Intent
Following the 2006 Armed Forces Open (AFO), discussion emerged amongst
players regarding the possibility of using the event to declare both an
individual AND team championship without penalizing teams for pairings
against teammates. What follows are the details of the proposal for
consideration.
The Current Format
The AFO poses all branches of service (Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines) in
team competition for the purpose of declaring a military team chess
champion. Teams are composed of the top 6 scoring players from each
service.
The Problem
The AFO is unique in that it is the only open event dedicated to Military
Chessplayers. The AFO brings together future (cadet), present (active,
reserve) and past (retired) Military Chessplayers into a single event. Some
have met over the board for over twenty years. For others this event
presents the opportunity to challenge figures legendary for this grouping.
This cross-section of time and services always begs the question, "Who,
individually, is the military's best player?" The search for the answer to
that question does not lessen the pride in the team victory. But as there
are no individual tournaments for Military Chessplayers, the question of how
to achieve this goal without penalizing teams teammate pairings is
paramount.
The Concept
For the sake of the example we'll deal with a 100 person event composed of 4
unevenly numbered team participants. The event is paired for 6 rounds using
a completely individual, swiss pairing (that is to say regardless of team
affiliation). Note: It is acknowledged that it is possible to prevent
teammates from playing in rounds 1 and 2 usually. From round 2 and beyond,
depending on the scores and sizes of the teams, individuals may be matched
against teammates.
After all 6 rounds have been completed, the individual champion is selected
using the already agreed upon tie breaks designated by the TD. The "teams"
for scoring are the highest 6 placing members of each service. Each of the
team members receives a score based on the inverse of the number of
participants. (for ease of use, let's use Total players - 1 as the formula
so everything equals 100) . Hence, player 1 receives 99 points, player 2
receives 98 points, etc. The points are tabulated and the team with the
highest score claims the team championship victory.
A working model
The following scoring happens in a fictional tournament from the top 6 for
each team (note this is one of the worst possible mathematical outcomes
where the field is fairly evenly distributed)
Player USA Pts USAF Pts USN Pts USMC Pts
1 1st 99 2nd 98 3rd 97 4th
96
2 5th 95 6th 94 7th 93 8th
92
3 9th 91 10th 90 11th 89 12th
88
4 13th 87 12th 86 14th 86 15th
85
5 16th 84 17th 83 18th 82 19th
81
6 20th 80 21st 79 22nd 78 23rd
77
Total 536 530 525
519
On a closer look, one worse scenario is a near deadlock between the top two
teams. Here, the two Army players played in the final round. The losing
player took 3rd.
Player USA Pts USAF Pts
1 1st 99 2nd 98
2 3rd 97 5th 95
3 4th 96 6th 94
4 9th 91 7th 93
5 10th 90 8th 92
6 11th 89 12th 88
Total 564 560
In this example, the Army team wins out overall because it took 1st, 3rd and
4th. The consistent performance allowed them to squeak by and claim the team
title.
Comparison to other scoring systems
Most team scores are determined by using the total scores of the players.
This system is preferred because it adds a mathematical weight to the
scoring and thus giving less opportunity for ties.
Countering Arguments
It is conceivable that someone would argue that his or her team placed
second instead of first because teammates played each other in one or more
rounds. This would be a misconception though because it would still be the
'overall performance' of the top 6 players that was used. Hence, losing to a
teammate who did well would bode well for the losing player on tiebreaks.
Likewise, there would be no benefit to deliberately losing to a teammate as
the result would be the same. Thus, all players are free to compete fully
and without reservation knowing that every effort counts.
Disclaimer
This is NOT another tie-break system. This is a scoring system implemented
AFTER the tiebreaks have been computed.
Conclusion
The US Armed Forces Open has a long history of individual and service
rivalry, camaraderie, and pride. As the US Military Chess Committee looks
for ways to keep the event modern and innovative, this system provides what
we see as the best possible solution for fairly and honestly determining
both an individual AND team championship without taking away from the spirit
of true competition of this event.
Author: Steve Rollins