ChessPub Forum - Performance Prize

(UTC)

ChessPub Forum › General › General Chess › Performance Prize

(Moderators: RoleyPoley, proustiskeen, trw)

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Page Index Toggle

Pages: [1] 2

Topic Tools

Hot Topic (More than 10 Replies)

Performance Prize (Read 7244 times)

brabo God Member Offline Welcome chessfriend Posts: 1073 Joined: 02/02/07	Re: Performance Prize Reply #15 - 05/29/12 at 15:28:31	Post Tools	Print Post
	fling wrote on 05/29/12 at 15:18:01: I definitely would have not gotten the prize. Only one draw (I had winning chances, and could have played on but was tired from defending the whole game). I think all games were short, less than 40 moves for sure. Some not more than 25. Still, I played at 300 rating points higher than my established rating (which I think I reported higher than it actually is, that is why I started thinking about this whole thing). Aren't we after anything but short draws? A win in less than 20 moves like Anand-Gelfand isn't really fun, but nothing terrible? Further finetuning can be done by considering a decisive result as 60 moves played despite the real number of moves.


	WWW IP Logged

brabo God Member Offline Welcome chessfriend Posts: 1073 Joined: 02/02/07	Re: Performance Prize Reply #14 - 05/29/12 at 15:23:40	Post Tools	Print Post
	fling wrote on 05/29/12 at 15:00:48: Well, in both recent cases it was a book, for which I wouldn't have dropped 100 rating points! Of course, if there is a fair amount of money, this might happen for some players (not me, I play too little and really want to establish a higher rating). I think this happens in golf, even if it isn't allowed. But my main question is if a rating performance of 200 more than your established rating is the same performance whatever your rating. Or would it be a better performance at the higher end of the scale? (maybe provided the established ratings are reflecting playing strength) And the second point was clearly answered, i.e. rating performance vs established rating would be better than rank performance for awarding the prize (sorry for the mispelling, thanks for the correction smyslov_fan, can't believe I didn't even notice it! ) I know in some amateurtournaments, prices are more than 1000 euro/dollar. A lot of people find it worth to let their rating drop for such amount of money. I am not a fan at all from Jeff Sonas but the attached link http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7114 brings you to one of his better articles , explaining that performance aren't fully calculated conform expectance. However this only shows discrepancies to the rating of the opponents not the player itself. Normally the elo-model shouldn't give difference in performance based on own rating but I believe on the very high eloratings, number of players are very small so deviations and inaccurancies to the system become bigger.


	WWW IP Logged

fling God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 1591 Joined: 01/21/11 Gender:	Re: Performance Prize Reply #13 - 05/29/12 at 15:18:01	Post Tools	Print Post
	brabo wrote on 05/29/12 at 15:09:30: Zwischenzugzwang wrote on 05/29/12 at 14:56:22: As there's so much discussion about short draws going on at the moment, why not rewarding the ability to sit still? Give a prize to the player with the highest total of moves! Then we might even get to see some (yet in endgame theory totally neglected) K vs. K endgames!? Yes could be an idea but then with a restriction that one can't collect more than e.g. 60 moves/ game so one game of 240 moves can't decide immediately the outcome. I definitely would have not gotten the prize. Only one draw (I had winning chances, and could have played on but was tired from defending the whole game). I think all games were short, less than 40 moves for sure. Some not more than 25. Still, I played at 300 rating points higher than my established rating (which I think I reported higher than it actually is, that is why I started thinking about this whole thing). Aren't we after anything but short draws? A win in less than 20 moves like Anand-Gelfand isn't really fun, but nothing terrible?


	IP Logged

brabo God Member Offline Welcome chessfriend Posts: 1073 Joined: 02/02/07	Re: Performance Prize Reply #12 - 05/29/12 at 15:09:30	Post Tools	Print Post
	Zwischenzugzwang wrote on 05/29/12 at 14:56:22: As there's so much discussion about short draws going on at the moment, why not rewarding the ability to sit still? Give a prize to the player with the highest total of moves! Then we might even get to see some (yet in endgame theory totally neglected) K vs. K endgames!? Yes could be an idea but then with a restriction that one can't collect more than e.g. 60 moves/ game so one game of 240 moves can't decide immediately the outcome.


