I've noticed the Fischer section is quite unbalanced with a few teams sporting some very high players where even board 4 is quite high. Has a rating cap been considered for the Fischer section? It seems to me the ratings cutoff is kind of unfair because you just take the however many highest teams even though there may be a big difference in ratings.

It is more pronounced with fewer teams. The Uxxxx system is good with a bunch of super-teams who can manage which players play on which team, and most teams tend to be pretty close underneath the ratings cap. It's more work for captains and requires a larger pool of players for each team, and then the non-super teams just can't compete because they end up farther away from the caps.

Don't know which in the end is a better system for us.

Yeah, I mean if there were high rated players available we may be able to compete fairly, but I don't see that there are players of that level available. I see several teams in a similar position in Fischer. Just doesn't seem fair when every player on some teams is around 200 points higher.

In most sections (except the bottom) the rating difference between team averages is about 100 points. In Fischer the rating difference is about 250 points. It seems natural to me to set the rating limit of Fischer average to around 100 points higher than the lowest team to make it fair. Honestly I don't find the Fischer section very enjoyable as one of the lower teams. It is simply a competition to recruit the highest rated players as it stands right now.

Joshua is right: the more the total number of teams drops, the bigger the gap among them tends to be. For example, in T67, in which 31 teams competed, the bottom team in Fischer had a rating average of 1975.25 (at the time of registration), whereas in T69, which gathered 35 teams, the bottom team in Fischer was above 2050. However, the first and last sections will almost always be more unbalanced rating-wise, while the central sections tend to be more compact.

Admins can’t control or predict the numbers, they have to work with what they get, and the idea is that sections with 7 or 8 teams will provide players with more games and fun. On rare occasions (e.g., T65) there’ll be a section with fewer teams to avoid a major unbalance, but this is never ideal in terms of playing opportunities. Eight teams in each section would be the ideal scenario, but that’s only possible when the total number is a multiple of 8. And Fischer is the section that most rarely gets 8 teams, exactly because admins try to keep teams as close as possible.

It’s worth noting that the averages of the Spassky finalists in T69 would place them in Fischer in T70, reducing the rating spread within the section, but they didn’t participate. Also a very traditional team didn't have a squad there this time. The absence of certain players may lead to big changes from one season to another.

The Uxxxx system also had an open section, but with only 5-6 teams. Personally I see the potential rating differences as “challenging” rather than “unfair”, but I understand that it may be disappointing for a team to get in the Fischer section when they intended to be in Spassky, for example. The situation should naturally improve if the total number of teams moves from 30 to around 35-40 again.

Mindlin, your team was very close to making the finals in Fischer in T70, so you definitely offered a competition there despite any rating differences and should be proud of it.

I disagree. It would be simple to implement a rating cap in the Fischer section. If you put a very high player in board 1 your other boards should be correspondingly lower. The rating difference is not unfair in the bottom section because there are plenty of players that teams could recruit if they choose to.

The presence of real masters and master-level players is part of the charm of the event, so IMHO denying or restricting their accesss to it can't be a good idea.

Of course ratings tell us something and they determine how sections are arranged, but I don't think they should be overvalued. You always need to prove your strength with actual good moves on the board (numbers don't win anything), and upsets can and do occur.

Fair enough. However in my opinion you will continue to lose players and teams from this section because it is so overweighted.

We talked about having a rating cap on the top section way back when we had fixed ratings for sections. The proposal then was to have the top section as U2200 (rather than 'Open'), but there was too much opposition, so no change was made. I guess people like having the super teams in the competition (until you have to play them).

I'm not going to offer an opinion on whether such a change is desirable, but I will say that such a change would be simple to implement. Technically we already have a 9999 cap on the Fischer section, there's no logistical reason why it can't be set lower.

Ok, thanks for the information. That got me thinking of an alternative. You could maintain no rating cap but add the following information: you announce the cut-off between Fischer and Spassky so that teams can choose which section they would like to be in. The teams that want to be in Spassky can then choose players low enough to land there.

