When I complained last week about the grueling nature of many chess tournaments, one reader asked, “Okay smart guy, how would you run a tournament then?”
I also like how in poker, when you're really exhausted it's often because you're doing great! Love the idea of a format where there's blitz/bug/parties for the last round for those eliminated, and a high stakes final for the top contenders. It also allows for a greater media focus. And it could allow TDs to focus on game integrity for a smaller number of key games. Maurice Ashley had this type of climactic finale for Millionaire Chess iirc.
I like this idea! Similarly in Magic, they often have Swiss rounds followed by a cut to single-elim top 8 for the championship.
While Maurice is clearly brilliant, I think he fell into a trap with Millionaire Open by trying to make chess more like poker: luxe, high stakes, gamble-y. From what I've seen chess players actually have very different motivations than poker players. Rather than [very high entry fee + high prizes] I believe a more winning formula for chess would be [moderately higher entry fee + better experience].
I like the idea of a chess festival/ChessCon with potentially multiple smaller tournaments but also classes, panels, signings, etc.
The main reason I didn’t enter a Millionaire event was the travel cost (including the huge entry fees; yes I know those $1,000 fee levels today have become normal for any norm-eligible event in the US except maybe the World Open). But if money hadn’t been an issue, I would have avoided them anyway because I would have felt ripped off getting just 7 rounds instead of 9 unless I performed extraordinarily well.
Sure the Swiss System has its negative sides. But you needn’t be in your 60s, 50s or even 40s to have grown up with Swiss tournaments and accustomed to them. I suspect nearly all of us who did, aren’t comfortable playing a part-Swiss, part-knockout structure. Let’s leave knockout tournaments for poker (and a few pro chess events like the World Cup).
I always find it amusing that most US tournaments don't provide boards lol. Even in Australia and Japan - the main places I've lived throughout my life, this is a given - and these are countries that in general are much weaker than the US in chess.
I have heard before, that in the US, club members are required to bring their own chess sets to the club evenings. That was already strange enough for me, who have never played outside of Europe, but hearing that one might be expected to bring their own chess sets to an official tournament is a whole new level of it :-).
In Europe people are required to bring only pens to fill out the score sheet and quite often even pens are provided by organisers for those players who forget.
We pay tournament entry fees (or yearly club membership fees) so that we don't need to worry about equipment.
That's how all open tournaments are set where I live (Costa Rica). Even the bathrooms are clean... And these feel like the bare minimum conditions for decent play.
I know you already know this , but the US tournaments seem to be designed with the assumption of participants having a full-time job Mon-Fri so they usually include a late night round on Fri and wrap up Sunday with this in mind. I think a fictional tournament would include these parameters. Not sure it’s possible to still be fun then :)
The example tournament is for a holiday weekend, but of course the point isn't to copy the schedule exactly, it's to be thoughtful about creating an enjoyable tournament experience.
I know you already know this, but most of the larger US tournaments seem to be designed around a Friday or Monday holiday, so I assumed a fictional tournament would share this assumption.
The “larger” tournaments make up only a fraction of US rated weekend tournaments. The best-known ones are structured and marketed to draw travelers from beyond the local area: hardly typical for most multi-day rated events in metro areas that can draw from a big enough urban/suburban area within an hour’s drive of the tournament site.
Sure the World Open and other CCA big-ones get much of the attention. But you sound oblivious to the fact that many active club-level players and other non-professionals (and THEIR KIDS… who probably represent the most active tournament group of all!) have little or no budget for chess travel. So they’re for the most part confined to tournaments in their local area. Not necessarily all on long weekends.
I don't know why the McMahon pairing method used in European go tournaments is not used. It would be enough to play 5 rounds, where actually all games would be with players of my level. Now I go to OTB 9 round tournaments where I play at least 4 games completely unnecessarily with players that are too weak or too strong for me. Plus for chess, it would be far better since we have a new accurate rating every month. So tournaments could be shorter and games more balanced.
