Chess Tournament Tie Breaking

One of the hardest parts of a chess tournament to

understand is the tie breaking system used for
assigning trophies. I put together this document to
help explain the process, using fictitious names and
results as an example.
IMPOT!"T "OT#$ The %nited &tates Chess
'ederation (%&C') rules state that *hene+er there is
a tie, any tied player is considered to ha+e finished
in the tied position. 'or example, if there is a three,
*ay tie for second, all three players may state that
they finished in second place. !ny pri-es must be
split e.ually bet*een the tied players. &ince there is
typically only one trophy for each position,
ho*e+er, some sort of ob/ecti+e system must be
used to assign trophies. Interestingly, the %&C'
rules also state that those *ho recei+e a trophy for a
tied position may change the plate (at their o*n
expense) to indicate the position they tied.
That being said, let0s look at the tie breaking
systems used.
Tie Breaking &ystems
The %&C' specifies the follo*ing tie breaking
systems be used for scholastic tournaments, in this
order$
1. Modified Median
2. &olkoff
3. Cumulati+e
4. 5ashdan
6. 7ames bet*een tied players
8. Most times playing Black
9. Coin Toss
If the first tie,breaking system is unable to break the
tie, the second is used for the players that are still
tied, and so on, until the order is decided. Tie
breakers are only used bet*een players that ha+e
the same score, not all players.
To make this explanation easier, I:m going to use
the follo*ing results for a fictitious tournament,
*here 18 people finished more or less in
alphabetical order...
#xample Tournament, 'inal &cores$
!nn 4.;
Bill 3.;
Chip 3.;
<an 3.;
#d 3.;
'aye 2.6
7us 2.6
=al 2.;
I+an 2.;
>udy 2.;
5irk 1.6
?ucy 1.;
Mark 1.;
"an 1.;
O--y ;.6
Pete ;.;
!s you can see, *e ha+e a four,*ay tie for 2nd
place that needs to be resol+ed.
Modified Median
The Modified Median system *orks by comparing
the scores of the opponents that the tied players
faced during the tournament. The theory is to
a*ard the person *ho played the stronger
opponents.
The system *orks by adding the scores of each
player0s opponents, disregarding the lo*est score
1
.
%sing the example tournament results, it *orks out
this *ay for the four players tied for second place
*ith 3 points$
Bill$ Chip$ <an$ #d$
#d 3 Bill 3 !nn 4 'aye 2@
=al 2 'aye 2@ =al 2 7us 2@
I+an 2 =al 2 ?ucy 1 >udy 2
Mark 1 ?ucy 1 Mark 1 5irk 1@
Total 9 Total 9@ Total 9 Total 9
&o, by the Modified Median tie breaker, Chip is
a*arded the 2
nd
place trophy, and Bill, <an and #d
are no* tied for 3
rd
.
The Modified Median, like most tie breakers, only
*orks bet*een players *ho ha+e all earned the
same tournament score.
If there is still a tie after calculating the Modified
Median, the &olkoff system is used for the players
that are still tied
&olkoff
The &olkoff system is similar to the Modified
Median except that no opponent scores are
disregarded. By the &olkoff system, the next step in
the tournament example *ould look like this$
Bill$ <an$ #d$
#d 3 !nn 4 'aye 2@
=al 2 =al 2 7us 2@
I+an 2 ?ucy 1 >udy 2
Mark 1 Mark 1 5irk 1@
Total A Total A Total A@
&o, using the &olkoff tie breaker, the 3
rd
place a*ard
goes to #d, and Bill and <an are tied for 4
th
.
If after calculating the &olkoff score there is still a
tie, the Cumulati+e system is used.
Cumulati+e
The Cumulati+e system *orks by adding together
the players0 score after each round to get a
cumulati+e total. The system re*ards players *ho
*in early rounds, but lose in later rounds against
stronger opponents.
?et0s say that Bill *on his first, third and fourth
games, and <an *on his first, second, and fourth
games. The cumulati+e scores *ould be$
Bill$ <an$
ound 1 1 1
ound 2 1 2
ound 3 2 2
ound 4 3 3
TOT!? 9 A
Continuing *ith our example, <an *ould recei+e
the 4
th
place trophy, and Bill *ould get the 6
th
place
a*ard.
