system, the next step in the tournament example *ould look like this$ Bill$ <an$ #d$ #d 3 !nn 4 'aye 2@ =al 2 =al 2 7us 2@ I+an 2 ?ucy 1 >udy 2 Mark 1 Mark 1 5irk 1@ Total A Total A Total A@ &o, using the &olkoff tie breaker, the 3 rd place a*ard goes to #d, and Bill and <an are tied for 4 th . If after calculating the &olkoff score there is still a tie, the Cumulati+e system is used. Cumulati+e The Cumulati+e system *orks by adding together the players0 score after each round to get a cumulati+e total. The system re*ards players *ho *in early rounds, but lose in later rounds against stronger opponents. ?et0s say that Bill *on his first, third and fourth games, and <an *on his first, second, and fourth games. The cumulati+e scores *ould be$ Bill$ <an$ ound 1 1 1 ound 2 1 2 ound 3 2 2 ound 4 3 3 TOT!? 9 A Continuing *ith our example, <an *ould recei+e the 4 th place trophy, and Bill *ould get the 6 th place a*ard. Other &ystems In the rare case that there is still a tie, the 5ashdan system is used. In the 5ashdan system, a player recei+es 4 tie breaker points for a *in, 2 points for a dra*, 1 point for a loss and ; for bye. The highest total *ins the tie breaker. If there is still a tie, the results are checked to see if the tied players played each other during the tournament. If so, *hoe+er *on that game *ins the tiebreaker. If the game bet*een tied players *as a dra*, the results are checked to see if one player played black more often than the other. If so, that player *ins the tie. 'inally, if there is still a tie, a coin toss determines the order of finish. Most of the time, the +arious tie breaking systems result in the same placing. &ince that is not al*ays the case, ho*e+er, the order in *hich they are used is strictly specified by the %&C'. Conclusion I hope you found this explanation helpful for explaining the often,confusing results of chess tournaments. 5eep in mind, of course, that the most important aspects of scholastic chess tournaments are to learn, make friends, be a good sport, and ha+e fun. ,, Mike 1 The Modified Median rule is actually slightly more in+ol+ed. The lo*est scoring opponent is disregarded only for ties bet*een players *ith more *ins than losses. 'or players tied *ith more losses than *ins, the highest scoring opponent is disregarded. 'or players tied *ith an e+en number of *ins and losses, both the highest and lo*est scoring opponents are dropped. &ince the system is normally used to a*ard trophies to top finishers, the generali-ation on page one is good enough for most cases.
Chess Tournament Tie Break Systems Tie,break systems are used in many tournaments to determine the order of finish among players in the same score group. There is no perfect tie,break system. #ach system carries a different bias and is sub/ect to criticism. In e+ents *here time is not pressing, playoffs pro+ide an alternati+e to the use of tie,break systems. Bhere playoffs are used, time controls are usually much faster than those used for regular tournament rounds. &cholastic e+ents are often s.uee-ed for time at the end of the day and tie,breaks are necessary to determine trophies or other non,cash a*ards. Tie, breaks systems are not used for cash pri-esC cash pri-es are di+ided e+enly among tied players. <epending on the si-e of the e+ent, more than one tie,break system may be needed to determine the order of finish. The se.uence of tie,break systems to be used at a tournament should be posted before the first round. %nless a different method has been posted or announced before the first round, %&C' rules indicate that players *ill expect the follo*ing se.uence of tie,break systems to be employed as the first four indi+idual tie,breakers$ 1. Modified Median 2. &olkoff 3. Cumulati+e 4. Cumulati+e of Opposition Many of the primary tie,break systems are based in +arying *ays on the strength of your opponents: play. 7enerally speaking, the stronger the scores of your opponents, the better your tie,breaks. The follo*ing tie,break definitions are deri+ed from the U.S. Chess Federation's Official Rules of Chess, Fourth Edition. Individual Swiss tournament tie-break systems Solkoff The sum of all opponents: final scores. Modified Median The sum of opponents: scores (like &olkoff) but discarding some high or lo* scores$ ,, for players *ith DplusD scores (more *ins than losses) ,, the lo*est scoring opponent is discarded. ,, for players *ith De+enD scores ,, the highest and the lo*est scoring opponents are discarded. ,, for players *ith DminusD scores ,, the highest scoring opponent is discarded. 