Shall I answer your trollish little list line by line?

1. Nope, I'm not confused at all.
2. This little gem is indicative of *your * confusion. Everyone (except you, obviously) understands that 'decisive' means the game has been won. It has not been drawn. That's the black and white of it (pun intended). If you are playing semantics (since a 'round' cannot be won or lost, only a game can), then you are simply trolling. If you have a position, state it without frills.
3. No one disagrees with you here. Unfortunately, I don't think you really understand what is meant when one uses the term 'theoretical.' At least, you seem to choose to give that impression.
4. My views are entirely subjective based on having lived my entire life in the USA (I assume that you do not live in the USA). We have thousands of 'tournaments' here that are 3 and 4 and 5 rounds long each year, and they are geared to lower rated players ('amateurs,' if you will allow me that definition). I won't argue semantics with you. If you have a more esoteric definition of 'tournament,' then that makes you too close-minded to discuss the subject with you. If it acts, walks, and quacks like a duck, it's called a duck, whether or not YOU think it's a duck (or a goose, or a peahen).
5. Of course it isn't 'your' formula (thus the added emphasis in my earlier post). But it is the one you espouse as being the perfect answer to an imperfect question. In the context of this thread, then, it IS *your* formula, and you are defending it with semantics. ***I am not arguing about the merits of that formula, WHOSEVER it is!***
6. It isn't *MY* idea! LOL!! I simply claim that in the theoretical model, it is possible (NOT probable -- thus the word 'theoretical') to reduce the field to one unbeaten in the given number of rounds. No more or less. Why you insist on putting meaning where it aint (lol) is a reflection of YOU and your psyche, not me or my views.
7. No argument. I wont bite at the phrase 'true Swiss.'
8. No argument.
9. See #4, above.
10. See #5, above.
11. I copied your words into my post. I have no argument with the intent in #11.

If you reply, please bring a valid argument with you, or my participation will be over. If you want to debate this some more, please explain how it is impossible (that is, 'not theoretically possible') for an x^2 format to produce a single winner. I'm looking forward to it.

CO

Go Gata!!

"Draws by mutual agreement in under 30 moves are not allowed, but genuine draws by repetition or stalemate are acceptable"
The sillyness continues, in a game reputed inteligent! Just LOL.

One more (4th or 5th?) sugestion about putting videos (or g-maps, or alike) mixed with game viewer, on articles:
At least, please inform us of that, on the introdution. It will give any of us with less performant computers the option of not clicking on these heavy weight pages...

Obvious that 9 rounds is not enough in this tournament. Is going to be a lottery...

Is it just me, or is that monkey staring at Zatonskih's boobs?

Anna Zatonskih is soo beautiful, I can understand the monkey :D

@Radical Caveman:

No, the monkey is staring at some point behind her back. Obviously, he is not the one staring at her boobs...

Just as well for you that a mouse can be operated with one hand, I guess...

There's a monkey in that picture?

@Michael X Tractor:

It seems there are always Puritanical sourpusses like you eager to fling mud at other people...lighten up for chrissakes.

Fair enough Rini, but then we wouldn't have seen games such as Cheparinov(2660) - Havik (2093) 1/2 !

While Aeroflot goes for the "A-B solution", I think such games are also part of open tournaments - and "weak" amateurs should be given the chance to play against GMs: after all, their entry fees contribute to appearance fees and prize money for the invited players.

If enough rounds isn't an option, I am willing to accept a certain element of luck for the final standings - while such concerns are legitimate for "more official events" as Olympiads and continental championships.

Theoretically, the Swiss System with x rounds can sort 2^x players; 10 rounds should allow for up to 1024 players. We know chess can be a bit drawish at higher levels, but Gibraltar's 10 rounds means they're doing 2 more than the required 8.

They're just unlucky with the number of draws, there's nothing wrong with the number of rounds.

Thanks for the selection of games... good to see a Blumenfeld!

Monkey's are like humans, or humans are like monkey's?

