Media comments on chess

[JustinHorton]

"It's electrifying"

[Matthew Turner]

I've got "A football life" on the T.V. and not only does Tony Romo appear to be playing chess, he also seems to be explaining the en passant rule.

[Kevin Thurlow]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/plan ... 23db385c0a

which apparently says:-

"Plan to revamp Champions League could restore ‘zing’, say marketing experts
Planned reforms of the Champions League that would involve clubs playing ten different rivals in the group stage could restore the “zing” to the competition, according to marketing experts.

Uefa is holding talks over the next two weeks on proposals to use a model called the “Swiss system” — often used in chess — which would have 32 or 36 clubs in a single division. A random draw would select ten opponents of varying strength based on seeding.

It would be the biggest shake-up of the competition since the 1990s and the aim would be to satisfy demands of the top clubs for more matches against other elite teams, while remaining attractive to broadcasters. It would, however, mean ten group games for each club instead of six.

Tim Crow, a sports marketing expert, said Uefa needed to update its model as the group stage is in danger of becoming stale.

“I think the Swiss system is a very good model,” Crow said. “The Champions League group stage has become moribund and the whole thing has become quite flat at times. It has certainly lost its zing.

“Arguably the competition has the best football and the biggest clubs, so if there are more games and random games via a draw that will be seen as good things and with fewer dead matches it could get that zing back. It does not seem to have a down side.”

Crow said he was sure the new format would remain attractive to sponsors.

He added: “Broadly speaking the Champions League remains a hot property for sponsors — especially if the sponsorship is linked to the broadcast coverage because then it can come out of a company’s media budget which is usually much higher than its sponsorship budget.”

Broadcasting industry insiders say they are intrigued by the possibilities of the new model but are waiting to see the final proposed model.

Richard Worth, a former ITV Sport executive who then went to work for Team Marketing which sells the commercial and broadcast rights for Uefa, said it was important to ensure that any new format did not lead to even more meaningless group games.

He said: “I haven’t studied the Swiss system in detail but it would need to ensure that there are fewer dead group games rather than more. If there are 36 teams and only 24 going through to the knockout rounds or dropping into the Europa League, would that mean 12 teams effectively playing a lot of meaningless matches?

“I think you should be cautious about changing too much as the balance right now is pretty good. But if there is real pressure for change then this model does not seem that bad on the face of it and may be a reasonable extension of what we currently have.

“I sometimes think less can be more — that was certainly the feeling with the second group stage that we had from 1999-2003 and that’s why the decision was taken to go back to the original system.” "
---
Nine rounds would be better of course. I can already imagine Jose Mourinho complaining that Tottenham have upfloated to be away to Barcelona, when they could have downfloated to be home to Dundalk...

[NickFaulks]

I can already imagine Jose Mourinho complaining that Tottenham have upfloated to be away to Barcelona, when they could have downfloated to be home to Dundalk...

I certainly hope our teams would join forces to push for the use of the traditional English approach to floats. Would pairings be done manually?

[Roger de Coverly]

I certainly hope our teams would join forces to push for the use of the traditional English approach to floats. Would pairings be done manually?

I would have thought that random computerised pairings could be used. There's the concept of pseudo random numbers. For a given seed, the same sequence is always produced, making it possible for a third party to validate.

Swiss systems combined with knock outs don't work that well. Whilst the Swiss is good at determining the first and last places, places in the middle are somewhat arbitrary.

Have there been any satisfactory methods found to give an order of strength ranking to teams taking part in these competitions?

[Mick Norris]

It's not a Swiss in the chess sense if there is going to be a draw of 10 rounds of fixtures in advance (albeit that is understandable as transport logistics and TV schedules would need to be arranged)

[Kevin Thurlow]

Mick is right...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... ayern.html

tells us that all the pairings will be done in advance. There could be visa problems as well, if you're publishing a draw Thursday am and some teams are playing the next Tuesday.

Sadly, there is no prospect of an armageddon game as tie-break.

[Ian Thompson]

It's not a Swiss in the chess sense if there is going to be a draw of 10 rounds of fixtures in advance (albeit that is understandable as transport logistics and TV schedules would need to be arranged)

It's not a Swiss system, full stop.

[Paul Habershon]

It's not a Swiss in the chess sense if there is going to be a draw of 10 rounds of fixtures in advance (albeit that is understandable as transport logistics and TV schedules would need to be arranged)

I started to think of a Swiss for the FA Cup, which I think has eight rounds of matches from the first round proper to the final. Top half v bottom half in Round 1 would be good financially for the weaker clubs. It would also even out homes and aways. Also good would be no replays and penalty shootouts. However, it hardly solves the problem of dead matches in the last few rounds, unless there are graded prizes for total points scored. There would probably also be fixture congestion - many more games required - and the big Wembley occasion would be lost. There must be a dwindling number who know or who are willing to sing 'Abide with Me' anyway.
Two points for a win rather than three would keep it true to the chess pattern.

I'd love to see the trophy decided on Sum of Opponents' Scores.

So, all in all, a bad idea!

[Kevin Thurlow]

Whatever the system is called, it has been used in Correspondence Chess where there is a large entry, and you play ten games (say) and then the top finishers go forward to a semi-final or final. Nowadays, you normally get put into APA groups as it's easier to see how you are doing.

[Roger de Coverly]

Whatever the system is called, it has been used in Correspondence Chess where there is a large entry

Various convoluted schemes have been used in the 4NCL, not least in the online version.

Arguably the two simplest systems are all play all with promotion and relegation and knock out as employed for generations in the Football League and FA Cup . Plain Swiss is perhaps not far behind if there are reliable rankings and only an intention to find a single winner. When venue is also a parameter, its practicality is limited.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"Whatever the system is called, it has been used in Correspondence Chess where there is a large entry, and you play ten games (say) and then the top finishers go forward to a semi-final or final."

I have now been reminded it is the "Silli" system, named after a Mr Silli. The drawback in CC is you might get 10 dedicated players and your nearest rivals might get 3 wins by default, whereas in an APA group, defaulters will probably default against everyone.

[Kevin Thurlow]

Private Eye 1536

Cartoon page 20, Spoof report page 34, both referring to a popular TV programme about chess.

[Stewart Reuben]

It would be easy to create a rating system that changed during the season. But it would have less meaning than a chess rating system. Take, for example, a key player becoming injured; the change in personnel from one season to the next.
Initially I would have thought manual pairings by a chess expert would be better. Why waste time computerising them when they would probably change after the first season's experienced.
Surely the pairings, after the first round, would only be known one week in advance, for a proper Swiss. For the travelling fans that would be a huge problem.
However, if each match was of two games, one home and one away, that would be somewhat ameliorated. That would also solve the problem of home advantage over away. The chess solution of balancing of the colours is very weak.
What happens if a round has to be postponed for some teams, often because of inclement weather?
Having 6 teams play a RR (preferably double round as above) then move on to another 6 chosen from the earlier results and so on, might work.

There is no doubt, the football league should consult extremely experienced chess arbiters who are also experienced in manual pairings.
It would be easy to introduce the football league to rating prizes, based on improvement in ratings from one season to the next, or halfway through the season.
The 3/1/0 system works just as well as the 2/1/0.

[Kevin Thurlow]

One year, (for reasons I cannot now recall) I did wait until the end of the season, then take the first weekend's results of the Premier League as Round 1, and then paired the rest of the season as an 11-round Swiss, using the results as actually happened (although not in the same order). Naturally, I got a different winner. I believe one Premier League team employs an IA, so he can advise...