December 27-30, 2006
Pan-American Intercollegiate Team Chess Championship
District of Columbia
6-Round Team Swiss, 40/2, SD/1. Renaissance Washington DC Hotel, 999 9th St., NW, Washington, DC 20001 (at intersection of Massachusetts Ave. and K Street). Spectators welcome, live commentary at each rd. Easy walking distance to restaurants, museums, and National Mall. Eligibility: Open to any college or university team from North, South, or Central America. Each team four players and up to two alternates from same campus of same school. All must be degree-seeking students making progress toward degree, GPA 2.0 or higher (on 4-point scale), and registered for at least two regular courses in fall 2006. GMs and IMs only must be under 26 years old as of 9-1-06. No one may enter Pan-Am more than six times. Each delegation must send letter from university official certifying eligibility. Prizes ($$Gtd 6,300): top teams $2000-1000-500-250 and 10 trophies. $200 and trophy each to top amateur team, U2000, U1800, U1600, U1400, small school, community college, all-woman team, mixed team (two women, two men). $150 and plaque each to top boards 1-4, and top woman (by performance rating). Chronos clock each for greatest upset, best combination, best ending (all Pan-Am events). EF: Players and alternates $120/person if rec’d by 11-17 ($150 late). Non-player social fee $60/person ($80 late). Includes snack food at each round and EF for alternates in Closed. Schedule: Reception 12-27 3-4pm, Opening Ceremony 12-27 4-5pm, Meeting of College Chess Committee 12-29 4-5pm, Closing Ceremony 12-30 4-5pm. Rds: 12-27 6pm, 12-28 10am and 5pm, 12-29 10am and 5pm, 12-30 9am. Bye: ½-point bye available in Rds 1-2 only, if requested before Rd 1. Rules: FIDE rules, USCF and FIDE rated. Pairings by FIDE ratings (or equivalent). Side Events: Exhibition Match 12-27 1-3pm (G/10mins, single elimination, top three FIDE-rated players from different schools, plus top wild-card player who enters, $$1000-500-250-250). Pan-Am Blitz 12-28 after Rd 3 (6-SS, G/5mins, $20/person, 90% of EF returned in prizes). See also Pan-Am Closed, Pan-Am Scholastic. Ent: Dr. Alan T. Sherman, Dept. of CSEE, UMBC, 1000 Hilltop Circle, Baltimore, MD 21250 USA Attention Pan-Am Intercollegiate. Make out checks to UMBC. Register on-line. Travel: Fly to Reagan National (DCA)-closest, Dulles (IAD), or Baltimore-Washington (BWI), or take Amtrak to Union Station. Hotel is near the Chinatown Metro stop (Red/Green/Yellow lines). Check web site for discount travel groups. Hotel: Renaissance Washington DC Hotel, 800-hotels-1, 202-898-9000. Guaranteed rates $138/night single or double, $160 triple or quad. Includes breakfast. Contact: www.umbc.edu/chess/Pan-Am2006, dralansherman@starpower.net, tele 410 455 2666. Misc: Host-University of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC), Organizer-Dr. Alan T. Sherman, Chief Arbiter-Steve Doyle. NS, W. 
You know, maybe I’ll ramble on a bit here about my experience with the Pan-Am, and my complaints about Swiss pairings. It’s more interesting than watching election results…
Several years ago when I was an instructor at Hunter College in NYC I arranged to coach two teams from our school in the Pan-Am. Naturally, as staff, I could not play – but I showed up each day, discussed the games, provided some guidance for our ‘C’ team, etc. (I put in quite a lot of effort arranging the teams entries, obtaining funding, etc.)
Our ‘A’ team was comprised of 5 expert and class A tournament players; precisely as it should be. It was real frustrating, where for all six rounds we were paired WAY up, or paired WAY down. Really, there was not a single match of any interest, since each outcome was entirely predictable. Naturally, we broke even (3 easy wins, 3 total losses), and did not win the ‘A’ class prize. There was NOT ONE ROUND where our team faced another team that was competing for the same trophy; or one that provided a challenging match for both teams.