	WWW IP Logged

fling God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 1591 Joined: 01/21/11 Gender:	Re: Performance Prize Reply #11 - 05/29/12 at 15:00:48	Post Tools	Print Post
	brabo wrote on 05/29/12 at 14:50:56: I've doubts that performance prices bring people to the tournament. I heard some older experienced players complaining about this aspect and even cancelling their participation. If you are every time behind the performanceprices despite sometimes a really good result then it doesn't feel good. I also know some adults, dropping on purpose a 100 or more rating points in advance to get better chances for performanceprices. Well, in both recent cases it was a book, for which I wouldn't have dropped 100 rating points! Of course, if there is a fair amount of money, this might happen for some players (not me, I play too little and really want to establish a higher rating). I think this happens in golf, even if it isn't allowed. But my main question is if a rating performance of 200 more than your established rating is the same performance whatever your rating. Or would it be a better performance at the higher end of the scale? (maybe provided the established ratings are reflecting playing strength) And the second point was clearly answered, i.e. rating performance vs established rating would be better than rank performance for awarding the prize (sorry for the mispelling, thanks for the correction smyslov_fan, can't believe I didn't even notice it! )


	IP Logged

Zwischenzugzwang Senior Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing & chess pubs! Posts: 380 Location: Zotzenbach Joined: 06/14/11 Gender:	Re: Performance Prize Reply #10 - 05/29/12 at 14:56:22	Post Tools	Print Post
	As there's so much discussion about short draws going on at the moment, why not rewarding the ability to sit still? Give a prize to the player with the highest total of moves! Then we might even get to see some (yet in endgame theory totally neglected) K vs. K endgames!?

	What do people mean when they say "Chess is the pawn of the soul"?
	IP Logged

brabo God Member Offline Welcome chessfriend Posts: 1073 Joined: 02/02/07	Re: Performance Prize Reply #9 - 05/29/12 at 14:50:56	Post Tools	Print Post
	Smyslov_Fan wrote on 05/29/12 at 14:14:44: I would always award the performance prize to the player who has the best performance in relation to his established rating. I wouldn't worry about rankings. The main reason for a performance prize is to reward someone who really doesn't have a shot at the main prizes, but who plays well according to his own baseline. This helps to bring more players into tournaments. To base the prize on ranking would actually weaken the power of the prize. The organizers are interested in bringing in as many repeat players as possible. So they aim their prizes at younger and less experienced players knowing that old experienced players will show up regardless of the performance prize. I've doubts that performance prices bring people to the tournament. I heard some older experienced players complaining about this aspect and even cancelling their participation. If you are every time behind the performanceprices despite sometimes a really good result then it doesn't feel good. I also know some adults, dropping on purpose a 100 or more rating points in advance to get better chances for performanceprices, causing a lot of jealousy.


	WWW IP Logged

brabo God Member Offline Welcome chessfriend Posts: 1073 Joined: 02/02/07	Re: Performance price Reply #8 - 05/29/12 at 14:23:50	Post Tools	Print Post
	fling wrote on 05/29/12 at 14:10:14: No, with rank, what is meant is really rank as in number in the starting field, which is based on rating. Anyway, I agree that this would only work properly if the elo is showing "real" strength. But if you want to give a price, like a book from a sponsor (as in the two recent tournaments I know of), I would guess rating performance is better than how much you improve your rank (which is based on just how many points you scored and the tie-break vs how you were rated to begin with). It indirectly tells you well you did in terms of rating, but not necessarily. Imagine a case with lots of players rated closely around 2400, and one at 1500. If the last player scores 1 point, it is a pretty good feat, and the rating performance is probably much higher than 1500. Nonethless, that person will probably finish last, i.e. no rank improvement. The person that wins might improve in rank, but have not much of a rating performance compared to the "real" rating, or did I miss something? And vice versa, if you have 10 players rated 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004 etc. Chances are pretty high the person at 2000 might win anyway, with a high rank improvement but not necessarily an impressive rating performance. An example: http://www.chess-results.com/tnr70815.aspx?art=9&lan=6&fed=SWE&turdet=YES&snr=57 Rank improvement: 17 spots Rating performance minus actual rating: 393 http://www.chess-results.com/tnr70815.aspx?art=9&lan=6&fed=SWE&turdet=YES&snr=54 Rank improvement: 25 spots Rating performance minus actual rating: 380 Who had the best performance, i.e. who would you award a price (maybe both )? EDIT: I have to say I don't think it is too serious, and most of all, I don't know these players personally (It is for sure not my intention to offend anyone). I haven't thought about it at all, and rank improvement seemed ok, but then I realized that if you want to award a price like this, wouldn't rating performance be a better measure? So the number 1 in rank, can never win the price even if he performs way above his abilities. The lower your starting rank, the better your chances averagely to improve your rank. I don't like it at all. It gives the impression that the lower your abilities, the better. Besides as you already noticed, the rank improvement is very depending on the strength of the other participants and not on your own performance.