'or tournaments of nine or more rounds, the top t*o and bottom t*o scores are discarded for e+en score ties, the bottom t*o scores for plus score ties, and the top t*o scores for minus score ties. These scores are ad/usted for unplayed games (byes, forfeits, unplayed games), *hich count a half point each. Median (Harkness System) The sum of opponents: final scores, discarding the highest and lo*est of these scores. Cumulative The sum of the cumulati+e (running) score for each round. One point is subtracted from the sum for each unplayed *in or one,point bye. 'or example, if a player:s results o+er a fi+e,round e+ent *ere *in, loss, *in, dra*, loss, the *allchart *ould sho* a cumulati+e score round by round as 1, 1, 2, 2 1E2, 2 1E2. !dding across, the cumulati+e tie,break total is F. Cumulative Scores of Opposition The cumulati+e tie,break points for each opponent are calculated and then added together. Kashdan ! player recei+es 4 tie,break points for a *in, 2 for a dra*, 1 for a loss, and ; for an unplayed game. This system a*ards aggressi+e play by gi+ing more credit for *ins. Result et!een Tied "layers &elf,explanatory if t*o tie, but useful only *hen they are paired and did not dra*. If more than t*o tie, all results among tied players should be considered, *ith rank according to plus or minus, not percentage (3,1 beats 1,;). Most Blacks &elf,explanatory. Opposition#s "erformance This method a+erages the performance ratings of the players: opposition. Performance ratings are calculated by crediting the player *ith the opponent:s rating plus 4;; points for a *in, the opponent:s rating minus 4;; points for a loss, and the opponent:s rating for a dra*. esults of each opponent against the tied player should not be included, since this *ould gi+e the higher,rated tied player an unfair ad+antage. This system may be difficult to use *hen unrated players are in the tournament. $vera%e Opposition This system a+erages the ratings of the players: opponents, the better tie,break score going to the person *ho played the highest,rated a+erage field. Sonneorn&Ber%er ("artial Score Method) !dd the final scores of all the opponents the players defeated and half the final scores of all the opponents *ith *hom the player dre*. "othing is added for the games the player lost or for unplayed games. This is the most common method used for round,robin e+ents. Modified Individual/Team tie-break systems Many scholastic e+ents used a modified indi+idualEteam tournament format. In this type of e+ent, pairings are performed as in a normal indi+idual &*iss tournament but often teammates (e.g., players from the same school) *ill not be paired against each other. !t the end of the e+ent, team points are accumulated (usually the top 4 players: scores are used for the team calculation) and team a*ards presented in addition to indi+idual a*ards. 'or this type of tournament, the Team Cumulati+e tie,break may be employed in the o+erall tie,break se.uence. Cumulative The sum of the cumulati+e (running) scores for each team member at the end of the tournament. Team Cumulative The sum of the cumulati+e (running) scores for each team member as the team is defined for each round. This is different from the normal Cumulati+e tie,break only if there are more than 4 players on a team and the top 4 scores in+ol+e different sets of players for at least one round. Most of the indi+idual tie,break systems for indi+idual &*iss tournaments described abo+e are also suitable for modified indi+idualEteam e+ents. Team tie-break systems In team tournaments, the team competes as a unit against other teams. The usual example is the 4, board team tournament in *hich 4 team members compete in each round against the 4 members of another team. Most of the indi+idual tie,break systems for indi+idual &*iss tournaments described abo+e are also suitable for team e+ents. %&C' rules describe t*o other tie,break systems for team e+ents. 'ame (or Match) "oints The total game points earned by the team in+ol+ed. ()S) $mateur Team System 'or each round, the final score of the opposing team is multiplied by the number of points scored against that team. 