Other &ystems
In the rare case that there is still a tie, the 5ashdan
system is used. In the 5ashdan system, a player
recei+es 4 tie breaker points for a *in, 2 points for a
dra*, 1 point for a loss and ; for bye. The highest
total *ins the tie breaker.
If there is still a tie, the results are checked to see if
the tied players played each other during the
tournament. If so, *hoe+er *on that game *ins the
tiebreaker.
If the game bet*een tied players *as a dra*, the
results are checked to see if one player played black
more often than the other. If so, that player *ins
the tie.
'inally, if there is still a tie, a coin toss determines
the order of finish.
Most of the time, the +arious tie breaking systems
result in the same placing. &ince that is not al*ays
the case, ho*e+er, the order in *hich they are used
is strictly specified by the %&C'.
Conclusion
I hope you found this explanation helpful for
explaining the often,confusing results of chess
tournaments. 5eep in mind, of course, that the
most important aspects of scholastic chess
tournaments are to learn, make friends, be a good
sport, and ha+e fun.
,, Mike
1
The Modified Median rule is actually slightly
more in+ol+ed. The lo*est scoring opponent is
disregarded only for ties bet*een players *ith
more *ins than losses. 'or players tied *ith more
losses than *ins, the highest scoring opponent is
disregarded. 'or players tied *ith an e+en
number of *ins and losses, both the highest and
lo*est scoring opponents are dropped. &ince the
system is normally used to a*ard trophies to top
finishers, the generali-ation on page one is good
enough for most cases.

Chess Tournament Tie Break Systems
Tie,break systems are used in many tournaments to
determine the order of finish among players in the
same score group. There is no perfect tie,break
system. #ach system carries a different bias and is
sub/ect to criticism. In e+ents *here time is not
pressing, playoffs pro+ide an alternati+e to the use
of tie,break systems. Bhere playoffs are used, time
controls are usually much faster than those used for
regular tournament rounds.
&cholastic e+ents are often s.uee-ed for time at the
end of the day and tie,breaks are necessary to
determine trophies or other non,cash a*ards. Tie,
breaks systems are not used for cash pri-esC cash
pri-es are di+ided e+enly among tied players.
<epending on the si-e of the e+ent, more than one
tie,break system may be needed to determine the
order of finish. The se.uence of tie,break systems
to be used at a tournament should be posted before
the first round. %nless a different method has been
posted or announced before the first round, %&C'
rules indicate that players *ill expect the follo*ing
se.uence of tie,break systems to be employed as the
first four indi+idual tie,breakers$
1. Modified Median
2. &olkoff
3. Cumulati+e
4. Cumulati+e of
Opposition
Many of the primary tie,break systems are based in
+arying *ays on the strength of your opponents:
play. 7enerally speaking, the stronger the scores of
your opponents, the better your tie,breaks.
The follo*ing tie,break definitions are deri+ed from
the U.S. Chess Federation's Official Rules of Chess,
Fourth Edition.
Individual Swiss tournament tie-break systems
Solkoff
The sum of all opponents: final scores.
Modified Median
The sum of opponents: scores (like
&olkoff) but discarding some high or lo*
scores$
,, for players *ith DplusD scores (more
*ins than losses) ,, the lo*est scoring
opponent is discarded.
,, for players *ith De+enD scores ,, the
highest and the lo*est scoring opponents
are discarded.
,, for players *ith DminusD scores ,, the
highest scoring opponent is discarded.
'or tournaments of nine or more rounds,
the top t*o and bottom t*o scores are
discarded for e+en score ties, the bottom
t*o scores for plus score ties, and the top
t*o scores for minus score ties.
These scores are ad/usted for unplayed
games (byes, forfeits, unplayed games),
*hich count a half point each.
Median (Harkness
System)
The sum of opponents: final scores,
discarding the highest and lo*est of these
scores.
Cumulative
The sum of the cumulati+e (running)
score for each round. One point is
subtracted from the sum for each
unplayed *in or one,point bye.
