Talk:Swiss-system tournament

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Odd number of rounds[edit]

Can somebody explain why in chess tournaments usually have odd number of rounds, not even ? There is some good reason for this, it even compensates the fact that u cannot play the same number of games with white and black. But I forgot the reason :(

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.188.85.61 (talk) 22:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The reason is that with an even number of rounds, it is hard to maintain color equity between black and white. With 5 rounds, usually everyone will be 3-2 or 2-3. With 6 rounds it would be very diffuclt or impossible to make everyone 3-3, under normal Swiss pairing rules. Players probably would object to being 2-4. Bubba73 (talk), 21:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Konrad and Monrad[edit]

Under "Variations of the Swiss system" 194.48.84.1 changed the name of the flexible system described from Konrad to Monrad. What is described is definately the Konrad. Monrad is very similar to the Swiss System proper, although it does not take the ELO rating into account as much as the Konrad system. Monrad is a common tournament system in Norway, and far more popular than Konrad, but I did not feel it merited separate mention due to its similarity with Swiss. 129.177.61.123 08:10, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

accelerated pairings[edit]

Another modification of the Swiss system is "accelerated pairings", which is to reduce perfect scores faster. Players are ranked according to their rating and in the first round the top 1/4 plays the second 1/4, the third 1/4 plays the botton 1/4. In the second round, winners in the top half play each other, losers in the top half play winners in the bottom half, and losers in the bottom half play each other. It almost has the effect of another round. Someone can write this up, or maybe I'll get around to it after checking the details. Bubba73 (talk), 03:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I went ahead and did it. Bubba73 (talk), 03:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rounds and matches/games[edit]

Although single-elimination games have the same number of rounds as a swiss tournament, they do not have the same number of matches or games. With 8 players, there are 7 games in a single-elimination tournament, while in swiss style, there are 12.70.111.251.203 02:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. assuming that there are three rounds in an 8 player Swiss. But large Swiss tournaments usually don't have the optimal number of rounds per number of players. Bubba73 (talk), 14:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Double-Elimination[edit]

Someone care to compare Swiss with double elimination? 70.111.251.203 13:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they are completly different. In a double elimination, two losses and you are out of the tournament. In a Swiss, everyone plays all rounds, total number of points wins. Bubba73 (talk), 13:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation[edit]

I think there should be a better explanation, perhaps a picture from a chess tournament that used it? A visual would help compare it to the other systems out there. (They have pictures).70.111.251.203 13:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Karpov on Swiss[edit]

Karpov recently said he didn't like the Swiss and commented on why. Might be a nice add in the disadvantages section, full info in a video (currently bottom of list) found here

Text removed from "analysis, advantages and disadvantages"[edit]

I have removed the following text from the analysis section

"However, this system does NOT work well if players are not properly seeded. For example, say a major squash tournament, like the British Junior Open (BJO) has 64 players in a specific age group. Players in the BJO will be seeded as per the latest European Squash Federation (ESF) rankings. Say there is one top player from Canada who does not have an ESF ranking and is therefore NOT seeded in the tournament. Say this player is randomly drawn to play the 1st seed in the tournament. If this top international player looses in the first round, the best he or she can come is 32nd. Other weaker players may advance and the outcome is not a true reflection of the positions obtained."

The text seems based upon a misunderstanding of the Swiss System. The Swiss is not a knock-out tournament, even when it comes to the competition for first place. It is perfectly possible for a player who loses the first round to win the tournament simply by scoring the most points. It is not so that in a 64-player field, players losing round 1 compete for positions 33-64. If there are many players and few rounds, a first-round loss might knock you out of contention for first place, but if you proceed to win the rest of your games you are virtually assured at least a high spot.

If you look at this crosstable from a Norwegian Swiss-system tournament, you will see that the winner of group A lost the first round, but 4.5/6 points was still enough to win the tournament in the end. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chess[edit]

Is there enough material to split off a Swiss-system tournaments in chess subarticle? I think the main article would be a little less "chess-heavy", and a chess-specific one could get more in-depth. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. There doesn't seem to be that much that is chess-specific. I think there would be a lot of redundancy if the article was split. Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 05:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please add info of....[edit]

FIDE handbook - not in a compendial status

--222.64.219.102 (talk) 06:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go game is not covered, but co-operated, by the system....[edit]

--222.64.219.102 (talk) 06:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss in Starcraft 2[edit]

I just removed Starcraft 2 from the list of examples. Most tournaments use single elimination, the rest double elimination. I don't know one tournament that uses swiss.