'or example, if Team ! scored 2 1E2 , 1 1E2 against Team B, *hich finished the tournament *ith 3 match points, Team !:s tie,break for that round is 2 1E2 G 3 H 9 1E2. Team Scorin% Systems and S!iss Chess Tournaments *ersion +),- y Ro Brennan (rennanr.i!or%)com) +- /an #,0 $stract1 This paper describes the relationship bet*een scoring, pairing and reliable outcomes (ie fairly picking *inners) for s*iss chess competitions. It then highlights problems for s*iss chess *ith the current mechanism of summing the indi+idual game scores to gi+e a team score in a team competition. T*o ne* approaches are then described for extracting a team score from indi+idual game outcomes. It is contended that these ne* approaches *ork better *ith the underlying assumptions of s*iss chess and *ill produce *inning teams *ith more emphasis on player skill and less on luck of the dra*. !lternati+e approaches to competition organisation that *ill produce more reliable results *hile retaining the current method of team scoring are also briefly discussed. 1. Introduction Competition *argamers ha+e long realised the ad+antages of the s*iss chess method for running tournaments. This enthusiasm for the s*iss chess method has not necessarily translated into a *idespread appreciation of the underlying assumptions of the method. It is a fact that the results produced by running s*iss chess tournaments can easily be highly unreliable if organisers inad+ertently +iolate the principles under *hich s*iss chess *as designed to be applied. %nreliable is taken here to mean unlikely to re*ard the strongest player and likely to be almost random *ith a bias to*ards the stronger players. Properly applied, s*iss chess is designed to be likely to produce a fair *inner ie the same *inner as *ould be found if a round,robin style of tournament (*here e+eryone plays e+eryone else) *as played. !n example of a commonly understood (if not al*ays applied) principle of s*iss chess is the fact that a certain minimum number of rounds are re.uired to find the *inner from a gi+en number of players eg 18 players *ill generally re.uire at least 4 rounds of play. The choice of scoring system to be used is another aspect of the competition format that interacts *ith the s*iss chess method. If competition organisers choose a scoring system *ithout reference to the other parameters of the tournament (number of players, number of rounds) then the results of that tournament can easily be /ust as unreliable as if they played too fe* rounds. The effects of scoring system choice are perhaps more pernicious than playing too fe* rounds because *ithout understanding these effects the competition appears to be e.uitably resol+ed. ie it looks like you ha+e a fairly determined, clear,cut *inner. Bithin the <BM community there has long been debate on the relati+e merits of different scoring systems. There are essentially t*o camps based on either the ;,1; scoring system presented in the rulesbook (or deri+ati+es such as the B=7& ;,32 or 7&C ;,16) or some form of BinE<ra*E?oss scoring (aka B<?, including ;,1; *ith I1;;JP for a *in). It is not the purpose of this paper to focus on the details of indi+idual game scoring, although it is a related issue, but instead to focus on the issue of ho* best to score team results for team,based s*iss chess competitions. This is seen as especially important for t*o high profile <BM e+ents, the 7ranson International Team Challenge and the Borld Team Championships. It is hoped that this paper *ill explain *hy the current scoring arrangements at both of these e+ents interact poorly *ith s*iss chess and hence produce unreliable outcomes. &uggestions are made for scoring methods that *ould *ork better *ith s*iss chess or other competition parameters that could be ad/usted *hile retaining the current scoring methods to produce fairer outcomes. !ll of this *ork is presented *ith the intention of bringing this information to the attention of the organisers for e+eryone:s benefit rather than any attempt to undermine or diminish the excellent and much appreciated *ork of the organisers in pre+ious years. &ection 2 belo* outlines the +ital relationship bet*een scoring and pairing in s*iss chess competitions. In section 3 you *ill find a discussion of the effects of the current scoring arrangements. &ection 4 outlines some proposals for possible alternate scoring systems and competition mechanisms to impro+e the fairness of outcomes. 'inally section 6 presents some conclusions. 