Is anyone familiar with the use of the concept of Swiss pairing (playing
opponents having the same score) for non-chess activities?

I'm wondering if there might be some who have applied the ideas to other sorts
of sports leagues. I'm thinking about
a soccer league. Obviously, not every team plays at the same time and location,
so there would be many complications not present in a chess tournament. But it
seems that it might still produce more competitive match-ups overall than more
traditional scheduling methods.

DK

David Kane wrote:

Is anyone familiar with the use of the concept of Swiss pairing
(playing opponents having the same score) for non-chess activities?

I'm wondering if there might be some who have applied the ideas to
other sorts of sports leagues. I'm thinking about
a soccer league.


The problem with using a swiss system for a spectator sport is that you
don't get the typical buildup of quarterfinals, semifinals, finals, etc.
That lack of having the two top teams playing each other in the finals takes
away a lot of the drama and interest in watching the events.

That's why knockout tournaments have been the norm in spectator sports and
also why so many recent attempts to make Chess more like a spectator sport
have gone over to the knockout format.

--
Ken Blake
Please reply to the newsgroup

--
Ken Blake
Please reply to the newsgroup



Obviously, not every team plays at the same time and
location, so there would be many complications not present in a chess
tournament. But it seems that it might still produce more competitive
match-ups overall than more traditional scheduling methods.

DK

"Ken Blake" wrote in message
...
David Kane wrote:

Is anyone familiar with the use of the concept of Swiss pairing
(playing opponents having the same score) for non-chess activities?

I'm wondering if there might be some who have applied the ideas to
other sorts of sports leagues. I'm thinking about
a soccer league.


The problem with using a swiss system for a spectator sport is that you don't
get the typical buildup of quarterfinals, semifinals, finals, etc. That lack
of having the two top teams playing each other in the finals takes away a lot
of the drama and interest in watching the events.

That's why knockout tournaments have been the norm in spectator sports and
also why so many recent attempts to make Chess more like a spectator sport
have gone over to the knockout format.


This is just youth soccer. The audience is captive.

My interest is not that it will produce a winner (there are no official
standings or champions at the levels I'm thinking of) but that on
average it could produce closer, more competitive games
throughout the season.







Obviously, not every team plays at the same time and
location, so there would be many complications not present in a chess
tournament. But it seems that it might still produce more competitive
match-ups overall than more traditional scheduling methods.

DK

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 17:21:17 -0700, "David Kane"
wrote:

Is anyone familiar with the use of the concept of Swiss pairing (playing
opponents having the same score) for non-chess activities?

It is used in some contract bridge events.
---
Replace you know what by j to email

22.10.2006 02:43, Ken Blake:

The problem with using a swiss system for a spectator sport is that you
don't get the typical buildup of quarterfinals, semifinals, finals, etc.
That lack of having the two top teams playing each other in the finals takes
away a lot of the drama and interest in watching the events.

Most national soccer leagues also don't have a knock out system but a
full and plain round robin. The big disadvantage of swiss pairing is:
it's way too complicated, people just can't follow why team A plays
against team B, or it is difficult to make predictions: if team A wins,
it will play against team B and so on. It just not transparent. That
makes it extremely difficult to "sell" to spectators.

But not every sport on every level is a spectator's sport. So, this
wouldn't be an explanation. I think it is just tradition, why the
different sports stick to their system.

Greetings,
Ralf

"David Kane" wrote in message
. ..
Is anyone familiar with the use of the concept of Swiss pairing (playing
opponents having the same score) for non-chess activities?

I'm wondering if there might be some who have applied the ideas to other
sorts of sports leagues. I'm thinking about
a soccer league. Obviously, not every team plays at the same time and
location, so there would be many complications not present in a chess
tournament. But it seems that it might still produce more competitive
match-ups overall than more traditional scheduling methods.

David, I think Don Shultz wrote in his book /Chess Don/ that on introducing
ELO's idea to chess, a further consideration was to horse racing. Phil

DK

"Chess One" wrote in message
news:1J4%g.1291$6f4.289@trndny01...

"David Kane" wrote in message
. ..
Is anyone familiar with the use of the concept of Swiss pairing (playing
opponents having the same score) for non-chess activities?

I'm wondering if there might be some who have applied the ideas to other
sorts of sports leagues. I'm thinking about
a soccer league. Obviously, not every team plays at the same time and
location, so there would be many complications not present in a chess
tournament. But it seems that it might still produce more competitive
match-ups overall than more traditional scheduling methods.

David, I think Don Shultz wrote in his book /Chess Don/ that on introducing
ELO's idea to chess, a further consideration was to horse racing. Phil


I am not talking about the Elo ratings, but about the Swiss pairing system
first used in Zurich in 1895.

Ken Blake wrote:
That's why knockout tournaments have been the norm in spectator
sports

They have? All the sports I can think of either don't fit into the
knockout/league model (golf, athletics, Formula 1) or have a
substantial league component as well as any knockout cup (soccer,
rugby, cricket).

Perhaps you have forgotten that there are parts of the world outside
the USA?


Dave.

--
David Richerby Impossible Happy Apple (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a tasty fruit that makes your troubles
melt away but it can't exist!

David Kane wrote:
I am not talking about the Elo ratings, but about the Swiss pairing system
first used in Zurich in 1895.

I have never seen the topic of 1st introduction of a system in which
each player played others in their score group. The NY State Chess
Association tournament of 1890 might have used a slighlty similar
system. A newspaper report is given in the Brooklyn Eagle of Feb 23,
1890 (available online). 32 players entered. After the 1st round,
winners were paired, and also losers. Losers of 2 games were eliminated
(in case of draw, the player who had black had the right to claim the
game, but could give the game to their opponent if they wanted to);
thus 24 competitors were left after round 2. Unfortunately, they only
give results of the 1st 2 rounds in the report, so the complete
mechanism is not clear. The report in the NY Times on the same day
makes it seem more like a standard knockout system, at least for 1st
and 2d, though they mention that losers in the first two rounds were
paired and played for minor prizes. Incidentally, an odd arrangement
was made in the championship showdown between Delmar and Hanham; Hanham
agreed to cede the championship to Delmar along with splitting the 1st
and 2d prizes of $40 and $20.

It might be an interesting project to see if there was any "Swiss"
system before Zurich 95, but it isn't completely clear what qualifies
as Swiss. Would a double elimination tournament with players with
perfect scores always matched against each other count?

Jerry Spinrad

wrote:
It might be an interesting project to see if there was any "Swiss"
system before Zurich 95, but it isn't completely clear what qualifies
as Swiss. Would a double elimination tournament with players with
perfect scores always matched against each other count?

I think it would be better to decide what qualifies as a Swiss
tournament after looking at what schemes were in use around that
time. It would be perfectly reasonable to say, for example, that
Zurich 1895 was the first `pure' Swiss tournament but that there were
several Swiss-like systems used experimentally in the few years
running up to that. (If that's what the data says, of course!)


Dave.

--
David Richerby Voodoo Toy (TM): it's like a fun
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ child's toy that has mystical powers!