For tournaments in which all players play the same number of games, has there been any consideration for random pairings, or what I will call Shahade pairings?
www.uschess.org/content/view/7854/349/IMO it is fairer than the Swiss system, and would also be much easier to code (although I see that Swiss system pairings have recently been introduced).
It's an interesting opinion, his article...however with many flaws and few logical points to back up his thesis. The Swiss System wasn't built to be interesting, but is a better approach (i.e. statistically viable way to determine a winner in fewer rounds than a round robin) than random pairings, even within a score group.
What works for poker does not necessarily work for chess.
MrC
He gives plenty of logical points in the article. It favors top players at the expense of bottom players.
There are more arguments that he does not mention: players in the middle of the field are not ranked appropriately (ie the rankings are more accurate at the top and bottom).
The final rounds are more important than the beginning rounds, with the so-called Swiss gambit, as well as the fact that it gives the stronger players the chance to warm up before they face tougher opponents, unlike the lower rated players who are immediately facing the higher-rateds.
There's no reason a lower rated player should have to face a higher rated in the first round, which would never happen sometimes in his proposed format (but always happens in a Swiss).
The proposal is much more fair to all players, while the Swiss benefits some at the expense of others.
This has nothing to do with fairness.
It is rather the other way around.
In swiss the top players must give chess tuition for a meagre prize at the end.
Th elower rated players get a chance to play strong players for a modest entry fee.
Originallty swiss tournaments were not guided by rating, as rating did not yet exist. So the initial pairing was random.
This was perceived unfair as there were complaints that some players had a harder traject than others.
Sometimes two grandmasters had to face each other early, where one had to bust the chances of the other.
Not sure I understand what's unfair. That stronger players are better and that better skill level should win? Even if they face each other first, they would eventually have to face players with the same score who are weaker. It's not like higher rated players start with more pieces...
I'd venture to say that about 95% of all tournaments are already sectioned by ratings to give lower rated players a chance to play with each other and still have a competitive chance. Major tournaments with just one section are pretty rare (except for maybe the US-Open and Reykjavik Open).
#1 I do find science intriguing, but Lichess isn't interested in spending effort on this. However, Lichess does offer an API so you can write a program forcing players to challenge each other:
lichess.org/api#operation/challengeCreate