'or example, if a player:s results o+er a
fi+e,round e+ent *ere *in, loss, *in,
dra*, loss, the *allchart *ould sho* a
cumulati+e score round by round as 1, 1,
2, 2 1E2, 2 1E2. !dding across, the
cumulati+e tie,break total is F.
Cumulative Scores
of Opposition
The cumulati+e tie,break points for each
opponent are calculated and then added
together.
Kashdan
! player recei+es 4 tie,break points for a
*in, 2 for a dra*, 1 for a loss, and ; for
an unplayed game. This system a*ards
aggressi+e play by gi+ing more credit for
*ins.
Result et!een
Tied "layers
&elf,explanatory if t*o tie, but useful
only *hen they are paired and did not
dra*. If more than t*o tie, all results
among tied players should be considered,
*ith rank according to plus or minus, not
percentage (3,1 beats 1,;).
Most Blacks
&elf,explanatory.
Opposition#s
"erformance
This method a+erages the performance
ratings of the players: opposition.
Performance ratings are calculated by
crediting the player *ith the opponent:s
rating plus 4;; points for a *in, the
opponent:s rating minus 4;; points for a
loss, and the opponent:s rating for a dra*.
esults of each opponent against the tied
player should not be included, since this
*ould gi+e the higher,rated tied player an
unfair ad+antage. This system may be
difficult to use *hen unrated players are
in the tournament.
$vera%e
Opposition
This system a+erages the ratings of the
players: opponents, the better tie,break
score going to the person *ho played the
highest,rated a+erage field.
Sonneorn&Ber%er
("artial Score
Method)
!dd the final scores of all the opponents
the players defeated and half the final
scores of all the opponents *ith *hom the
player dre*. "othing is added for the
games the player lost or for unplayed
games. This is the most common method
used for round,robin e+ents.
Modified Individual/Team tie-break systems
Many scholastic e+ents used a modified
indi+idualEteam tournament format. In this type of
e+ent, pairings are performed as in a normal
indi+idual &*iss tournament but often teammates
(e.g., players from the same school) *ill not be
paired against each other. !t the end of the e+ent,
team points are accumulated (usually the top 4
players: scores are used for the team calculation)
and team a*ards presented in addition to indi+idual
a*ards. 'or this type of tournament, the Team
Cumulati+e tie,break may be employed in the
o+erall tie,break se.uence.
Cumulative
The sum of the cumulati+e (running)
scores for each team member at the end
of the tournament.
Team Cumulative
The sum of the cumulati+e (running)
scores for each team member as the team
is defined for each round.
This is different from the normal
Cumulati+e tie,break only if there are
more than 4 players on a team and the top
4 scores in+ol+e different sets of players
for at least one round.
Most of the indi+idual tie,break systems for
indi+idual &*iss tournaments described abo+e are
also suitable for modified indi+idualEteam e+ents.
Team tie-break systems
In team tournaments, the team competes as a unit
against other teams. The usual example is the 4,
board team tournament in *hich 4 team members
compete in each round against the 4 members of
another team. Most of the indi+idual tie,break
systems for indi+idual &*iss tournaments described
abo+e are also suitable for team e+ents. %&C' rules
describe t*o other tie,break systems for team
e+ents.
'ame (or Match)
"oints
The total game points earned by the team
in+ol+ed.
()S) $mateur Team
System
'or each round, the final score of the
opposing team is multiplied by the
number of points scored against that
team. 'or example, if Team ! scored 2
1E2 , 1 1E2 against Team B, *hich
finished the tournament *ith 3 match
points, Team !:s tie,break for that round
is 2 1E2 G 3 H 9 1E2.
Team Scorin% Systems and S!iss Chess
Tournaments
*ersion +),-
y Ro Brennan
(rennanr.i!or%)com) +- /an #,0
$stract1 This paper describes the relationship
bet*een scoring, pairing and reliable outcomes (ie
fairly picking *inners) for s*iss chess
competitions. It then highlights problems for s*iss
chess *ith the current mechanism of summing the
indi+idual game scores to gi+e a team score in a
team competition. T*o ne* approaches are then
described for extracting a team score from
indi+idual game outcomes. It is contended that
these ne* approaches *ork better *ith the
underlying assumptions of s*iss chess and *ill
produce *inning teams *ith more emphasis on
player skill and less on luck of the dra*. !lternati+e
approaches to competition organisation that *ill
produce more reliable results *hile retaining the
current method of team scoring are also briefly
discussed.