Hi Nate, great post. Just felt that I had to comment on thevreference to normal tournaments in Europe. Normal is 90 minutes plus 30 second increment, Friday 19:00, Saturday and Sunday, 10:00 and 15:00. I live and play in Wales and go to weekenders in England. I gave beennlucky enough to play 8vor 9 day tournaments, one game a day in Spain, Bulgaria, Albania, Greece and Montenegro. Most of these were European Club Cups plus one individual. The crammed weekender is definitely the norm where 4th and 5th rounds are tests of stamina every bit as much as chess ! I'd love to find more week long events in the UK but they are few and far between.
I’ve long been a part of chess culture in the US (Eastern Seaboard). Nate Solon, despite being an FM, either does not identify with chess culture or believes his target audience does not.
The tell in this post is assuming that a typical multi-day, rated OTB chess tournament ought to be “fun.” Most chess competitors I know of all ages do not view “fun” as an important characteristic for a chess tournament.
What do serious amateur athletes (of all ages) say on that question? What about serious amateur performing artists in musical or drama shows? Sure, they can arrange fun parties with teammates or even rivals either before, after, or between events. But DURING? Something isn’t adding up here.
There is already ample opportunity to play fun-chess in:
— speed tournaments;
— single-evening or half-day rated rapid tournaments preceded or followed by a period set aside for socializing and refreshments;
— public parks;
— league matches (likewise easy to schedule social events around);
— chess clubs, friends’ homes, or anywhere else people can meet either in pairs or larger groups for blitz, non-rated, or other casual chess activity.
Similar to the periodic calls one hears for abolishing all classical play and turning everything into rapid and blitz and/or bullet games, I detect a bit of insecurity here from those who advocate turning chess tournaments into “fun” events.
The insecurity is that they aren’t satisfied with having their own abundant opportunities to play chess for fun (even rated chess: the rapid and blitz tournaments that comprise the majority of advertised chess competitions are of course subject to rapid or blitz rating); they somehow feel deprived unless able to foist their preference on everyone else.
Well written, smart guy!
I also like how in poker, when you're really exhausted it's often because you're doing great! Love the idea of a format where there's blitz/bug/parties for the last round for those eliminated, and a high stakes final for the top contenders. It also allows for a greater media focus. And it could allow TDs to focus on game integrity for a smaller number of key games. Maurice Ashley had this type of climactic finale for Millionaire Chess iirc.
I like this idea! Similarly in Magic, they often have Swiss rounds followed by a cut to single-elim top 8 for the championship.
While Maurice is clearly brilliant, I think he fell into a trap with Millionaire Open by trying to make chess more like poker: luxe, high stakes, gamble-y. From what I've seen chess players actually have very different motivations than poker players. Rather than [very high entry fee + high prizes] I believe a more winning formula for chess would be [moderately higher entry fee + better experience].
I like the idea of a chess festival/ChessCon with potentially multiple smaller tournaments but also classes, panels, signings, etc.
The main reason I didn’t enter a Millionaire event was the travel cost (including the huge entry fees; yes I know those $1,000 fee levels today have become normal for any norm-eligible event in the US except maybe the World Open). But if money hadn’t been an issue, I would have avoided them anyway because I would have felt ripped off getting just 7 rounds instead of 9 unless I performed extraordinarily well.
Sure the Swiss System has its negative sides. But you needn’t be in your 60s, 50s or even 40s to have grown up with Swiss tournaments and accustomed to them. I suspect nearly all of us who did, aren’t comfortable playing a part-Swiss, part-knockout structure. Let’s leave knockout tournaments for poker (and a few pro chess events like the World Cup).
I want to hear more about this end of tournament party.
These are the kind of parameters that would get me to my first OTB tournament ever.
I didn't realize you'd never played OTB!
I always find it amusing that most US tournaments don't provide boards lol. Even in Australia and Japan - the main places I've lived throughout my life, this is a given - and these are countries that in general are much weaker than the US in chess.
I have heard before, that in the US, club members are required to bring their own chess sets to the club evenings. That was already strange enough for me, who have never played outside of Europe, but hearing that one might be expected to bring their own chess sets to an official tournament is a whole new level of it :-).
In Europe people are required to bring only pens to fill out the score sheet and quite often even pens are provided by organisers for those players who forget.
