| Fantasy Champs? |
|
|
| By Joel Benjamin | |
| May 2, 2007 | |
|
Dear Joel,
What would your ideal U.S. Championship look like, in terms of its format, conditions, and invitation criteria? Would women and men be in the same tournament or separated? What city would it be in? Anonymous I don't like the recent shift towards large Championship fields. It should be a small, elite group; sixteen players is a particularly good number because it permits many different formats. Obviously, a lot of people are happy to have had the opportunity to play in U.S. Championships in this decade, but I think it is better to make the tournament as rewarding as possible for the most deserving players. A smaller field makes the Championship more prestigious and challenging for the players, and because there are fewer mouths to feed, more remunerative as well. The Championship growth came largely because AF4C decided to fold the Women's Championship into the overall Championship. This seemed like a noble step at first. Women's chess would surely benefit from receiving such stiff competition. But the practice was not encouraging. For one, women did not appreciate the opportunity enough (one entry in the National Open qualifier, three in the World Open). For another, after four years of mixed Championships, the women, beyond the first handful, were non-competitive with the rest of the field. And they took up 25% of the spots; the top women had a prize equity the men could only dream of! So I think it is better to have separate championships, perhaps with a spot in a sixteen player overall Championship assigned to a female qualifier, or two spots in a 32-player field. The Swiss system is the worst format for a U.S. Championship. It makes the tournament largely indistinguishable from other major tournaments during the year, all of which are Swisses. For a large field, I would prefer a knockout. [Preferably New Jersey Knockout] Knockouts are controversial because many players get sent home after few games, and matches are often decided by blitz play-offs. But there is no question they are exciting. Not only do chess fans enjoy the drama, the head-to-head elimination process is much more easily digestible to laymen and media. The Swiss system will never get on ESPN. The round robin is the nicest format to play in. Players get a lot of games, all against other players who belong in the field. But it is very media unfriendly, and often anti-climactic. There is no guarantee that title competitors will play in the last round. Then there is the hybrid system I proposed, used from 1997-1999. Two eight player round robin sections qualified four players for semi-final and final matches. This format gave all the players a good competition, yet provided a head-to-head contest for the title. The only drawback was it required a lot of days start to finish. So here is my ideal Championship: Sixteen players, mostly invited by rating, with perhaps a few seeds (Junior Champion, Women's Champion). Some players could earn spots from their finish in the previous Championship. The players would be divided into two round robins. The top two from each section (yes, playoffs may be necessary) would qualify for a final four, to be held at a later date, preferably in a big city. [It could just be the final two, if that is easier to arrange and sponsor] The last segment could be packaged into a program or programs for ESPN. That's how I would do it.
Joel Benjamin
|