In the last round, our team made a ‘valliant’ effort, facing Harvard (average rating over 2200), and their top board, IGM Patrick Wolff naturally beat our guy; big surprise. We lost that match, but NOT by 4-0.
I just felt bad for the guys – a lot of effort, a lot of hope, but not THE SLIGHTEST CHANCE afforded by the organizers and their pairing system to win a prize.
I hate to say it, but this is what I’ve been seeing, and experiencing personally for years and years of Swiss system playing; pardon my language, but this pairing system flat-out SUCKS. In my opinion, it demoralizes players and drives many AWAY from pursuing organized tournament Chess.
Our ‘C’ team had a similar experience – a team of unrateds, not ONCE facing another comparable team, and naturally they were creamed. Big surprise. This was the first, and I will say ONLY tournament ever for those formerly-enthusiastic players.
I hardly play anymore. This is certainly one of the reasons – for me, tournaments are boring; I get paired WAY up and get trounced (and I don’t mind studying and learning from losses – but all the suspense is gone when a result is practically predetermined), or I have to beat up some beginning level player; this also brings no joy.
Hunter College has never participated in another Pan-Am, and I doubt they ever will, but since I no longer teach there perhaps a new individual will decide to put in the personal time and effort to field a team – only to see them have as rotten a time as my players did.
Good luck to all enthusiastic college Chess players who hope to do well at the Pan-Am. I hope you have a good time. Really!
Hi Mr. Cat,
This is an interesting read, thanks for posting it.
The problem with any short tournament is that the Swiss system will allow the tournament to conclude within a few days. However, there is a possible hybrid system that can be used in college chess if you have the luxury of having more time. For example, a system can be developed in college chess to allow a 5 round robin for each school within a geographic league to play one another, and then have 2-3 different team Swiss tournaments and place teams in the tournaments where they will play other teams of similar strength. This approach would allow the teams to build some rivalries within the geographical area, yet still allow the teams of similar strengths to compete for the a prize. As a member of the college chess committee; I intend to see if this hybrid approach can be used in future online inter-collegiate tournaments; however, first it is imperative that we build up a large number of teams that are playing and re-create a more competitive environment for college chess.
The Pan-Am games will be held in Washington DC this year, so even if some of the players do not like the Swiss pairings, the trip should be a wonderful and cultural experience for the student players. I hope that many teams will be able to go and compete.
Sincerely yours,
Gregory Alexander
USCF College Chess Committee Associate Chair
http://www.collegechessleague.com
Gregory,
Glad to see that my comments reached someone ‘in the business’. I hope that I’ve provided some food for thought, and please tell others of my experience.
I am now ‘out of the business’, so there’s little I can do to make things better (besides talk). You are in a position, perhaps to do something. Your ideas sound good, to me.
Meow.
Mr. Cat,
I’d be interested to know what year that was so I can check the crosstables for pairings. Not that I doubt you, but I want to see what was going on during that event to cause that to happen.
I’ve organized one Pan-Am, and I run tournaments regularly. I’m not going to say the Swiss is perfect. Especially for a tournament like the Pan-Am, where there is such a great difference in ability between the top and bottom teams. And sometimes well-intentioned organizers will add some “optional” rules into the mix with the intent of fixing things, but instead they make them worse. The one thing I’m sure of with a swiss is that someone is going to get screwed, and someone else will reap a benefit. (I am not the highest rated player at my club, yet I’m in the middle of a tournament now where if I win the next game, I win the tournament, and I haven’t played anyone less than 200 points below me, despite there being several players rated above me in the event. So I’m the one getting the gift/curse of playing simple games this time.)
It sounds to me like the easiest solution to your problem is to split the event into sections based on ratings; this would limit the “performance gap” between teams within a section. When there’s a wide gap in ratings, swisses will often do what you describe.
Before Swisses were invented, tournaments used to hold qualifiers, and the winners of the qualifiers were put into a round robin sectional for the finals. Maybe that would also be an option.