1. Introduction
Competition *argamers ha+e long realised the
ad+antages of the s*iss chess method for running
tournaments. This enthusiasm for the s*iss chess
method has not necessarily translated into a
*idespread appreciation of the underlying
assumptions of the method. It is a fact that the
results produced by running s*iss chess
tournaments can easily be highly unreliable if
organisers inad+ertently +iolate the principles under
*hich s*iss chess *as designed to be applied.
%nreliable is taken here to mean unlikely to re*ard
the strongest player and likely to be almost random
*ith a bias to*ards the stronger players. Properly
applied, s*iss chess is designed to be likely to
produce a fair *inner ie the same *inner as *ould
be found if a round,robin style of tournament
(*here e+eryone plays e+eryone else) *as played.
!n example of a commonly understood (if not
al*ays applied) principle of s*iss chess is the fact
that a certain minimum number of rounds are
re.uired to find the *inner from a gi+en number of
players eg 18 players *ill generally re.uire at least
4 rounds of play.
The choice of scoring system to be used is another
aspect of the competition format that interacts *ith
the s*iss chess method. If competition organisers
choose a scoring system *ithout reference to the
other parameters of the tournament (number of
players, number of rounds) then the results of that
tournament can easily be /ust as unreliable as if they
played too fe* rounds. The effects of scoring
system choice are perhaps more pernicious than
playing too fe* rounds because *ithout
understanding these effects the competition appears
to be e.uitably resol+ed. ie it looks like you ha+e a
fairly determined, clear,cut *inner.
Bithin the <BM community there has long been
debate on the relati+e merits of different scoring
systems. There are essentially t*o camps based on
either the ;,1; scoring system presented in the
rulesbook (or deri+ati+es such as the B=7& ;,32 or
7&C ;,16) or some form of BinE<ra*E?oss scoring
(aka B<?, including ;,1; *ith I1;;JP for a *in).
It is not the purpose of this paper to focus on the
details of indi+idual game scoring, although it is a
related issue, but instead to focus on the issue of
ho* best to score team results for team,based s*iss
chess competitions. This is seen as especially
important for t*o high profile <BM e+ents, the
7ranson International Team Challenge and the
Borld Team Championships. It is hoped that this
paper *ill explain *hy the current scoring
arrangements at both of these e+ents interact poorly
*ith s*iss chess and hence produce unreliable
outcomes. &uggestions are made for scoring
methods that *ould *ork better *ith s*iss chess or
other competition parameters that could be ad/usted
*hile retaining the current scoring methods to
produce fairer outcomes. !ll of this *ork is
presented *ith the intention of bringing this
information to the attention of the organisers for
e+eryone:s benefit rather than any attempt to
undermine or diminish the excellent and much
appreciated *ork of the organisers in pre+ious
years.
&ection 2 belo* outlines the +ital relationship
bet*een scoring and pairing in s*iss chess
competitions. In section 3 you *ill find a discussion
of the effects of the current scoring arrangements.
&ection 4 outlines some proposals for possible
alternate scoring systems and competition
mechanisms to impro+e the fairness of outcomes.
'inally section 6 presents some conclusions.
2. &coring and Pairing in &*iss Chess
&coring in classical s*iss chess competitions has
one primary goal, to set up pairings. Kour score
means +ery little in absolute terms, it is the
peopleEteams you play against that is important.
This is because s*iss chess is trying to estimate the
best playerEteam by taking a limited sample of all
possible games ie *hen e+eryone plays e+eryone
else. ! simple illustration of this point is to consider
*hat *ould happen if the top 1;L of playersEteams
in a s*iss chess competition played only against the
bottom 1;L of playersEteams , it is likely that all of
the top players *ould recei+e a maximum score.