Are you blaming him? :P

I bet $100 that Lenderman will not finish in =1st or clear first at Gibraltar.

Anyone willing to accept my bet, reply here.

@Rini

It's 10 rounds, not 9.
Still, not enough! Circa 210 players, which means it should be 15 rounds, at least.
We'll see, but I say that none of the eventual 10 first players will have played against more than 3 of the others (and maybe I'm being optimist!).
More than a lottery, it's always a lie, short of competitive meaning.

Agreed Castro, with so many participants allowed and only 10 rounds, why not create an A and a B group!?

"enough rounds isn’t an option" precisely because one accepts it (and FIDE also). Otherwise you'd see many organizers finding "options"!
As for “weak” amateurs, we always have that "chance to play against GMs", within certain limits. The fairness of the competition is something that should not be sacrificed to that, ever.
And morover, of course not every weak amateur gets to play a GM, it's the "element of luck" aplied two times, with obvious loss of fairness. It's almost better to draw lots for a game against a GM :-)

See,Queens gambit doesn't work on Monkeys!

@Remco G

LOL
Sorry, you're completely wrong.
It's square root of the number of players plus one round, for the Swiss to work properly.
8 rounds it's good for "just" 49 players maximum;
10 rounds is enough for 81;
For Gibraltar's 210, 15 rounds should be minimum.
"Your" 1024 players would require 33 rounds! "Your" first 10 would sufice just for warming up :-)

In fairness to Remco G, he did use the term 'theoretically' in his assertion, which makes it accurate. You just need to have decisive games in the top score group to make it work.

Practicality is a different matter, so it is the rest of his post that is in question.

CO

As far as I understand it, Remco G's post implicitly assumes that ALL games are decisive - or at least that the winner scores 100%. IMO this is very implausible unless one forces a decisive result, every draw being followed by rapid, blitz, Armaggedon. Even then Castro might have a point: the players ending on top hardly played against each other.

Regarding the number of draws on the top boards - like it or not, it's to some extent inherent to professional chess. Some professionals tend to play it safe, preferring some (virtually guaranteed) prize money over a chance for all (1st place) with the risk of nothing (no prize money). At Gibraltar, Gustafsson was in the sole lead and finished with two quick draws against Bacrot and Movsesian - should we blame him?

As I wrote at earlier occasions, there is some tradeoff between the ideal number of rounds "sensu Castro" and other considerations: Amateurs have a limited number of holidays, professionals have a busy schedule - several players went straight from Gibraltar to the German Bundesliga. So how many players would be willing and able to play 15 rounds or more? Maybe only 100 instead of 210, and then we can go back to 11 rounds :)

Finally regarding amateurs vs. GMs: Some are lucky to get one in the first round, others earn their right to face such a strong player (maybe once in their lifetime): If you start with 2/2 or 3/3 and perform far above your rating, you will certainly face a very strong player ... .

@chess observer

Both you and Remco are wrong, both theoreticaly and practicaly! You're simply confusing numbers.
(Unless you consider "theory" any kind of erroneous saying, because practice is different :-) )
He (and you) might have recalled 2^x, but the number in question is hugely different, though the confusion is understandable: Number of players must be, at most, (x-1)^2, where x are the rounds. That assures the fairness of a non-all-play-all tournament. With more players for the same rounds, you get a lie. You may even be unaware, because you are always playing, and different opponents, and everything, but it's just a false swiss, and a false tournament in the main sense.

@Thomas

They are wrong all the way, they confused formulae (the only thing in common is the number 2 is there --- but what a difference!)
It's true people are busy, and one understands what's going on with lots of that pseudo-competitions, but I must insist, I think the strongest factor is habit and fashion.
Some organizer has money, or thinks he can make money, anounces prize money for some places and people come to play (for the money or not). But if, at least, there was some sort of tournament ranking, they would tend to organize things the proper way. Good (fully regular) tournaments should be awarded something, or maybe bad ones should not be elegible for ELO...

As for playing GMs: Yes, that was what I meant by «we always have that “chance to play against GMs”, within certain limits» :-)
No reason to sacrifice the main thing.