2. &coring and Pairing in &*iss Chess &coring in classical s*iss chess competitions has one primary goal, to set up pairings. Kour score means +ery little in absolute terms, it is the peopleEteams you play against that is important. This is because s*iss chess is trying to estimate the best playerEteam by taking a limited sample of all possible games ie *hen e+eryone plays e+eryone else. ! simple illustration of this point is to consider *hat *ould happen if the top 1;L of playersEteams in a s*iss chess competition played only against the bottom 1;L of playersEteams , it is likely that all of the top players *ould recei+e a maximum score. The origins of using numerical +alues (scores) in s*iss chess competitions to arrange pairings is /ust to ha+e a simple *ay of recording ho* many Bins (1pt), <ra*s (;.6pts), and ?osses (;pts) a gi+en player has obtained. This is because the ob/ecti+e of s*iss chess is to find the o+erall *inner by ensuring that they play a sample of the other strong players in the comp. By forcing the strong players to play each other s*iss chess e+aluates their relati+e strengths. &*iss chess assumes that the outcome of a game is a reflection of the relati+e strengths of the t*o players in+ol+ed. Ideally (ie assuming no dra*s), s*iss chess finds a *inner by the follo*ing process for 18 players$ ound 1 generates A *inners, ound 2 generates 4 double *inners, ound 3 generates 2 triple *inners, ound 4 generates 1 .uadruple *inner *ho is the *inner of the competition. This person has *on all their games and played all their games (after the first) ersus other !inners (!ho are also assumed to "e strong players). The second part in italics is the important bit as that is *hat ensures that they ha+e *on their games against the other strong players in the field. This is achie+ed by making sure that the pairing is correct. To translate this example into the B<? scoring *hich *ill generate pairings *e see that after round 1 all the *inners ha+e 1 point, after round 2 the double *inners ha+e 2 points etc. The fact that they are on the same score is then used to generate the re.uired pairings. This is the ideal situation *ithout dra*s, *hen dra*s are added you in fact ha+e to play additional rounds to guarantee that the players *ill be separated sufficiently to determine a *inner M1N. If *e use a scoring system *ith more possible outcomes, eg ;,1; as pro+ided in the <BM rulebook *ith 1;,;, F,1, A,2, 9,3, 8,4 and 6,6 as the possible outcomes, then perhaps *e are getting a more accurate estimate of the relati+e skill le+els of the players in+ol+ed in a game. <oes this help our s*iss chess mechanism find a *innerO "o is the ans*er. The reason for this is that the additional possible game outcomes make our desired pairings (bet*een *innersEstrong players) less clear. If t*o players meet under ;,1; and they get a 9,3 result it tells us that player 1 (*ith the 9) is stronger but ho* does he compare to the player 1 of another game *ho got a 1;,;O It could be that the second player 1 (*ith a 1;) /ust played against a *eaker player 2 and is in fact himself a *eaker player than our first player 1. This lack of information about the relati+e meaning of scores, ie both scores *eren:t achie+ed against the same player 2, makes re*arding one player 1 o+er another foolhardy. This is a critical difference in the desired types of scoring $ 'or s*iss chess competitions ;,1; does not *ork so *ell, *hile for round,robin competitions ;,1; *ould be fine. 2ote1 It is true that the relati+e difference in scores 9 +s 1; obtained by the players does also contain some information on the relati+e strengths of players. =o*e+er a basic analysis of the distribution of game outcomes typically achi+ed by players in competitions does not sho* a strong correlation bet*een this difference and relati+e player skill. It is the *ork of another paper to explore this area more completely. 'or the current discussion *e assume that the classical s*iss chess conser+ati+e approach based on number of *ins is most robust ie *e kno* that *ins ha+e meaning, *e are unsure of *hat meaning to attach to the relati+e degrees of +ictory expressed by more complex scoring systems like 1;,;. In practice, by ha+ing more possible scoring outcomes *e make the pairing of strong players against each other harder to achie+e. This is because the groups of people on the same score ha+e scoring information that is both relati+e to the rest of the entire competition (ho* many *ins they possess) and information relati+e to their exact opponents (ho* *ell they *on each game). This results in a more continuous distribution