Even in instances where cheating does not take place, there can be softplaying in which one player has no reason to try or prepare as hard as the other because he or she is playing for nothing. I can't blame a player out of contention for watching movies all night and hanging out on facebook instead of putting hours of study but it still highlights flaws in the tournament format. Another typical circumstance occurs when it is advantageous for two players to agree to a draw but both players are too honorable to pre-arrange the game. In this case, you'll almost always see a split result between solid players even if was not discussed prior. For instance, in this year's US Championship, it would have been disastrous for either Gata Kamsky or Yury Shulman to lose their final round in the preliminary stage since a draw would clinch advancement. Even without any discussion, two such strong players are almost guaranteed to agree to a draw. Fortunately, this stage did not actually determine the US Champion, but only the qualifiers to the final four. 

Incentive imbalances are much more costly in an individual battle than in a team game. In sports like the NFL, MLB, NBA and etc, you commonly see games at the end of the season, where one team is fighting to make the playoffs and the other team is already out of it. It's nearly impossible to coordinate a cheating effort that involves an entire team, so it's not such a disaster in a team competition. In the late stages of a round-robin, only two people have to agree to cheat/throw a game/prearrange a draw and because one player has all of the power in the game, they are more likely to reach an agreement.

In many elite events, appearance fees (which do not depend on results) and rating changes (which determine future invitations and appearance fees) are more important to players than the prize pool, so incentive imbalances are not as prominent. However, my second critique of round-robins is particularly crucial when showcasing the best players in the world. 

Round-Robins are extremely media-unfriendly.

In the United States, I see zero chance that chess will be commercially successful with round robin as the go-to format. In order for chess to become a commercially viable product, there needs to be a direct head to head battle between leaders at the end of a tournament.

I can see it now on ESPN....The Yankees and the Phillies are playing for the World Series...but wait! They aren't playing each other....The Yankees are playing the Baltimore Orioles and the Phillies are playing the Washington Nationals. Whoever can win by the most is going to win the World Series! Obviously you could take the current Baseball fanbase, cut it by about 90%, and this would be the result of using such a fan unfriendly format. For whatever reason chess players are obsessed with absolute and total fairness, even if it hurts the chance of mainstream acceptance. I am not saying that if we change our formats, chess will instantly become more popular and covered regularly in mainstream media. We need to do a lot more things which I will touch on in future articles.

When is a Round-robin okay?

I am not saying that all round-robins are bad. A round-robin is okay in a tournament in which you don't care how exciting the finale is or when you don't care that much if someone cheats. I know this sounds harsh, but despite that I think there are plenty of times when round-robins makes sense. Small local tournaments without much prize money are often fine occasions to use round-robins. Without much money involved there is a lower likelihood of cheating, and we aren't trying to get a local chessclub's tournament on ESPN. Even with relatively strong tournaments it can be reasonable to run a round-robin. However for extremely prestigious events, with big money at the top, in which the goal is to get as much outside media coverage as possible, using a round-robin format is a bad idea.  
 
For chess purists who cherish the round-robin, remember you are not witnessing honest play all of the time.  Bobby Fischer insisted that the World Championship move away from a Round Robin format due to his strong suspicion of prearranged draws and thrown games, and many chess historians believe his suspicions were correct. So what is a better format? I have some ideas and this will be the subject of my next article. Believe it or not, despite the title of this article, there are stages of round-robin play in some of my ideas for improved formats. Until then, I am looking forward to hearing the thoughts of the community.

Login as a member to have your say or post a reply to twitter.com/uschess or on our facebook fan page, facebook.com/uschess.