Hi,

What happens if there are two teams submitted which average ratings are close enough that they should play in the same section, but they cannot be accepted to the same section because they have one common player?

Specifically if the player prefers to play for one of them, what happens to the other team, if that other team without that player would not have high enough rating for that section? Do they need to play there anyway being underrated? Or are they automatically put to a section adequate for their rating after removal of that player? Or is the team captain notified to make any amendments before the section creation is finished?

Thanks,
MichaÃ…‚

Well if you'll allow me to break this question down into separate parts, I'll try to answer.

Firstly, a player joining two similarly rated teams is actually a fairly common, and rather frustrating experience, for everyone involved. As you suggested, the way we resolve such situations is simply to ask the player to choose.

The second part of your question is more complicated. The process has been to setup sections first, and then determine if there are any player clashes. Since sections have been established at this point, teams are stuck where they are. I should also note that there is no minimum rating for any section, and teams occasionally do fall below the cap of the section below theirs if they lose players (though I don't think this has happened because of a situation like the one you suggest).

There's also a second reason for this strict approach, which is not to reward teams who try to fit the same players on several closely-rated teams. There is potentially a competitive advantage to be gained by doing this, but more to the point it causes us (the organisers) unnecessary work.

On the other hand, sometimes it is the player, not the captain, who is 'at fault' for opting to join more than one team, and perhaps not realising the potential for clashes. I can only advise captains to check with new players beforehand. It can also be helpful to enter teams somewhat before the deadline, so that other captains can see if you are 'taking' their player. I think some captains still see a competitive advantage in submitting late, which we try to circumvent by holding back all submissions received in the 24 hours before the deadline. Personally, I don't believe there is any disadvantage in submitting early.

Also regarding your final point about allowing captains to make amendments, the rules currently permit captains to make changes to their lineups once sections are created, and before round 1 begins. The same rules apply here as at other times during the tourney. The only stricture is that a team cannot voluntarily move to another section once sections are created. There has been some talk about tightening these rules, but nothing has been decided yet, so the current rules will apply for T54. If we change them before T55, there will be a general announcement on the homepage.

Just since there is a question about section creation I thought I would also ask a question. I noticed that in TL45-49 and TL52 Fischer section had 8 teams while in TL50-51 and TL53-54 there were only 7 teams. Is there any particular criteria for determining whether a team should be top of Spassky or bottom of Fischer or does it simply depend on total number of team entries where if we are a few teams short then a team is removed from top or bottom section

Yes it's all about the total number of entries. If it's divisible by 8, we have 8 teams in every section. For ever team we fall short of a multiple of 8, we have a certain number of 7-team sections, starting with the top section (Fischer), then the bottom section, then usually continuing towards the middle. The rationale for this is that the top section usually has the greatest rating difference from the top team to the bottom, whereas the middle sections tend to be more closely bunched together.

This is an old thread, but I just want to say that it’s cleared up my doubts about the distribution of teams into sections. As in my first three seasons (TL64-66) I played in 7-team sections, I used to think the organisers had a clear preference for that number, but now I see 8 is actually the preferred number and I also find it ideal: in plain words, no bye rounds means extra fun for everybody. Nevertheless, I do understand that the distribution totally depends on the number of participating teams, and more often than not that number won’t be divisible by 8.

TL67 was an interesting case in this regard: at first the reduced number of teams (31) suggested to me there would be less excitement, but then I really liked the 8-8-8-7 scheme in that it provided most teams with non-stop action (and coincidentally there was a close race for the playoffs in all sections). I think that having just four sections with more teams worked better than having five or six sections with fewer teams in each one.

Cheers,
Roberto.

I agree with Roberto that having fewer bye weeks is much better, it gives a regularity to the season, and allows for sustained practice and improvement!