of score +alues *hich is more biased to*ards mean +alues. Thus all players tend to ha+e a score *hich is nearer the a+erage for the competition, thus pairings generated from this information *ill tend to pair both *eak and strong players together throughout the competition. This +iolates the pairing principles of s*iss chess. This means that it is easier to get a soft dra* (because e+eryone tends to be mixed up in the middle) and hence get the points to lift you abo+e e+eryone else for a competition *in. #ssentially this means that *inning such a competition is highly dependent on the luck of the dra* (ie the exact pairings generated) as *ell as player skill. !lthough it *ill still be one of the stronger players *ho tends to *in because you still ha+e to *in most of your games, it:s /ust that if you *in it is likely that someone else (*ho could be stronger than you) recei+ed a much tougher dra* than you. By +iolating the s*iss chess pairing principle of pairing the strong players against each other, the influence of the luck of the dra* has been significantly increased. This problem can be sol+ed by playing more rounds, /ust as *e add rounds for the addition of dra*s to our scoring *hen using B<? M1N. It is also *orth stating that scoring systems in s*iss chess competitions ha+e a secondary function and that is to separate the placings of players after the final round *hen the idealised result of ha+ing only one unbeaten player is not achie+ed. %sing the traditional B<? scoring it is assumed that players are ranked on the basis of most *ins then most dra*s then least losses. Thus a player *ith 3 *ins and a dra* places higher than a player *ith 3 *ins and a loss. This is not perfect because it does of course not take into account the .uality of the opposition faced and is thus biased to*ards the player *ith the softest dra*. =o*e+er soft dra*s are harder to achie+e under B<? scoring so the result is fairly robust. Bhen t*o players on the same score, eg 3 *ins and a dra* (3.6 pts) ha+e to be separated then traditionally some sort of tie, break mechanism is used to separate the players if it is to determine first place M2N. Other tied players are left tied in the competition results M2N because the fact is that s*iss chess has not really had sufficient rounds to meaningfully separate them. There are many of these tie breaks used in the chess *orld M3N but they all try to estimate the player *ho has recei+ed the hardest dra* and re*ard them. This is exactly the opposite effect of using a scoring system *ith more possible outcomes, eg ;,1;, *hich *ill re*ard the player *ho recei+ed the softest dra* and allo*ed them to gain additional points against the *eaker players they faced. 3. Current Team &coring and &*iss Chess Current practice for team scoring at <BM e+ents is based on adding together the scores of the team members to get a team score. =opefully it *ill be ob+ious from the discussion in section 2 that this +iolates the pairing assumptions of s*iss chess in t*o *ays$ 1. It generates team scores *hich ha+e a large range of possible outcomes eg for 7ranson 12,;, 11,1, 1;, 1, F,3, etc. These effecti+ely rate the team against their precise set of opponents rather than against the *hole field thus making correct pairing more difficult. =ence increasing the probability of hardEsoft dra*s among the teams and biasing the o+erall result to*ards the strong team *ith the softest dra*. 2. By summing the indi+idual game scores to gi+e a team score, you are effecti+ely a+eraging results and thus you are biasing further the distribution of results to*ards the mean. !n extreme *ay of looking at this is that all teams effecti+ely get a dra* (a+erage result) each round except for the teams that dra* a team much betterE*orse than them and these teams get a lossE*in respecti+ely. This means that team scores tend to cluster around the mean, hence all teams tend to get paired together , rather than seperating strong and *eak teams as per s*iss chess assumptions. This makes the pairings less robust and aggri+ates the points discussed in point 1 abo+e. The net result of these effects is a preponderance of noticeably hardEsoft dra*s at the competitions M4N and an ad+antage in the final placings for teams *hich get the opportunity to play against the *eakest teams present. The *inners, *hile undoubtedly strong teams, are also largely determined by the luck of the dra*. !s discussed in &ection 2 this is because the ideal team pairings of strongest +s. strongest ha+e been made difficult to achie+e by mixing strong and *eak teams together on similar scores. 