The origins of using numerical +alues (scores) in
s*iss chess competitions to arrange pairings is /ust
to ha+e a simple *ay of recording ho* many Bins
(1pt), <ra*s (;.6pts), and ?osses (;pts) a gi+en
player has obtained. This is because the ob/ecti+e of
s*iss chess is to find the o+erall *inner by ensuring
that they play a sample of the other strong players
in the comp. By forcing the strong players to play
each other s*iss chess e+aluates their relati+e
strengths. &*iss chess assumes that the outcome of
a game is a reflection of the relati+e strengths of the
t*o players in+ol+ed.
Ideally (ie assuming no dra*s), s*iss chess finds a
*inner by the follo*ing process for 18 players$
ound 1 generates A *inners, ound 2 generates 4
double *inners, ound 3 generates 2 triple *inners,
ound 4 generates 1 .uadruple *inner *ho is the
*inner of the competition. This person has *on all
their games and played all their games (after the
first) ersus other !inners (!ho are also assumed
to "e strong players). The second part in italics is
the important bit as that is *hat ensures that they
ha+e *on their games against the other strong
players in the field. This is achie+ed by making sure
that the pairing is correct. To translate this example
into the B<? scoring *hich *ill generate pairings
*e see that after round 1 all the *inners ha+e 1
point, after round 2 the double *inners ha+e 2
points etc. The fact that they are on the same score
is then used to generate the re.uired pairings. This
is the ideal situation *ithout dra*s, *hen dra*s are
added you in fact ha+e to play additional rounds to
guarantee that the players *ill be separated
sufficiently to determine a *inner M1N.
If *e use a scoring system *ith more possible
outcomes, eg ;,1; as pro+ided in the <BM
rulebook *ith 1;,;, F,1, A,2, 9,3, 8,4 and 6,6 as the
possible outcomes, then perhaps *e are getting a
more accurate estimate of the relati+e skill le+els of
the players in+ol+ed in a game. <oes this help our
s*iss chess mechanism find a *innerO "o is the
ans*er. The reason for this is that the additional
possible game outcomes make our desired pairings
(bet*een *innersEstrong players) less clear. If t*o
players meet under ;,1; and they get a 9,3 result it
tells us that player 1 (*ith the 9) is stronger but ho*
does he compare to the player 1 of another game
*ho got a 1;,;O It could be that the second player 1
(*ith a 1;) /ust played against a *eaker player 2
and is in fact himself a *eaker player than our first
player 1. This lack of information about the relati+e
meaning of scores, ie both scores *eren:t achie+ed
against the same player 2, makes re*arding one
player 1 o+er another foolhardy. This is a critical
difference in the desired types of scoring $ 'or s*iss
chess competitions ;,1; does not *ork so *ell,
*hile for round,robin competitions ;,1; *ould be
fine.
2ote1 It is true that the relati+e difference in scores
9 +s 1; obtained by the players does also contain
some information on the relati+e strengths of
players. =o*e+er a basic analysis of the distribution
of game outcomes typically achi+ed by players in
competitions does not sho* a strong correlation
bet*een this difference and relati+e player skill. It
is the *ork of another paper to explore this area
more completely. 'or the current discussion *e
assume that the classical s*iss chess conser+ati+e
approach based on number of *ins is most robust ie
*e kno* that *ins ha+e meaning, *e are unsure of
*hat meaning to attach to the relati+e degrees of
+ictory expressed by more complex scoring systems
like 1;,;.
In practice, by ha+ing more possible scoring
outcomes *e make the pairing of strong players
against each other harder to achie+e. This is because
the groups of people on the same score ha+e scoring
information that is both relati+e to the rest of the
entire competition (ho* many *ins they possess)
and information relati+e to their exact opponents
(ho* *ell they *on each game). This results in a
more continuous distribution of score +alues *hich
is more biased to*ards mean +alues. Thus all
players tend to ha+e a score *hich is nearer the
a+erage for the competition, thus pairings generated
from this information *ill tend to pair both *eak
and strong players together throughout the
competition. This +iolates the pairing principles of
s*iss chess. This means that it is easier to get a soft
dra* (because e+eryone tends to be mixed up in the
middle) and hence get the points to lift you abo+e
e+eryone else for a competition *in. #ssentially this
means that *inning such a competition is highly
dependent on the luck of the dra* (ie the exact
pairings generated) as *ell as player skill. !lthough
it *ill still be one of the stronger players *ho tends
to *in because you still ha+e to *in most of your
games, it:s /ust that if you *in it is likely that
someone else (*ho could be stronger than you)
recei+ed a much tougher dra* than you. By
+iolating the s*iss chess pairing principle of pairing
the strong players against each other, the influence
of the luck of the dra* has been significantly
increased. This problem can be sol+ed by playing
more rounds, /ust as *e add rounds for the addition
of dra*s to our scoring *hen using B<? M1N.
