Kieran wrote on 03/14/11 at 16:33:03:

Many of the larger (100+ people) tournaments offer free entry to GM's, usually with the entry fee deducted from their prize at the end. Sometimes, this also extends to lower titled players, as well.

And I agree with ErictheRed. This is why I said I prefer big tournaments that are divided into sections, so I can play mostly guys around my own level.

Not entirely the same, but I recently played in a tournament with one large Open section of about 50 people.  There was a 1st, 2nd, and then multiple class prizes (under 2000, under 1800, etc).  I was the 3rd highest seed.

I ended up scoring 4/5, with my only loss coming against the top seed in the tournament.  I gained a grand total of 2 rating points, because everyone else I played was rated well below me.  However, I didn't win any money because someone who was about the 10th seed or so snuck in with 4.5/5.  Incredibly, he didn't play a single person rated above him!  He had a draw in a fairly early round (played a "Swiss Gambit") and so had an easy road to the top.

In my view, this could have been easily corrected by just having different sections: one Open section, an under 1800 section, and an under 1400 section (or whatever).  That way you essentially have 3 mini tournaments of about 15-20 people and you're guaranteed to have better matchups and more "fair" results.   

Personally I might not travel to another weekend tournament where there is only 1 large open section.  I just have nothing to gain: I play 3-4 people rated 400 points below me and my entire tournament result ends up hinging on one (maybe 2) games.  In the end I have little chance to increase my rating or make any money, and when most of your games are against much lower rated players, the chance of playing an interesting game is also less.

brabo wrote on 03/14/11 at 16:06:38:

They do that in some of the larger scholastic (school kid) tournaments in the US, but I've never heard of it in an adult tournament. The tournament I mentioned from when I was a beginner was just a small, local tourney with around 20 people. 

I find it interesting that this is a completely different conversation than the one started by this article on the USCF web site a couple of years ago (and continued in the forum discussion there): http://main.uschess.org/content/view/7854/381

I guess that's because this thread is mostly from the perspective of professionals like GM Kosten, while that discussion was mostly from the perspective of amateurs. Also, as mentioned several times in this thread, the US treats Swiss tournaments differently than in Europe. 

Here in the US, withdrawals are normal and common place. As long as the person withdrawing tells the tournament director they're leaving, they simply won't get paired for the remaining rounds. And since cash prizes are usually split between all finishers who are tied for them, the tiebreaks don't matter, unless there's also a trophy involved. 

I actually remember one time that a friend of mine tied two others for first place in our section of a big tourney, so they split the first, second, and third place cash prizes evenly between them. But my game at the bottom of the section was the last one finished, and my friend got annoyed with me for drawing, because he would have gotten the trophy on tiebreaks if I had won, even though I hadn't played any of the top 3 guys that tournament. I'm still not sure exactly how that worked out, but I'm assuming it had something to do with who my final round opponent had played in the earlier rounds.

And when I say that withdrawals are common place, I'm talking maybe 20-30% of players in any normal weekend adult amateur event will drop out before the final round. The only problem is that some of them forget to inform the TD that they're leaving, so their opponents get stuck sitting around for an hour before claiming the win (USCF rules). Some of the better TD's do keep "black lists" of players who cause those types of problems, but it usually doesn't keep them out of tournaments altogether. They just might have restrictions like "You won't get paired for the final round unless you specifically tell me that you will show up this time."

As an amatuer, my big complaint about the Swiss system are similar to the USCF article I linked. Pairings end up being lopsided. In open tournaments, players in the middle bounce back and forth between playing guys rated way above them and those rated way below them, rarely getting games against those around their own level. This is why I prefer the really big tournaments that are divided into sections by rating ranges - I know I'll get to play guys within 200 points of me in more than half my games, which doesn't happen in non-divided tournies. I even remember one tournament when I first started playing, when I was rated 1250, and my lowest rated opponent was in the 1600's, despite the fact that there were 1100-1400 level players there who I probably would have enjoyed playing against. Not surprisingly, I lost every single game, and I was so discouraged that if I hadn't already pre-registered for another tournament the following weekend, there's a good chance that I would have given up this hobby right then and there.

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 03/14/11 at 07:38:34:


But at least in our country as a general rule, nothing is determined by tiebreaks.  So what's the big deal?

Just to dissent slightly from the idea that swisses are totally random events - they're not. The very top/bottom of the field is sorted out OK, and slightly more of it with more rounds. 

In between there of course, it gets much more random which I suppose could affect the prize money in some events. (like the one above!)

The idea of forcing anyone to play when they've got no motivation at all to do so really doesn't seem sensible. If nothing else there's simply no way they'll manage to play to anything like their normal standard.

trw wrote on 03/14/11 at 08:09:23:

No, I was paying all my own expenses, I was only an IM at the time.

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 03/14/11 at 07:38:34:


So playing for nothing is 'professional' then? If you play a poker tournament and get knocked out before the bubble you would go home, or play a side event, or play some cash, you certainly wouldn't have to stay for days wasting your time with no recompense!

As others have already pointed out, withdrawing from  a Swiss tournament affects everybody's tie-breaks. This is especially problematic when the top seed withdraws. 

Let's say that a 32nd seed were to pull off a famous upset against the top seed in round 2 of a 9 rounder. The top seed then withdraws. From a tie-break perspective, the player who just won the game may as well have beaten the lowest seed. It really is unfair to the winner of the game for the loser to withdraw.   

I do understand Tony's point that there's no reason to stick around anymore if you know you're not going to get paid. But sticking it out until the end of the contract (or tournament) is part of being professional.

I'm pretty sure Tony agrees that if a player were to have a similarly bad performance in a RR tournament s/he would still be expected to play all the games out.