Well that doesn't sound like a workable solution, because it would impact the other sections too. Also, what happens if only 3 teams opt for the top section? If you want teams to be able to choose which section they end up in, we might as well go back to all fixed rating sections, as Joshua was suggesting. I'm not going to tell you that we can't do that, but one of the reasons we changed to flexible rating sections was the uncertainty of how many teams we would get in any one section.

To elaborate a bit on my first point, I'll relate a conversation I had with a captain a few tourneys ago. He asked why we couldn't have a delay between the end of submissions and the setting up of sections to allow him to arrange his players so that his teams wouldn't end up in the same section. My answer was: what if other captains want to change their teams around too? With the flexible sections every team's decisions impacts the arrangement of all other sections, so we need a point at which everyone knows where they stand.

Yeah I understand the difficulty of fixed sections. That why I was suggesting just one cut-off between the top section and the others. If only 3 teams opt for the top section then that's in fact what the people want and my point is quite valid that it's too unbalanced. Hopefully for setting of sections there are some people who would prefer to play the master level players. I am just saying we should have the choice.

If only 3 teams opt for the top section then that's in fact what the people want and my point is quite valid that it's too unbalanced.

I agree that competitive balance is a problem in the Fischer section, but this idea that we can just let 'market forces' determine the size of the section isn't the kind of solution I'm looking for. One of the stronger arguments for changing from the fixed sections was that we frequently had a non-viable Open section because of a lack of teams there. So your 'solution' is essentially returning us to that old problem. I don't say this to bury the issue; those debates were years ago and times have changed, and maybe we should revisit those arguments. However, if you want a quick and uncontroversial change to fix the Fischer section, this isn't it.

Being deputy captain of the highest rated TL season for several seasons, I want to add some points to the discussion (mostly from my own or my team’s perspective) that might be useful for the discussion:

To begin with, this huge rating differences are not anything new neither do I think that it is directly related to the team drop. When I joined TL in 59, my team had an average rating about 2300, while the lowest rated team was about 2030, which is similar to present days. Our current captain, Triarius, was not even on board 4 at this time.In most of the seasons I played, the top team had an average rating between 2250 - 2325, whilst the lowest rated team was rated 1975 – 2075 on average. In addition, there were always just about 4 teams fighting for playoffs.

Speaking for my team, I just remember 2 team losses (not taking forfeit losses into account) within the 11 seasons I am member of my team. Between end of season 62 and season 66 our team was undefeated even with taking forfeit losses into account. For instance, Triarius just lost one game since end of season 63 (defeated by xandor in season 67).

Nonetheless, I agree that there is a change happening. Compared to earlier seasons, there are much more teams with 1 or 2 master class players and lower rated players on boards 2-4. In the past seasons there were many teams with a 2100+ player on board 1, boards 2-3 about 2000-2050 and a 1850-1950 player on board 4. To conclude, teams are not that balanced anymore.
In my point of view this is at least partly related to traditional Fischer league teams disappearing from Fischer section (defining them as teams who are competing in the Open section for 20 seasons without many changes in lineup between seasons; for instance RW-Azul and TheHotRock). When I last talked to diduk and maras they mentioned that their team might return soon, however they are quite busy at the moment.

Another factor is that the top teams tend to play in top lineup more often against the lower rated teams. Just to give an example, back in the time Bibbusque was playing for our team, he just played against the one or two top teams and the other teams had to deal with a very strong but slightly worse lineup.

In future, one might think about limiting the Fischer section to 4 teams since experience has shown that there are about 4 teams with a 2150+ average lineup every season. The main advantage is that there are not any David versus Goliath match-ups and that every team has a realistic chance to reach playoffs. Taking the disadvantages (giving lower rated players the opportunity to compete with higher rated players to increase their skill, which is the best training there is; having a bright variety of opponents every season) into account, I would not like to implement this change.

Having fixed section caps would lead to the same drawbacks as mentioned in the last paragraph. In addition the amount of teams would differ between the season making it hard for both the involved captains and admins.

Giving teams the choice in which section they want to compete as Mindlin suggested does not work for the reasons mentioned by SBC.