What is kind of similar is the ladder system: What exact algorithm the ladder uses is unknown. What is known about it makes it something similar, but still different from swiss. For example, it is entirely possible to be pitted against the same opponent multiple times in a row on ladder. --UncleOwen (talk) 12:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does this make sense...?[edit]

Does this sentence make sense?

Under Analysis, advantages, and disadvantages, near the bottom:

This will then leave the right number of people to play a round robin even so to find the final number of entrants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lriley47 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for pairings within a bracket[edit]

In a Swiss-system tournament, if there are eight players with the same score then external rankings can be used to pair #1 with #5, #2 with #6, #3 with #7, and #4 with #8. However in a single-elimination system, typically the goal for pairings for a round with eight players is #1 with #8, #2 with #7, #3 with #6, and #4 with #5. If there is an explanation for why these are different, can it be added to the article? 192.35.44.24 (talk) 14:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good question and I don't know the answer. However, I suspect that in a elimination tournament, they want to make it less likely that the #1 seed (and #2 to a lesser extent) doesn't get eliminated before the final. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that makes sense for the single-elimination tournament. However, by my thinking it makes sense for the Swiss-system tournament as well -- why not arrange things similarly, so that #1's path to the top rank is as easy as possible? I am guessing that there is a counterveiling argument for the Swiss-system tournament case that is somehow not as applicable in the single-elimination tournament … but what is it? 192.35.44.24 (talk) 17:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about this question, so this is just my feeling. In an elimination tournament, the spectators want to see the top seed, so they want to make it unlikely that he is eliminated. Swiss-system tournaments are not so popular with spectators. Also, with a Swiss, the top player isn't eliminated if he loses in an early round.
The Swiss system could pair #1 with #2, #3 with #4, etc, but I think they don't do that so that will be more likely that the top players will meet in the last round. On the other hand, if a round of Swiss was paired like the elimination tournament, #1 vs. #8, etc, some of the matches would be blow outs, and not very interesting. The Swiss pairings (#1 vs. #5, etc) seem to be a compromise between those two. It keeps the pairings more even/balanced than the elimination pairings.
Also, most Swiss tournaments are for the benefit of the players, instead of spectators. So #1 vs. #8 would probably be an uninteresting blow out, but #5 may have some chance against #1. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 18:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is that, in the later rounds, a Swiss-system tournament has a tendancy to pair players with those of nearly equal rank. In particular, #4 and #5 could easily end up playing each other in a late round. Given that match-up duplications are to be minimized, there is incentive to avoid pairing #4 and #5 in the first round. Do you think that is part of the reasoning? 192.35.44.24 (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Swiss system pairs players with equal scores by design and those tend to have similar starting ranks. The system is more concerned with the top seeds than 4 and 5. It wouldn't really matter if 4 and 5 played each other in a late round of a Swiss because they would probably not be the leaders at that point. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 18:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is another issue if the tournament is using tie-breaks based on the opponents' scores (this is very common, e.g. Solkoff, Median, and Sonneborn-Berger). In this case #1 will usually dispatch #8 easily, but since #8 will usually have scored very few points, #1 will not enjoy a good tie-break score for it. #1 may well have preferred to struggle a little more in defeating #5, in order to obtain more tie-break points. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good thinking. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 06:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Schenkel system[edit]

This is a variation on the overall theme, does not justify a separate article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This is a no brainer. Though a redirect should be left on the page. --Shabidoo | Talk 17:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to all. C1776MTalk 19:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. There was no referenced content in that article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Variations, or different systems?[edit]

I came to this page looking for the difference between Monrad and Swiss tournaments. I find that the article is unclear about whether it talks about one system, or a family of similar systems. The very first sentence mixes "tournaments" and "tournament formats" - thus keeping the question unclear.