	WWW IP Logged

Smyslov_Fan God Member Correspondence fan Offline Progress depends on the unreasonable man. ~GBS Posts: 6902 Joined: 06/15/05	Re: Performance Prize Reply #7 - 05/29/12 at 14:14:44	Post Tools	Print Post
	I would always award the performance prize to the player who has the best performance in relation to his established rating. I wouldn't worry about rankings. The main reason for a performance prize is to reward someone who really doesn't have a shot at the main prizes, but who plays well according to his own baseline. This helps to bring more players into tournaments. To base the prize on ranking would actually weaken the power of the prize. The organizers are interested in bringing in as many repeat players as possible. So they aim their prizes at younger and less experienced players knowing that old experienced players will show up regardless of the performance prize.


	IP Logged

fling God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 1591 Joined: 01/21/11 Gender:	Re: Performance price Reply #6 - 05/29/12 at 14:10:14	Post Tools	Print Post
	brabo wrote on 05/29/12 at 11:17:36: fling wrote on 05/29/12 at 09:49:11: In a recent tournament I participated in, there was a price for best rank improvement. Since the price was a gift card for books, it made me start thinking a bit about the idea of this price. I guess such a price is intended to be for the player that performs the best compared to his ability, right? In that case, wouldn't performance rating vs actual rating be a better way to measure this? I have some examples that I can post later (from practice and a purely hypothetical one), but just wanted to ask about this. I am totally sure how it works. However, I think that at least in swiss tournaments, the rank improvement won't necessarily reflect if you perform much better than expected the same way the differential between performance and actual rating would. On the other hand I am not sure if this differential is the same for let's say a 2000 and a 1500 player (I think it should theoretically be if I've understood the rating system correctly). I assume with rank, you mean rating? Personally I am against any form of system based on rating for defing prices. On the rating exists a lot of deviation. It is no coincidence that almost always these prices go to youth players. No, with rank, what is meant is really rank as in number in the starting field, which is based on rating. Anyway, I agree that this would only work properly if the elo is showing "real" strength. But if you want to give a price, like a book from a sponsor (as in the two recent tournaments I know of), I would guess rating performance is better than how much you improve your rank (which is based on just how many points you scored and the tie-break vs how you were rated to begin with). It indirectly tells you well you did in terms of rating, but not necessarily. Imagine a case with lots of players rated closely around 2400, and one at 1500. If the last player scores 1 point, it is a pretty good feat, and the rating performance is probably much higher than 1500. Nonethless, that person will probably finish last, i.e. no rank improvement. The person that wins might improve in rank, but have not much of a rating performance compared to the "real" rating, or did I miss something? And vice versa, if you have 10 players rated 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004 etc. Chances are pretty high the person at 2000 might win anyway, with a high rank improvement but not necessarily an impressive rating performance. An example: http://www.chess-results.com/tnr70815.aspx?art=9&lan=6&fed=SWE&turdet=YES&snr=57 Rank improvement: 17 spots Rating performance minus actual rating: 393 http://www.chess-results.com/tnr70815.aspx?art=9&lan=6&fed=SWE&turdet=YES&snr=54 Rank improvement: 25 spots Rating performance minus actual rating: 380 Who had the best performance, i.e. who would you award a price (maybe both )? EDIT: I have to say I don't think it is too serious, and most of all, I don't know these players personally (It is for sure not my intention to offend anyone). I haven't thought about it at all, and rank improvement seemed ok, but then I realized that if you want to award a price like this, wouldn't rating performance be a better measure?