It is also *orth stating that scoring systems in s*iss
chess competitions ha+e a secondary function and
that is to separate the placings of players after the
final round *hen the idealised result of ha+ing only
one unbeaten player is not achie+ed. %sing the
traditional B<? scoring it is assumed that players
are ranked on the basis of most *ins then most
dra*s then least losses. Thus a player *ith 3 *ins
and a dra* places higher than a player *ith 3 *ins
and a loss. This is not perfect because it does of
course not take into account the .uality of the
opposition faced and is thus biased to*ards the
player *ith the softest dra*. =o*e+er soft dra*s
are harder to achie+e under B<? scoring so the
result is fairly robust. Bhen t*o players on the
same score, eg 3 *ins and a dra* (3.6 pts) ha+e to
be separated then traditionally some sort of tie,
break mechanism is used to separate the players if it
is to determine first place M2N. Other tied players are
left tied in the competition results M2N because the
fact is that s*iss chess has not really had sufficient
rounds to meaningfully separate them. There are
many of these tie breaks used in the chess *orld M3N
but they all try to estimate the player *ho has
recei+ed the hardest dra* and re*ard them. This is
exactly the opposite effect of using a scoring system
*ith more possible outcomes, eg ;,1;, *hich *ill
re*ard the player *ho recei+ed the softest dra* and
allo*ed them to gain additional points against the
*eaker players they faced.
3. Current Team &coring and &*iss Chess
Current practice for team scoring at <BM e+ents is
based on adding together the scores of the team
members to get a team score. =opefully it *ill be
ob+ious from the discussion in section 2 that this
+iolates the pairing assumptions of s*iss chess in
t*o *ays$
1. It generates team scores *hich ha+e a large range
of possible outcomes eg for 7ranson 12,;, 11,1, 1;,
1, F,3, etc. These effecti+ely rate the team against
their precise set of opponents rather than against the
*hole field thus making correct pairing more
difficult. =ence increasing the probability of
hardEsoft dra*s among the teams and biasing the
o+erall result to*ards the strong team *ith the
softest dra*.
2. By summing the indi+idual game scores to gi+e a
team score, you are effecti+ely a+eraging results
and thus you are biasing further the distribution of
results to*ards the mean. !n extreme *ay of
looking at this is that all teams effecti+ely get a
dra* (a+erage result) each round except for the
teams that dra* a team much betterE*orse than
them and these teams get a lossE*in respecti+ely.
This means that team scores tend to cluster around
the mean, hence all teams tend to get paired
together , rather than seperating strong and *eak
teams as per s*iss chess assumptions. This makes
the pairings less robust and aggri+ates the points
discussed in point 1 abo+e.
The net result of these effects is a preponderance of
noticeably hardEsoft dra*s at the competitions M4N
and an ad+antage in the final placings for teams
*hich get the opportunity to play against the
*eakest teams present. The *inners, *hile
undoubtedly strong teams, are also largely
determined by the luck of the dra*. !s discussed in
&ection 2 this is because the ideal team pairings of
strongest +s. strongest ha+e been made difficult to
achie+e by mixing strong and *eak teams together
on similar scores.
4. Proposed &ystems for &*iss Chess Team
Competitions
In this section proposals are made to impro+e the
reliability of the results produced at team
competitions. T*o proposals for changing the team
scoring systems are discussed. "ote that *e do not
discuss indi+idual game scoring mechanisms but
rather the mechanism for extracting a team score
from the indi+idual game results. Be also briefly
discuss alternati+e *ays of restructuring the e+ents
to impro+e reliability *hile retaining the current
team scoring method (summing the scores of each
team member:s games).