We pay tournament entry fees (or yearly club membership fees) so that we don't need to worry about equipment.
That's how all open tournaments are set where I live (Costa Rica). Even the bathrooms are clean... And these feel like the bare minimum conditions for decent play.
Tell me you've tried to play local tournaments in Nebraska without telling me you've tried to play local tournaments in Nebraska.
Yes, this plan sounds appealing (however the comment about assumption of jobs Monday-Friday is a good one that might need to be factored in).
Thanks!
I know you already know this , but the US tournaments seem to be designed with the assumption of participants having a full-time job Mon-Fri so they usually include a late night round on Fri and wrap up Sunday with this in mind. I think a fictional tournament would include these parameters. Not sure it’s possible to still be fun then :)
The example tournament is for a holiday weekend, but of course the point isn't to copy the schedule exactly, it's to be thoughtful about creating an enjoyable tournament experience.
I know you already know this, but most of the larger US tournaments seem to be designed around a Friday or Monday holiday, so I assumed a fictional tournament would share this assumption.
The “larger” tournaments make up only a fraction of US rated weekend tournaments. The best-known ones are structured and marketed to draw travelers from beyond the local area: hardly typical for most multi-day rated events in metro areas that can draw from a big enough urban/suburban area within an hour’s drive of the tournament site.
Sure the World Open and other CCA big-ones get much of the attention. But you sound oblivious to the fact that many active club-level players and other non-professionals (and THEIR KIDS… who probably represent the most active tournament group of all!) have little or no budget for chess travel. So they’re for the most part confined to tournaments in their local area. Not necessarily all on long weekends.
I don't know why the McMahon pairing method used in European go tournaments is not used. It would be enough to play 5 rounds, where actually all games would be with players of my level. Now I go to OTB 9 round tournaments where I play at least 4 games completely unnecessarily with players that are too weak or too strong for me. Plus for chess, it would be far better since we have a new accurate rating every month. So tournaments could be shorter and games more balanced.
Hi Nate, great post. Just felt that I had to comment on thevreference to normal tournaments in Europe. Normal is 90 minutes plus 30 second increment, Friday 19:00, Saturday and Sunday, 10:00 and 15:00. I live and play in Wales and go to weekenders in England. I gave beennlucky enough to play 8vor 9 day tournaments, one game a day in Spain, Bulgaria, Albania, Greece and Montenegro. Most of these were European Club Cups plus one individual. The crammed weekender is definitely the norm where 4th and 5th rounds are tests of stamina every bit as much as chess ! I'd love to find more week long events in the UK but they are few and far between.
I’ve long been a part of chess culture in the US (Eastern Seaboard). Nate Solon, despite being an FM, either does not identify with chess culture or believes his target audience does not.
The tell in this post is assuming that a typical multi-day, rated OTB chess tournament ought to be “fun.” Most chess competitors I know of all ages do not view “fun” as an important characteristic for a chess tournament.
What do serious amateur athletes (of all ages) say on that question? What about serious amateur performing artists in musical or drama shows? Sure, they can arrange fun parties with teammates or even rivals either before, after, or between events. But DURING? Something isn’t adding up here.
There is already ample opportunity to play fun-chess in:
— speed tournaments;
— single-evening or half-day rated rapid tournaments preceded or followed by a period set aside for socializing and refreshments;
— public parks;
— league matches (likewise easy to schedule social events around);
— chess clubs, friends’ homes, or anywhere else people can meet either in pairs or larger groups for blitz, non-rated, or other casual chess activity.
Similar to the periodic calls one hears for abolishing all classical play and turning everything into rapid and blitz and/or bullet games, I detect a bit of insecurity here from those who advocate turning chess tournaments into “fun” events.
The insecurity is that they aren’t satisfied with having their own abundant opportunities to play chess for fun (even rated chess: the rapid and blitz tournaments that comprise the majority of advertised chess competitions are of course subject to rapid or blitz rating); they somehow feel deprived unless able to foist their preference on everyone else.
If I need someone to make sure no one has fun at a tournament, I'll call you.