TalJechin wrote on 03/15/11 at 15:28:16:


There are usually separate prize groups based on initial ratings. It would indeed be a bit unfair if there was only one prize group, although you can argue that the criteria for winning is just different (absolute performance vs. relative performance). Also if the players have played already (or the colors don't match) then there's some shuffling with the pairings, for example instead of 1-2, 3-4 the pairings could be 1-3, 2-4.

brabo wrote on 03/15/11 at 12:20:11:


I know about players losing rating to win rating prizes or handicap tournaments, usually these guys are after easy money - and even for a 2200 players it's not easy winning a tournament against 2000-2100s for 7-9 rounds. Besides, these guys are usually known beforehand so the organisers could either ban them or put them in the group they belong strengthwise.

The point with groups according to rating is that most players want to play those of about equal strength or slightly stronger.

@Stini
I hadn't heard about that pairing system before, sounds interesting but I suppose the drawback is that it might be favourable to be among the low-rateds, as all the titled players will be battling it out for the first few rounds, but maybe the big K-factor evens that out quicker than I expect? 

Btw, wouldn't the pairing be a bit of a puzzle after a few rounds or are the same players allowed to play each other more than once?

I used to run a two-day rapid tournament that had the following format:

Saturday Qualification Swiss. Every round consisted of a two-game match. The top 16 places would qualify for the Sunday championship. If there was a tie, there would be a play-off Saturday evening.

Sunday Championship This was a double-elimination (two games per round) tournament. The final round was four games.

Sunday Consolation This was another Swiss tournament for those who wanted more chess. 

There were minimal prize funds for the Swiss tournaments. Each round of the double elimination had prize money attached to it. It was quite popular. One year, it coincided with the US Championship and we had most of the top US GMs play in it. They seemed to like the format.

GMTonyKosten wrote on 03/15/11 at 10:21:04:


Most organizers create an open in the first place to give chessplayers the opportunity to have an enjoyable chessholiday played in a fixed timeframe so participants can easily schedule. Financing happens sometimes via sponsors whom like to connect their name with interesting fighting chess. Dropouts automatically damage that image. 
Paying prices (mostly to professionals) is certainly not a mainpriority of such swisstournaments but rather a necessary evil to attract sufficient attention to the tournament. Prices are not paid as some kind of reward for the lessons in the games given by the professional players (as some do think). I don't see any change therefore in Swiss tournaments happening to get a more fair payment system. 

Interesting fighting chess can be easily achieved by accelerated pairings which isn't always well regarded by professionals as they will have to play much tougher opposition for no more money than in the usual swiss tournaments. 

Quote:


Either a rating limit, e.g. only +2100 allowed to enter; alternatively increasing the start fee the lower your elo. 

Or using A, B, C groups according to different rating intervals, allowing each lower group's 1-3 to qualify to next years higher group. (And by then their rating may well have risen to qualify them anyway...)

Daniel wrote on 03/15/11 at 08:48:23:


I don't agree. If you subscribe for a tournament then you commit to play the full tournament and not only a part of it. Unfortunately some people think that because they get away with dropouts as there are in most cases no penalties that their behaviour is ok. Seems people still consider (especially in the US ??) money as a good reason not to follow ethics.

Well I can't really blame you for that as ethics isn't really a strong point in our fide organization. Just have a look at the ridiculous non-handshake games played yesterday in Monaco between Kramnik and Topalov. If those topGMs show a lack of ethics then what to expect from the other players.

If you're playing in an open swiss with prizes derived from entry fees, are playing at your own expense (no invitations), and have accepted no offered conditions then there is nothing wrong with dropping out.

In the US, GMs usually get free entry but have it deducted from their prize should they win so I don't consider this a special condition.