	IP Logged

fling God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 1591 Joined: 01/21/11 Gender:	Re: Performance price Reply #5 - 05/29/12 at 13:57:42	Post Tools	Print Post
	Zwischenzugzwang wrote on 05/29/12 at 11:45:36: Oh, the solution is easy: Just multiply (performance minus actual rating) with the players's age, and then also senior players would have a chance Wow, that should be it EDIT: Maybe there should be a junior and a senior section, if possible. That would be better (as in more fair, but life isn't I guess).


	IP Logged

Willempie God Member Offline I love ChessPublishing .com! Posts: 4312 Location: Holland Joined: 01/07/05	Re: Performance price Reply #4 - 05/29/12 at 13:21:45	Post Tools	Print Post
	What kind of communist nonsense is this??? Reminds of those youth tournaments where everybody gets a prize.

	If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.
	IP Logged

Zwischenzugzwang Senior Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing & chess pubs! Posts: 380 Location: Zotzenbach Joined: 06/14/11 Gender:	Re: Performance price Reply #3 - 05/29/12 at 11:45:36	Post Tools	Print Post
	Oh, the solution is easy: Just multiply (performance minus actual rating) with the players's age, and then also senior players would have a chance

	What do people mean when they say "Chess is the pawn of the soul"?
	IP Logged

TalJechin God Member Offline There is no secret ingredient. Posts: 2892 Location: Malmö Joined: 08/12/04 Gender:	Re: Performance price Reply #2 - 05/29/12 at 11:35:25	Post Tools	Print Post
	In most cases I'd assume that performance prizes and similar don't have much to do with the tournament organisers, but is usually put up by a chessbook store or some sponsor. It's not easy to come up with extra prizes though, "Best game" is hopelessly subjective, "Best junior" could often be given away before the tm starts, same with "Best female". So, "best performance rating" is one of the few that's easy to judge and still reasonably open to a large group of the contestants.


	IP Logged

brabo God Member Offline Welcome chessfriend Posts: 1073 Joined: 02/02/07	Re: Performance price Reply #1 - 05/29/12 at 11:17:36	Post Tools	Print Post
	fling wrote on 05/29/12 at 09:49:11: In a recent tournament I participated in, there was a price for best rank improvement. Since the price was a gift card for books, it made me start thinking a bit about the idea of this price. I guess such a price is intended to be for the player that performs the best compared to his ability, right? In that case, wouldn't performance rating vs actual rating be a better way to measure this? I have some examples that I can post later (from practice and a purely hypothetical one), but just wanted to ask about this. I am totally sure how it works. However, I think that at least in swiss tournaments, the rank improvement won't necessarily reflect if you perform much better than expected the same way the differential between performance and actual rating would. On the other hand I am not sure if this differential is the same for let's say a 2000 and a 1500 player (I think it should theoretically be if I've understood the rating system correctly). I assume with rank, you mean rating? Personally I am against any form of system based on rating for defing prices. On the rating exists a lot of deviation. It is no coincidence that almost always these prices go to youth players. A small anecdote: In one of my last tournaments, the organisers gave a nice bottle of wine to the person with the best ratingperformance per round. All 9 roundwinners were below 18 so the winners were all looking disappointed as they had to give the price to somebody else (parents most likely). Such prices are in most cases just a hidden form of youthprices. No problem with youthprices but better to use the age as first criteria instead of the eloperformance.


	WWW IP Logged

Page Index Toggle

Pages: [1] 2

Topic Tools

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Bookmarks:

del.icio.us

Digg

Google

Google+

reddit

StumbleUpon

Yahoo

« Board Index ‹ Board Top

Top

ChessPub Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.6.12!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2026. All Rights Reserved.

Valid XHTML

Valid CSS

Powered by Perl

Source Forge