Castro, I'm not confused.

2 people 'theoretically' need 1 decisive round (a game?) to determine a winner. 4 people need 2 rounds. 8 people need 3 rounds (of course all of this based on the 'theoretical' idea that decisive games occur in the top score group). The generic formula is, indeed, as stated.

By *your* formula ["Number of players must be, at most, (x-1)^2, where x are (sic) the rounds"], a 2 round tournament can only have (2-1)^2 = 1 player for a decisive result! A '1-round tourney' (a game between 2 opponents?) can have NO participants! And whether you're speaking theoretically *or* practically, it just doesn't wash (obviously, these examples aren't 'Swiss' by nature -- a 3-round tourney can only have 4 players by this method, and that's a RR!).

I agree with you that higher numbers of rounds in the original formula is not practical. But the math doesn't condone yours, either. Perhaps you need a delimiter that states something to the effect of 'For Swiss system tournaments of at least x rounds,' where x is probably 4.

Swisses with a lower number of rounds (the usual 'weekend Swiss') tend to work out fairly well, the biggest reason being that the participants are seldom professionals. These club players and rounders simply just don't draw as often as the big boys. And that's why it works. You may have a tie at 4 1/2 or even 4 with a 32 player, 5 round tourney, but very often someone goes 5-0, unless a win guarantees 1st with 4 1/2.

Bigger money, higher number of round events DO need more rounds than x^2, without question, and your formula may indeed be accurate -- at the higher levels. And I would agree with that.

CO

@chess observer

1. Again sorry, you're absolutely confused, and now confused about your confusion;

2. The concept of "decisive round" is, by itself, hilarious: Paradoxaly both irrelevant and nonsensical. The only fields one can accept it are informal conversations and post-tournament journalism;

3. Nothing happening "in the top score group" is relevant, specially at the time of organizing a tournament. It's a tournament. It's for all. Elo or other order just matters at the beggining, to start the Swiss. Nothing else (morover that laughable "decisive rounds").

4. You're so confused, you don't even get aware of your so obvious first mistake in your own reasoning: 2 rounds for 4 players?? 3 rounds for 8 players?? Imediately there is blunder. So you're ready to call that a chess tournament?! Alternative to (and as scientificaly studied to be as fair as) an all-play-all?? (As the Swiss is) Sorry, but LOL!!
Remember: For small number of players one does NOT play a Swiss. It's formulae doesn't apply for them, and would also give injustice. For 8 players, and if you also want to avoid elimination processes, you play a RR. Period.
Even for not so small numbers, say 25 guys, you can apply a "minimum" Swiss (6 rounds), but in fact, if you have the determination to put up a chess tournament with them, and you can go 6, you'll try at least 7 or 8 rounds. Otherwise, my advice is try harder, because maybe you'll find better conditions now.

5. It's not "my" formula! LOL

6. "Not practical for higher numbers"?? Please wake up. Your idea --- I repeat --- is simply and completely wrong! I know perfectely the formula 2^x (I'm from Maths, and I even had a phone number which was 2^x). It's very interesting, and even beautyful, but has NOTHING to do with this. (I mean "directelly", because ultimately 2^x is everywhere);

7. "Swisses with a lower number of rounds (the usual ‘weekend Swiss’) tend to work out fairly well"
Yes they do, because people tend to accept disguised things, and the "least evil" of having games to play anyway. But to the fairness of the competition (and if one even is to call them "tounaments"), they're shameful. Most of the times, a true Swiss would be posible. And when not, they should be adantagely replaced by mixed sistems (pool, etc.)

8. The draws are NO issue, when you have a proper tournament (whatever system). That is a MITH. Not even a tiny little issue!

9. "5 round tourney" I always laugh when someone tells me that (unless the players were 6 or it was a match between 2). What a waste, those "tourneys"!

10. Again?? It's not "my" formula! It was statisticaly studied to BE A TRUE alternative to all-play-all. Nothing more, nothing less.

