Running a Chess Tournament

We've run several chess tournaments now, and sometimes they get big, but one factor we still need to figure out going forward is, what's the best way to structure the "tree," how do we count draws, and how many games must you win. Basically, what should the rules be. Everyone's got their own idea, but we will need to develop a consistent and rational way to maximize fun and fairness, while keeping the game within reasonable time constraints. Thanks to Ryan Warner, for example, for passing on to us the idea used by the NFL of awarding bys to the better players. With this comes the need to "pre-rank" everyone who shows up, based on their performance in previous tournaments, so this is allotted fairly. New players, then, would probably have to be put at the bottom of the rankings until they establish their skill.

That's leaves many questions, like do we stick to the old best-two-out-of-three, or try something more like what Andrew Lipiansky has noted about the world chess tournaments: enough games to eliminate the variable of that "off game," even if it becomes a kind of marathon type endurance test. This of course would require limits, as we're not trying to let this drag on more than a few hours, although we could break it up into two consecutive days or weekends.

The we have the issue of draws, which Jason M cleverly suggested should be at the option of the lower-ranked player to either take as a half-point, or redo. This could be added to the similarly styled rule where the player who is down in the current tournament chooses what color to be in the next round. Along with a "win by two" arrangement, this could limit the number of games to be played, and still require enough play to separate out conclusively who should move on to the next round.

Much more to consider, and much more will change as it goes, but the last "in Town" tournament was fun for everyone, and we'll keep working to make the next one even better. If you were there we'd like your feedback!