4. Proposed &ystems for &*iss Chess Team Competitions In this section proposals are made to impro+e the reliability of the results produced at team competitions. T*o proposals for changing the team scoring systems are discussed. "ote that *e do not discuss indi+idual game scoring mechanisms but rather the mechanism for extracting a team score from the indi+idual game results. Be also briefly discuss alternati+e *ays of restructuring the e+ents to impro+e reliability *hile retaining the current team scoring method (summing the scores of each team member:s games). 3)+ 2e! Team Scorin% Methods In order to satisfy s*iss chess pairing re.uirements the current scoring systems ha+e to be changed to remo+e the current t*o problems discussed in section 3. Both of the suggestions here focus on extracting from the indi+idual game outcomes some sort of team outcome *hich is then used to generate pairings and hence pro+ides the primary scoring system for the competition. There is still a huge amount of scope for different proposals on ho* exactly team scores should be structured (eg 1E.6E; or 3E1E;), ho* indi+idual games should be scored and *hat type of secondary (tie,break) scoring system should be used. These are all left as open issues for the competition organisers to decide upon. 3)+)+ Current 'ame Scorin% (nchan%ed4 Team Scorin% 56tracted from Sum %nder this proposal, games *ould be scored as per the current method and then a team score is extracted from them. Take the results of all games for each team, sum them and compare to the other team:s score. If$ Team 1:s Total P Team 2:s Total HP Team 1 *on, a*ard them G points and Team 2 lost, a*ard them Q points. Team 1:s Total H Team 2:s Total HP Team 1 and Team 2 dre*, a*ard them K points. Team 1:s Total R Team 2:s Total HP Team 1 lost, a*ard them Q points, and Team 2 *on, a*ard them G points. %sing standard B<? scoring, G H 1, K H ;.6, Q H ;. (!lthough other schemes such as 31; may be used by the organisers). This then becomes the team:s score for the round and is used to generate pairings. ! secondary scoringEtie,break mechanism *ould then be needed to separate teams on the same score at the end of the competition. It is tempting to use the sum of the team members: scores for each round but this may be biased to*ards the team that got the softest dra* and a better tie,break might be something like$ If team ! beat team B during the competition, then team ! places higher. Other*ise take the sum of team !:s opponents: scores and compare it *ith the sum of team B:s opponents: scores, *hiche+er is higher places higher. 2ote1 It is true that any countback mechanism is also a fla*ed measure of player ability M1N. The reality is that s*iss chess simply hasn:t had enough rounds to seperate the teams. This is *hy countbacks are only used in chess competitions to seperate placing (ie 1st,3rd position) players M2N , the rest of the field should be left tied. Thus in the absence of any analysis of the relati+e merits of using cumulati+e <BM game scores as a countback or the sum of opponents scores it is hard to /ustify the use of one or the other. The organisers are recommended to make their o*n decision on *hat to use. This *ould be a simple and effecti+e *ay of combating the current problems. It is dependent on ho* robust the indi+idual game scoring mechanism is, but that is an issue for the organisers. It *orks *ell *ith s*iss chess because it minimises the number of dra*s, *hich in turn minimises the number of rounds re.uired. 3)+)0 Holistic $pproach4 Ra! 'ame Outcomes 'ive Team Score ! slightly more sophisticated approach might be to build a table of indi+idual game outcomes and map this onto the team outcome. In this approach the organisers decide ho* many indi+idual game *insEdra*s should translate into a team *in and build a table to perform this mapping for all possible results. There are many possible +ariations on this approach depending on the style of game, play the organisers *ant to encourage.!n example mapping for 4,person teams is gi+en belo* (in this example it *as decided that a minimum of 2 *ins, a dra* and loss is re.uired for a team to be re*arded *ith a *in result)$ Team ! players get$ Team ! esult is$ Team B esult is$ 4 *ins Bin ?oss 3 *ins, 1 dra* Bin ?oss 3 *ins, 1 loss Bin ?oss 2 *ins, 2 dra*s