3)+ 2e! Team Scorin% Methods
In order to satisfy s*iss chess pairing re.uirements
the current scoring systems ha+e to be changed to
remo+e the current t*o problems discussed in
section 3. Both of the suggestions here focus on
extracting from the indi+idual game outcomes some
sort of team outcome *hich is then used to generate
pairings and hence pro+ides the primary scoring
system for the competition. There is still a huge
amount of scope for different proposals on ho*
exactly team scores should be structured (eg 1E.6E;
or 3E1E;), ho* indi+idual games should be scored
and *hat type of secondary (tie,break) scoring
system should be used. These are all left as open
issues for the competition organisers to decide
upon.
3)+)+ Current 'ame Scorin% (nchan%ed4 Team
Scorin% 56tracted from Sum
%nder this proposal, games *ould be scored as per
the current method and then a team score is
extracted from them. Take the results of all games
for each team, sum them and compare to the other
team:s score. If$
Team 1:s Total P Team 2:s Total HP Team 1 *on,
a*ard them G points and Team 2 lost, a*ard them
Q points.
Team 1:s Total H Team 2:s Total HP Team 1 and
Team 2 dre*, a*ard them K points.
Team 1:s Total R Team 2:s Total HP Team 1 lost,
a*ard them Q points, and Team 2 *on, a*ard them
G points.
%sing standard B<? scoring, G H 1, K H ;.6, Q H ;.
(!lthough other schemes such as 31; may be used
by the organisers). This then becomes the team:s
score for the round and is used to generate pairings.
! secondary scoringEtie,break mechanism *ould
then be needed to separate teams on the same score
at the end of the competition. It is tempting to use
the sum of the team members: scores for each round
but this may be biased to*ards the team that got the
softest dra* and a better tie,break might be
something like$
If team ! beat team B during the competition, then
team ! places higher. Other*ise take the sum of
team !:s opponents: scores and compare it *ith the
sum of team B:s opponents: scores, *hiche+er is
higher places higher.
2ote1 It is true that any countback mechanism is
also a fla*ed measure of player ability M1N. The
reality is that s*iss chess simply hasn:t had enough
rounds to seperate the teams. This is *hy
countbacks are only used in chess competitions to
seperate placing (ie 1st,3rd position) players M2N ,
the rest of the field should be left tied. Thus in the
absence of any analysis of the relati+e merits of
using cumulati+e <BM game scores as a countback
or the sum of opponents scores it is hard to /ustify
the use of one or the other. The organisers are
recommended to make their o*n decision on *hat
to use.
This *ould be a simple and effecti+e *ay of
combating the current problems. It is dependent on
ho* robust the indi+idual game scoring mechanism
is, but that is an issue for the organisers. It *orks
*ell *ith s*iss chess because it minimises the
number of dra*s, *hich in turn minimises the
number of rounds re.uired.
3)+)0 Holistic $pproach4 Ra! 'ame Outcomes
'ive Team Score
! slightly more sophisticated approach might be to
build a table of indi+idual game outcomes and map
this onto the team outcome. In this approach the
organisers decide ho* many indi+idual game
*insEdra*s should translate into a team *in and
build a table to perform this mapping for all
possible results. There are many possible +ariations
on this approach depending on the style of game,
play the organisers *ant to encourage.!n example
mapping for 4,person teams is gi+en belo* (in this
example it *as decided that a minimum of 2 *ins, a
dra* and loss is re.uired for a team to be re*arded
*ith a *in result)$
Team ! players get$
Team ! esult
is$
Team B esult
is$
4 *ins Bin ?oss
3 *ins, 1 dra* Bin ?oss
3 *ins, 1 loss Bin ?oss
2 *ins, 2 dra*s Bin ?oss
2 *ins, 1 dra*, 1
loss
Bin ?oss
2 *ins, 2 losses <ra* <ra*
1 *in, 3 dra*sS <ra* <ra*
1 *in, 2 dra*s, 1
loss
<ra* <ra*
4 dra*s <ra* <ra*
3 dra*s, 1 lossSS <ra* <ra*
1 *in, 1 dra*, 2
losses
?oss Bin
2 dra*s, 2 losses ?oss Bin
1 dra*, 3 losses ?oss Bin
1 *in, 3 losses ?oss Bin
4 losses ?oss Bin
S!n ob+ious +ariation on this table *ould be to
make this result also count as a Bin for team !, if
the organisers *ant to encourage a Dnot losingD
style of play. In this case the SS result *ould count
as a ?oss for team !.
