Problems and Prospects of Social Networking Among Youths
Fixing Flaws and Stopping Draws∗
A new chess tie-break system based on directed network analysis
David Smerdon June 30, 2012
1 Introduction
The 2011 European Chess Championships saw over 400 of Europe’s top chess players compete for one of 23 qualifying spots for the World Chess Cup, and with it a shot at the world title and the e1.5 million prize fund. With only eleven rounds played in the Swiss-system tournament (where all players play all eleven games), the chances of potential qualifiers being tied on the same score were high, and so it transpired: Four players finished on 8.5 points (out of eleven)1 , eleven players finished with 8.0, and a further 29 finished on 7.5. The eventual decision of how to decide the final eight available qualifying positions from these 29 players was highly controversial, leading to official protests, heated debate in all levels of the chess community from official international forums to amateur clubs, and eventually an admission from FIDE2 that the current tie-breaking regulations were woefully inadequate.
At the same time, in South Africa, the 2011 Commonwealth Chess Championships also ended in a tie, on this occasion for first place. Despite the employment of the official FIDE tie-break procedures in this elevenround event with over 700 players, the gold medal was ultimately decided by the result on board 44 of by a player who finished 144th. It has become increasingly clear that current tie-break methodologies in large tournaments are proving unsatisfactory in their stated objective of determining the strongest performing player.
Meanwhile, an escalating issue in international chess over the past few years is the high number of draws (and particularly ‘soft’ draws) between top players. With typically several games played each day, each lasting up to five hours, open tournaments are acutely mentally draining. As a result, many grandmasters employ a strategy of agreeing to quick draws in games against other grandmasters to conserve energy.
A new chess tie-break system based on directed network analysis
David Smerdon June 30, 2012
1 Introduction
The 2011 European Chess Championships saw over 400 of Europe’s top chess players compete for one of 23 qualifying spots for the World Chess Cup, and with it a shot at the world title and the e1.5 million prize fund. With only eleven rounds played in the Swiss-system tournament (where all players play all eleven games), the chances of potential qualifiers being tied on the same score were high, and so it transpired: Four players finished on 8.5 points (out of eleven)1 , eleven players finished with 8.0, and a further 29 finished on 7.5. The eventual decision of how to decide the final eight available qualifying positions from these 29 players was highly controversial, leading to official protests, heated debate in all levels of the chess community from official international forums to amateur clubs, and eventually an admission from FIDE2 that the current tie-breaking regulations were woefully inadequate.
At the same time, in South Africa, the 2011 Commonwealth Chess Championships also ended in a tie, on this occasion for first place. Despite the employment of the official FIDE tie-break procedures in this elevenround event with over 700 players, the gold medal was ultimately decided by the result on board 44 of by a player who finished 144th. It has become increasingly clear that current tie-break methodologies in large tournaments are proving unsatisfactory in their stated objective of determining the strongest performing player.
Meanwhile, an escalating issue in international chess over the past few years is the high number of draws (and particularly ‘soft’ draws) between top players. With typically several games played each day, each lasting up to five hours, open tournaments are acutely mentally draining. As a result, many grandmasters employ a strategy of agreeing to quick draws in games against other grandmasters to conserve energy.
References: [1] S. Ambec and Y. Sprumont. Sharing a river. Journal of Economic Theory, 107:453–462., 2002. [2] D.R. Appleton. May the best man win? Statistician), 44(4):pp. 529–538, 1995. [3] P. Bonacich. Simultaneous group and individual centralities. Social Networks, 13:155–168, 1991. [4] K.A. Butler. Some problems in paired comparisons and goodness of fit for logistic regressions. PhD Thesis, Simon Fraser University, 1997. [5] L.C. Freeman, S.P. Borgatti, and D.R. White. Centrality in valued graphs: A measure of betweenness based on network flow. Social Networks, 13:141–154, 1991. [6] M.O. Jackson. Social and Economic Networks. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA, 2008. [7] R. Kasimdzhanov. Open letter with a proposal. ChessBase News, http://www.chessbase.com/ newsdetail.asp?newsid=7387, July 2011. [8] L. Katz. A new status index derived from sociometric analysis. Psychometrika, 18:39–43, 1953. [9] I. Leong and L. Weiwen. A cure for sad (severe acute drawitis). ChessBase News, http://www. chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2719, November 2005. [10] J. Nunn. The draw problem: a simple solution. ChessBase News, http://www.chessbase.com/ newsdetail.asp?newsid=2729, November 2005. [11] J. Park and M. Newman. A network-based ranking system for us college football. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, (P10014), 2005. [12] R.W. Robinson. Counting labeled acyclic digraphs. In F. Harary, editor, New Directions in the Theory of Graphs, pages 239–273. Academic Press, NY, 1973. [13] J. Sonas. What exactly is the problem of draws in chess? ChessBase News, http://www.chessbase. com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7499, September 2011. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series D (The 12