11. It's "The number of rounds must be AT LEAST the integer of square root of the number of players, plus one".

#6 above should probably use the phrase 'one perfect score' instead of 'one unbeaten'

CO

@chess observer

What a surprise! Another irrealistic in denial. And in abuse, sure, but that is merely a childish matter.
More than pathetic, your frustration, despair, and corolary messy distortions and atacks were most unnecessary. But now the damage is done, right?
Maybe you just couldn't stand my "lols", or my numbering questions, but that would only be possible by taking it too personal, or even ill intended, from my part, which obviously was not the case.
One thing is for sure, you obviously remain completely wrong on the real issue too. I don't have the need for any further use of it, but luckily everything we said will remain "black and white", for people to see.
The first thing that imediately kills any of your discutional credibility on this is (repeatedly) acusing me of having my arguments relying on semantics. Not going to LOL on that, because indeed it's too serious on your part. What a nerve! What a case study.

Lets use the numbers again.
1. Lol
2. Your implications on my words are simply irrelevant, because empty and wrong. You talked about "decisive rounds". There is no need to interprete that as "something winnable or loseable" to see that it is a concept completely useless in what a swiss chess tournament is concerned. The swiss system (which, BTW, I recomend you finaly go learn something) was made with total assumption of what wins, losses and draws are (of course). And depends upon a minimum number of rounds. That is crucial.
A different thing is making a few games among a few fellows, following the "swiss" procedure of trying to pair players with aproximate points at each round. It's like calling cheese to yougurt just because both use something common.
Even if your "decisive rounds" and "decisive games" were relevant for what we were talking, you again had the chance of detecting one of your flaws, because a tournament's standings are not simply finding a winer (moreover if that theoretical "extreme relevance" depends on having someone always winning). Hence your useless concepts of 2 rounds for 4 players, etc.
Have you though about having a winner with no rounds at all, if one of them killed the others? It's as useful. Call it "Theoretical Relevance", and don't forget to mention "Semantics".
(I'm not competent in English enough to know exactely what "trollish", "trolling", "frills", and others, are, and I'm not going to see them now, but something is telling me they also aply SO much better to you here!)

3. «It seems that I choose to give the impression that I don't really understand what is meant when one uses the term ‘theoretical'»
What to say of this other "little gem"? Lol ?
BTW, again, do yourself a favor and go realy see what is 'theoretical' and 'practical' about the swiss. It should save us all from nonsenses alike.

(to be continued after dinner)

(resume)

4. Firstly, if you "won’t argue semantics" with me, maybe the best thing is you can go to a friend. Maybe he'd have the mercy to say to you "Shut up".
- Subjectivity: It's normal, but it is good to know it's limits. Confusion danger;
- USA or not: An irrelevance like others. Adds to what and/or is originated by what? Confusion;
- What is and what should be: A most common confusion;
- "thousands of ‘tournaments’ here that are 3 and 4 and 5 rounds": The word 'tournaments' is into commas. That's OK;
- "esoteric" and "too close-minded" are YOUR takes on this tournament thing, because I said that my view is that if it is merely a pseudo-Swiss, we shouldn't call it a tournament, because, from the fairness of the results point of view, it is a lie. For bigger reasons, it's laughable even calling it "Swiss". Trying to distort that into being MY definition is ridiculous. Now, are you free to call them 'Swiss' and 'tournament'? Of course! Call 'orange' to an apple, and see if it protests!
- (some of those nonsenses of yours may prevent you from) "discussing the subject with me". Go where you want to go! It's also common that type of "threats", when it comes to having no reason at all, but being childishly frustrated.

5. So, "added emphasis" on being "MY" formula (the kind of semantic tricks all of your argumentation lives by) means that "Of course it isn’t ‘your’ (my) formula"!
Nice to know news from outer space!
Now, I never said anything about "being the perfect answer". A distortion like many;
Again and always: The Swiss (a fully scientific tournament system) implies a minimum number of rounds (related to the number of players). That is, at least, as important as the pairing method. Can you organize a competition where less rounds are played? Yes you can, and it is done everyday. THAT was on discusion. Don't confuse things, don't try to distort things. (Anyway, its just a sugestion, people are here, you can be read, and even answered, so go ahead).

