So we have 18 teams again. As always I am open to input on how to setup sections, which I intend to finalise on Saturday night/Sunday morning, server time.

Thank you, smallblackcat. 4-4-6-4?

Good chess, everyone!

In terms of ratings 4-4-6-4 looks good as one section is 2100+, next is 2000s, next is 1800s and last is U1800.

Only possible issue is that in the 6 team section there are two Eye of the Tigran teams so it could be a good idea to check with Turamon that this doesn't cause him any problems athough a 4-4-4-6 would also have 2 Eye of the Tigran teams in the bottom section so assuming both have a clash going with ratings is probably best. Looking at the teams there are 4 players in each team and no overlap so I think teams should work with team without a clash able to supply players for cover

yeah I took my time to think about which teams might end up in the same section so we should be safe concerning having two teams in the same section.

don't we have late-joining teams this time? we usually don't end up with only 18 teams even in the summer time, right?

We've been at 18 the last two tourneys, it's the new normal. I don't expect any more teams.

Yeah it is pretty bad in competive sense for the lowest Tigran team. The rating difference is just enormous. I suggest that three under 1700 teams would have own section.

4464's good. Sorry about previous post. I thought we gonna have 4446 for whatever reason. My bad.

Not to interrupt, but if you do 4 - 5 - 5 - 4, there are no 2 Tigrans in one of the series

If we did that the fifth team in the second section would be at a serious rating disadvantage. Also, 5-team sections mean fewer games. I am sensing a broad consensus around a 4-4-6-4 split this time.

@smallblackcat:

On the rating disadvantage, I see your point. I partly agree, but also I will argue that while fifth team of second section on a 4-5-5-4 (Stare v Wolves) has a rating difference of 115.25 to the team above, this is not extreme over the whole field of teams: ie, in highest rated section 3rd team v 2nd team ratings differ by a very comparable margin, with a difference of 118.5 (King v Azul). One could argue that this difference is splitting the upper section in 2 and it's not as bad as a last team falling off. But looking at the lowest section of 4th, we see a comparable difference in, with the highest team difference, comparably being 102.5 over the second team (Pawns v Rojo). One could argue, with the same logic, that the first team of the lowest section has a large glicko-based advantage. My point being, a rating difference of 118.5 in a 4-5-5-4 section group wouldn't be larger than observed in the other zonals.

On the number of games, you are again correct. However, running the numbers, assuming the round robin's series only (no playoff), a 4-4-6-4 will give you 66 games total (doble robin). A 4-5-5-4 section will give you 64 games total. I agree 66 > 64. But I don't think the number of games shall be a principal component in the decision here.

On the other hand, if you'd like to prioritize different teams in every section, then 4-5-5-4 would offer you no such situation of the two Tigrans.

Regarding the consensus, you are better informed of the position of the different team captains than me. I am speaking by myself, and offering some thoughts, and have no idea of the current consensus, or the position of team's captains.

Regards,

Not sure how you get your numbers on games...I get 48 per a 4-team section per season (6 rounds x 8 games per round), 60 for a 6-team section (5 rounds x 12 games) getting us 204, plus then another 16 in playoffs.

5-team sections have 40 games per season (5 rounds x 8 games), so your section split gets us 176 games, with 24 in playoffs (we add an extra 3rd vs 4th playoff in 5-team sections). It's 10% more games over the course of the season.

Also your point about rating spreads is correct, but we can't avoid the rating spreads in the top and bottom sections, whereas we can in the second section.

Whether splitting the two Tigran teams up is a higher priority is a matter of debate, and this is why we run this thread every season. I will note that the Tigran captain herrahuu seems fine with it, and the competitive advantage for those teams is very limited in a 6-team section (and of course we pair the teams in the first round).

It is ultimately my decision, and you are welcome to disagree and tell me so (and please do, I need the feedback to better inform my decisions in the future). Having more games and fewer large rating splits have been supported in the past, and based on the other posts here they seem to have reasonable support this time.

Hi @smallblackcat,

You have my support to whatever choice you make. That's why I said: "offering some thoughts". Thus, I don't "disagree" to either route of action, you take.

On the number of "games", I meant "Matches"; that is team v team.

Wiki: If n is the number of competitors, a pure round robin tournament requires n / 2 * ( n − 1 ) games.

A series of n(4) = 4/2 * 3 = 6 Matches. Doble robin = 12 matches
A series of n(5) = 5/2 * 4 = 10 Matches. Doble robin = 20 matches
A series of n(6) = 6/2 * 5 = 15 Matches. Doble robin = 30 matches

4-4-6-4 = 12 + 12 +30 +12 = 66
4-5-5-4 = 12 + 20 + 20 + 12 = 64

I hope it clarifies.

Looking forward to my T88 games, and thank you for all your organizing work

@IAHMCOL
No worries, I always treat any posts here as constructive.

I am going ahead with the 4-4-6-4 split. I'll try to get pairings done today as well. Thanks everyone for your contributions.

Pairings are done. As always, report any errors you find ASAP, though I am confident there aren't any.

@smallblackcat

1. T88 looks great. I don't see errors.
2. I understand the discrepancies between your calculation and my calculation in number of games: I assumed DOBLE round robins, even for n(5) and n(6). You actually only do doble for n(4) and make single robins with 5 rounds otherwise.
3. you said:
a) We can't avoid the rating spreads in the top and bottom sections
b) I need the feedback to better inform my decisions in the future

In any case, regarding 3, I do have a suggestion that might help you, however it means a large change in the League's organization. I will try to explain it below, making, T88 team set, as an example.