As you might have realize, I cannot come up with a way to resolve the completive unbalance in Fischer Section and to be honest I doubt that there will be a solution making everybody involved happy.

In my point of view, it would be best to schedule a date most Fischer Sections players, captains and stuff are available and discuss this issue in ch101 with a chair and a speaker roster, hearing the arguments/issues from more teams and make a decision.

Best regards
Schachbjm

P.S. Most likely, FlamingPhoenixFighters will have 2 teams in Fischer Section next season (at least 2 players will join or return to our team and some players of the Spassky team are playing at Fischer Section level), which would lower the average rating when we decide to balance both teams. I have not talked to Triarius yet, however it impacts the discussion, so it is worth mentioning at this early stage.

Would a minimum rating help?

It might just end up being another way of having a smaller number of teams in the Fischer division, but on the other hand, the teams that end up in the division are precisely the teams that intended to do so.

I won't complain if I have to play Elery again. ;)

The higher the number of teams, the more the gaps are filled in, so more balance is achieved. That’s why I described it as a natural way to improve the situation. However, I agree that this has considerable less impact on the Fischer section, as in most seasons there’ll be a rather limited number of 2000+ teams anyway.

The unbalance is also pronounced in the bottom section. With the disappearance of the Polgar section, players under or around 1500 not rarely face opponents in the 1600-1800 range, so arguably it’s just as challenging for them as it is for some players in Fischer. The central sections are more balanced, and the rating difference there is usually around 100 points, whereas In Fischer it easily reaches 250-300 points. While I think it’s normal for the Open section to be more unbalanced, I understand if some players consider that difference too much, especially when they didn’t plan to be there, but again, this is because admins have to work with what they get: they go all the way down to the seventh team to form the first group and give it a regular season.

My thoughts on a 4-team section tend to match schachbjm’s. It is a valid option because you can have a double round-robin and 6 rounds of action (as in a 7-team section), but the lack of variety of opponents doesn’t make it particularly attractive. I also imagine that in such a format there wouldn’t be playoffs? And of course sections with 5 or 6 teams don’t work well with the 7-week-plus-final model.

As an exercise, let’s imagine there are four teams above 2200 in average and the fifth is 2095. OK, you separate the top four teams, but, if the average of the bottom team in Spassky is, say, 1950, will they feel in disadvantage to face the 2095 team and maybe another one above 2050? The point is that I think it’s nearly impossible to please everybody, there will always be a noticeable difference here or there.

As schachbjm noted, competing with higher-rated opponents is the best way to improve, and, just like trebejo, I look forward to maybe playing Elery again and other top Leaguers, but of course one can argue I’m just overoptimistic, stubborn or suicidal. :D Anyway, my guess is that there’ll be more balance in Fischer next season, and I’m also betting on 5 sections again instead of only 4.

I suppose one question to consider is the following, what is the expected score of the team that finishes last in the Fischer division? If it is something like less than a game point per match, then that is food for thought.

Having a 4-team Fischer section is a reasonable solution, but if we end up with 3 very strong teams and one 2000ish team (as would have happened this season), that last team is not having a lot of fun. Now you could argue that the current model means you have 3 or 4 unlucky teams, but the counterpoint is that those teams are competitive with each other. Granted, they don't have much chance of winning the section, but they have a few games against each other where they aren't over-matched.

It all depends on what problem(s) you are trying to solve, and what situation(s) you are anxious to avoid. The one I'm most anxious to avoid (as an organiser) is a top section that is not viable because of too few teams, hence my concerns about a hard rating floor there.

Trebejo: you can actually see past results on the standings page by clicking under the "Standings for T70". It seems that typically the last-placed Fischer team scores slightly over 1 GP per round, with the occasional team that just gets crushed.

Elitism is always good, but for lower ranked players it's even more exciting to play against top players,so anyway we have a good fun ....just we must do to bring freash blood and everything will be solved ,one way on another ..cheers

Just as an update:
FlamingPhoenixFighters are intending to submit two Fischer Section teams with average rating of 2180 each.

Best regards
schachbjm