6. What "theoretical model"? One from your (lol) previous night dream??
"it is possible (yes, "probable" would mean having the majority of the cases, and NOT the EXCEPTION of 1/(2^x). What a laugh!) to reduce the field to one unbeaten in the given number of rounds. No more or less"?
Didn't I told you that I know well enough the meaning of 2^x?
Don't you imagine that I could know, at least as well as you, what it means, if one has the 2^x parts of a giving x-element set, displayed from left to right (for instance), to chose one and only part, by going always by the left (for instance)? It's the EXCEPTION of getting the "far left" part, just that. "No more no less". Poor presumption! Try treating yourself and others without "imposible justification" tricks, for a change.
So, "Why you insist on putting meaning where it aint (lol) is a reflection of YOU and your psyche, not me or my views" are... HEY! Words from your mirror!

7. "No argument. I wont bite at the phrase ‘true Swiss.’"
Of course you wouldn't, would you? How could you, if all you show is you don't even want to know the swiss, just fantasise on it, let alone answering in terms to what is said there, in point 7.

8. :-) How could you? Re-hallucinating?

9. Yes, see #4 above.

10. #5, go-go!

11. I don't seem to have the enough english competence. Is that an answer? It's not irony, either I'm losing something in those words, or it is you. This latter case would be far from abnormal (to say it would be like the rest), but maybe it is the exception?
You "copied my words into your post"?? So what? What words?
"argument with the intent"? What's that? A charade?

Now, the final "little (huge) gem":

"If you reply, please bring a valid argument with you, or my participation will be over. If you want to debate this some more, please explain how it is impossible (that is, ‘not theoretically possible’) for an x^2 format to produce a single winner. I’m looking forward to it."

Let's see. I should "explain how it is impossible for an x^2 format to produce a single winner". What a confusion! (We're becoming used to)

x^2 is NOT 2^x. You use both.
- One of them, 2^x was the one you begun with, and which led you to produce "little gems" like "10 rounds for 1024 players" and (so) "Gibraltar had way more than enough rounds, no problem with this tournament" (free "translation", of course).
As I pointed above, if you use a "2^x format" (where x are the rounds, I hope :-) ), you can have a sure "winner", if he wins all of the x rounds. The exception. It has nothing of 'theoretical', nothing even useful for a "system" for organizing a tournament. It's merely a mathematical fact. You can find one from 1024 doors with 10 questions of "yes or no" answers", if you ask them to a sincere person who knows which of the doors you want.
Nothing about the Swiss system for chess tournaments. NO THING!
(with the comment I made in previous post)

- The other, the "x^2 format" (where x are the players!), is the aproximate formula for the swiss, but not quite! It comes short by one round. But at least that's a formula with much more in common with what we were talking about (swiss system and it's enough rounds), before Mr. "chess observer" intervene with his mathematical curiosities and driftings.

Focusing on semantic games, let's also note your play with things, like:

- "a valid argument with you, or my participation will be over". The validity of my arguments has no need to be more than inversely proportional to yours, which, being semantics and fantasies, is none. Your participacion over? That's no matter for me, you do understand THAT, or don't you?
- "To produce a single winner". But did you enter the "right" discusion? Who were talking here about a single winner? And who is interested on that? Maybe you should have adressed other poster (or other thread?), because my sayings had nothing to do with that, nor could they! "To produce a single winner" is something that, at most, merely calls for a smile, in my perspective.
- "I must show something is imposible", OR ELSE...! Another smile.
But "Imposible" "means" "not theoretically possible"!! Lol
You want people to aknowledge you that, even if it is absolutely not wise, useful, proved, good, adequate, relevant, etc. to throw some body fluids against the wind, it is, however, "theoretically possible" for you to do so and not get wet all over?
That's an easy one! Yes, you can!