The strategy makes use of Cross-overs. Cross-over matches are not extremely common, but can be seen it some sport leagues, like MLB in USA.

So, using T88 teams as an example, this would be a method of organizing the league that I think could neutralize inter-team rating differences, and at least in this particular example would result in independent groups of a same team to be allocated separated.

* Step 1: Divisions. Make 3 Divisions, ie, Queen, Rook and Knight divisions.

* Step 2: Sections. Make 6 Sections, with 3 Teams on every section (6*3=18 teams). The teams will be assigned a position in the section after ranking highest to lowest in Average Team Glicko Scores. The sections could retain the Masters' name nomenclature, but you need to add 2 Masters: ie, Capablanca and Botvinnik.

* Step 3: Every Division contains the two consecutive sections: Therefore

Queen Division

Fisher Section
A1. New blood, Plasma (TA: 2350)
A2. Rainbow warriors, Azul (2284.5)
A3. Mysteryous moves, King (2166)

Capablanca Section
B1. Archbishops, Archdukes (TA: 2127.75)
B2. New blood, Leuko (2053)
B3. Rainbow warriors, Verde (2023.75)

Rook Division

Spassky Section
C1. Arequepay (TA: 2008.25)
C2. Worldwide wolves (2003.5)
C3. The eye of the tigran, Stare (1888.25)

Kasparov Section
D1. Rainbow warriors, Amarillo (1878)
D2. Tricky move (1873.75)
D3. New blood, Erythro (1835.75)

Knight Division

Botvinnik Section
E1. Bajo Aragon (1826.75)
E2. The eye of the tigran, Glimpse (1823)
E3. Mysterious moves, pawn (1767.5)

Alekhine Section
F1. Rainbow warriors, Rojo (1665)
F2. Virtual Red (1648)
F3. The eye of the tigran, Glance (1615)

Step 4: Doble robin with cross-overs. 6 rounds.

On this step, a doble robin for each section takes place. The teams that receive a bye on a given round will play a cross-over with another section (rankings above considered for the crossover). Every team will therefore play twice against each other team in the section and twice against the cross-over team. 8 games per team.

Step 5: Play offs.

There would be a winner per division (not per section). The winner of the division is determined with one round play off (7th week) between winner of the sections of the respective division. ie, Queen division is winner Fisher v winner Capablanca. The same for the other two divisions.

**Therefore the full tourney schedule is**

Week 1: (9 Matches)

A2 v A3
B2 v B3
...
F2 v F3
A1 v B1 (Crossover)
C1 v D1 (Crossover)
E1 v F1 (Crossover)

Week 2: (9 Matches)

A3 v A1
B3 v B1
...
F3 v F1
A2 v C2 (Crossover)
E2 v B2 (Crossover)
F2 v D2 (Crossover)

Week 3: (9 Matches)

A1 v A2
B1 v B2
...
F1 v F2
E3 v A3 (Crossover)
B3 v D3 (Crossover)
F3 v C3 (Crossover)

Week 4: Redo Week 1, but home base switches
ie, A3 v A2 etc...

Week 5: Redo Week 2, home base switches

Week 6: Redo Week 3, home base switches

Number of games in Rounds series

9 per Round * 6 rounds = 54 matches
54 * 4 games per match = 216 games

Week 7: Play-offs (or technically finals)

Queen Division final:

Fisher v Capablanca winners

Rook Division final:

Spassky v Kasparov winners

Knight Division final:

Botvinnik v Alekhine winners


Number of games in Play-off series

Total play-off = 3
Total games = 12

**** Total ****

Matches = 54 + 3 = 57 Matches
Games = 216 + 12 = 228 Matches

Two times 18 teams in a row, is a coincidence.
How will you handle 17 teams total, or 19, or 15?

Plus, your proposal increases the danger of player clashes across sections.

Hi Captain! :)

A. I think the plan above is not well suited for total of teams below 18, because any Section with less than 3 teams would not offer you a round robin, of any kind. At that point the question is: what's the sanity of trying to make 3 divisions?

With 15, you could do still do 3 divisions 5-5-5, And you can still do cross-overs, but here a play-off (final round would be probably, A1vA2; B1vB2; and C1vC2.
I'd like to point out the cross-over it's doable as an alternative to the "bye" round in the odd number of teams in the section.

17 is truly a challenging set-up for that idea. I haven't found out a way to handle it. Prime numbers can be fun (irony)

19, I would suggest allowing the last division to be of 7, rather than 6 teams, with a sections of 3 , 4. Allow cross -overs only on the 3 upper divisions.

B. You might be right. However the cross-overs are somewhat flexible, and the TD can determine best cross-overs during tourney set-up, before a tourney starts. (ie, if games haven't started, the cross-overs aren't draw to manipulate scores. But setting cross-overs on the go can be a tricky way to cheat the tables). Given this flexibility, smallblackcat could avoid cross-overs like RainbowAzul v RainbowAmarillo, and thus prefer a different pairing, (ie not A1 v D1, A2 v D2; but A1 v D2, D1 v A2) per example assuming the A1 D1 are both RWs.

The exact probability of two group of same team falling in the same section, I presume reduces with n. so for sections of n=3 (as in the case of 6*3, above) is smaller, and indeed in this case it worked. No two Tigrans, or Rainbows etc fell in the same section. On the other hand, with a 15 teams on 5;5;5 the likelihood of that happening is I think 100. (ie, we would have 3 sections, 4 Rainbow Warriors, how do you accomodate them without collision?)

I hope this addresses.

errata:

19, I would suggest allowing the last division to be of 7, rather than 6 teams, with sections of 3 , 4. Allow cross-overs only on the 2 upper divisions.