Later, the article talks about "the Swiss system" - whereas several sources, including FIDE, mentions different Swiss systems. According to the FIDE definition, "Monrad" is a Swiss system.

I have made a quite bold change, making the article clearly about all different Swiss systems, including Monrad. I hope I have succeeded in doing so clearly and consistently

NisJørgensen (talk) 03:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Swiss-system tournament. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:34, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unsuitability for football tournaments – and what about other team sports?[edit]

Regarding the quote


  1. Which code of football is being referred to in the original text?
  2. Are team rivalries as a much a factor as scheduling problems in preventing the Swiss system being used for team sports where the number of games that can be played is physically severely limited (like Australian rules football or gridiron football)?
  3. How far would fixtures need to “be booked in advance” to completely rule out the use of a Swiss System or similar (e.g. McMahon)?
  4. How different would booking fixtures for a Swiss-system team sport tournament be from actual booking for, say, the NFL playoffs or soccer cup competitions like the FA Cup?
  5. The final five rounds of the 1943 VFL season were organised in a manner rather analogous to a Swiss system or a McMahon system
    1. What possibilities exist for more general use of similar systems in sports like Australian Rules, gridiron and lacrosse?

luokehao, Friday 1 June, 2018, 02:57:45 (UTC)

It looks like original research to me. If someone can find a source which discusses such things they are free to re-add the material with citation, but for now I will remove it. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Information as to why Swiss-system tournaments are never considered for high-wear team sports like gridiron (e.g. for college gridiron championships) and Australian rules is certainly desirable, but I could never find a source using Google Scholar or Google Books. luokehao, Friday 1 June, 2018, 03:33:17 (UTC)
I haven't seen much discussion anywhere of what tournament formats are suitable for what sports/games. The objection that it's unpredictable when a team will be in town and venues/hotels etc must be booked in advance also applies to knockout events like the F.A. Cup. Coming to think of it, a 4 or 5 round Swiss tournament where the top 8 advance to the quarter finals wouldn't be a bad format for the FIFA World Cup. So maybe it's just tradition; in any case it needs a source or else it's OR. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unsuitability for games with substantial elements of luck?[edit]

I have noticed that those games where Swiss-system tournaments are used are, without exception, games of pure skill with no or negligible elements of luck (see 2012’s Untangling Skill and Luck by Michael J. Mauboussin and his ‘Skill and Luck’ for details). That the character of a Swiss-system tournament is unsuitable for games like soccer and gridiron where luck plays a substantial and often decisive role in outcomes is intuitive to me – pairing teams on results over a short period may not be pairing them on actual skill but on results determined substantially by luck. Nonetheless, the element of tradition certainly applies, especially to sports like two-innings forms of cricket or to Australian Rules, where divisional leagues or knockouts have been invariably used. luokehao, Friday 1 June 2018, 11:32:02 (UTC)

I have to read Mauboussin's article - at first glance, it seems to be incompatible with my understanding of skill vs luck. That aside, my reasoning is just the opposite: it's odd that e.g. soccer tournaments are elimination-style - isn't it rather unfair to have your fate decided by a single result arguably based on luck - you lose once and you're out - instead of being given a fighting chance, which would be the case in Swiss-system tournaments? GregorB (talk) 14:36, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bridge, Scrabble and backgammon have substantial luck elements, but they sometimes use Swiss-system tournaments. --seberle (talk) 04:31, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the article. It makes a number of valid points, but I'd say it fails to point out that the degree of "luck" we tend to attach to a certain sport is not only dependent on the nature of the sport itself, but also on the way the competition is structured, i.e. on what constitutes a "win". E.g. basketball is given as an example of a sport with a low level degree of luck, yet if basketball games had just one 12-minute quarter instead of four, we'd obviously observe a much higher degree of luck, even if the rules remained exactly the same.
Back to the subject. Quoting the article: "Swiss-system tournament does not always end with the exciting climax of a knockout final". Ergo, Swiss system is largely incompatible with financial interests, and that's probably the main reason why we never see it in a major sport. GregorB (talk) 12:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Swiss-system_tournament&oldid=1212956733"