Once the team result is decided, then score +alues
such as the G, K and Q in section 4.1.1 abo+e are
allocated and used for pairing. ! tie,break
mechanism similar to that discussed in 4.1.1 *ould
also ha+e to be adopted. This is the preferred
approach of the author as it does not re*ard the
eccentricities of specific game scoring mechanisms
*ith the ability to push a team result from a <ra*
to a Bin or ?oss (as is the case *ith solution 4.1.1).
It may also be argued that the abo+e approach is
better at estimating the true relati+e strength of both
teams because a big *in on one table is not enough
to offset multiple dra*s or losses on other tables
and pro+ide an o+erall *in result for the team (as
could be the case *ith solution 4.1.1).
3)0 Other $pproaches
Instead of changing the scoring system, there are at
least t*o other approaches that could be adopted.
The easiest (although probably not practical)
approach *ould be to add more rounds to the
competitions. =o* many rounds are re.uiredO This
is not easy to ans*er but *e kno* that it is at least
as many as B<? s*iss chess, *hich *ould be
log2(n) I (log2(n))S1E3, *here n is the number of
teams and probably less than a full round robin
*hich is (n,1) rounds. =o* many less *ill depend
on the number of possible outcomes from each
game, *here more outcomes *ill re.uire more
rounds. !s an example, the *orld chess teams
championship recently used teams of 4 players *ith
game scores being summed to gi+e a team score,
ho*e+er they played 14 rounds for 136 teams. #his
is dou"le the num"er of rounds suggested "y
applying the "asic s!iss chess rounds formula M1N.
%nfortunately most organisers are stretched to fit in
the number of rounds they play any*ay so this is
generally not a practical solution. ! corollary of this
approach *ould of course be to reduce the number
of competing teams by at least 6;L, it is assumed
that this is also unpalatable to the organisers.
The second approach, *hich *as mentioned in
B=7& list discussions M4N, *ould be to drop the
pairing by team aspect of the competitions, ie split
each team into the indi+idual players *ho ha+e their
o*n scores and play exclusi+ely *ithin their o*n
pools (ie all player 1:s etc). This *ould effecti+ely
split the competition into 3 or 4 separate
competitions *ith indi+idual *inners. The team
score *ould then be the sum of the final scores of
each player in the team. This approach *ould
certainly *ork but it seems to dilute the original
concept of teams playing (and getting paired)
against one another.
6. Conclusions
This paper has explained the relationship bet*een
scoring and pairings in s*iss chess. It has also
sho*n that getting pairing right is key to the s*iss
chess mechanism functioning properly ie fairly
determines a *inner. The current practice of
assigning a team score e.ual to the sum of
indi+idual player scores for team,based pairing
purposes has been sho*n to interact badly *ith
s*iss chess. &e+eral proposals for alternati+e
approaches to team,based s*iss chess competitions
ha+e been discussed. The author recommends an
approach based on extracting an o+erall team result
from the indi+idual game results *hich is then used
for pairing and hence primary scoring purposes.
This approach maintains the team on team aspect of
the competition *ithout re.uiring impractical
alterations to the competition format and *ill
increase the robustness of the final results
generated. Of the t*o such approaches presented,
the D=olistic !pproachD is the author:s preferred
option.
$ckno!led%ements
The author *ishes to thank the follo*ing re+ie*ers
for their +aluable comments on earlier drafts of this
paper$ <a+id Taylor, <a+id Koung, 5e+in <ono+an,
ichard !ynsley and Tony Balsh. The opinions
expressed in this paper remain the author:s o*n.