Bin ?oss 2 *ins, 1 dra*, 1 loss Bin ?oss 2 *ins, 2 losses <ra* <ra* 1 *in, 3 dra*sS <ra* <ra* 1 *in, 2 dra*s, 1 loss <ra* <ra* 4 dra*s <ra* <ra* 3 dra*s, 1 lossSS <ra* <ra* 1 *in, 1 dra*, 2 losses ?oss Bin 2 dra*s, 2 losses ?oss Bin 1 dra*, 3 losses ?oss Bin 1 *in, 3 losses ?oss Bin 4 losses ?oss Bin S!n ob+ious +ariation on this table *ould be to make this result also count as a Bin for team !, if the organisers *ant to encourage a Dnot losingD style of play. In this case the SS result *ould count as a ?oss for team !. Once the team result is decided, then score +alues such as the G, K and Q in section 4.1.1 abo+e are allocated and used for pairing. ! tie,break mechanism similar to that discussed in 4.1.1 *ould also ha+e to be adopted. This is the preferred approach of the author as it does not re*ard the eccentricities of specific game scoring mechanisms *ith the ability to push a team result from a <ra* to a Bin or ?oss (as is the case *ith solution 4.1.1). It may also be argued that the abo+e approach is better at estimating the true relati+e strength of both teams because a big *in on one table is not enough to offset multiple dra*s or losses on other tables and pro+ide an o+erall *in result for the team (as could be the case *ith solution 4.1.1). 3)0 Other $pproaches Instead of changing the scoring system, there are at least t*o other approaches that could be adopted. The easiest (although probably not practical) approach *ould be to add more rounds to the competitions. =o* many rounds are re.uiredO This is not easy to ans*er but *e kno* that it is at least as many as B<? s*iss chess, *hich *ould be log2(n) I (log2(n))S1E3, *here n is the number of teams and probably less than a full round robin *hich is (n,1) rounds. =o* many less *ill depend on the number of possible outcomes from each game, *here more outcomes *ill re.uire more rounds. !s an example, the *orld chess teams championship recently used teams of 4 players *ith game scores being summed to gi+e a team score, ho*e+er they played 14 rounds for 136 teams. #his is dou"le the num"er of rounds suggested "y applying the "asic s!iss chess rounds formula M1N. %nfortunately most organisers are stretched to fit in the number of rounds they play any*ay so this is generally not a practical solution. ! corollary of this approach *ould of course be to reduce the number of competing teams by at least 6;L, it is assumed that this is also unpalatable to the organisers. The second approach, *hich *as mentioned in B=7& list discussions M4N, *ould be to drop the pairing by team aspect of the competitions, ie split each team into the indi+idual players *ho ha+e their o*n scores and play exclusi+ely *ithin their o*n pools (ie all player 1:s etc). This *ould effecti+ely split the competition into 3 or 4 separate competitions *ith indi+idual *inners. The team score *ould then be the sum of the final scores of each player in the team. This approach *ould certainly *ork but it seems to dilute the original concept of teams playing (and getting paired) against one another. 6. Conclusions This paper has explained the relationship bet*een scoring and pairings in s*iss chess. It has also sho*n that getting pairing right is key to the s*iss chess mechanism functioning properly ie fairly determines a *inner. The current practice of assigning a team score e.ual to the sum of indi+idual player scores for team,based pairing purposes has been sho*n to interact badly *ith s*iss chess. &e+eral proposals for alternati+e approaches to team,based s*iss chess competitions ha+e been discussed. The author recommends an approach based on extracting an o+erall team result from the indi+idual game results *hich is then used for pairing and hence primary scoring purposes. This approach maintains the team on team aspect of the competition *ithout re.uiring impractical alterations to the competition format and *ill increase the robustness of the final results generated. Of the t*o such approaches presented, the D=olistic !pproachD is the author:s preferred option. $ckno!led%ements The author *ishes to thank the follo*ing re+ie*ers for their +aluable comments on earlier drafts of this paper$ <a+id Taylor, <a+id Koung, 5e+in <ono+an, ichard !ynsley and Tony Balsh. The opinions expressed in this paper remain the author:s o*n.
Republic of The Philippines Department of Education Region VII, Central Visayas Division of Carcar City P. Nellas ST., Poblacion III, Carcar City, Cebu