Which tie-breaks to choose for your tournament

Points say how much a player scored, not how hard the road was. Two players on four out of five may have had entirely different tournaments: one beat the leaders, the other the tail. Tie-breaks restore that difference.

The second purpose is practical: prizes are usually not divisible. If three players share first place, the trophy has to go to one of them, and the decision must be formal rather than personal.

How it is computed:the sum of all your opponents' scores.

The logic: the stronger your opponents played, the more your points are worth. The standard first tie-break in Swiss events.

Variants:the cut Buchholz (Cut-1) drops the worst opponent's score, Cut-2 drops the two worst, and the median drops both the best and the worst. The point of cutting is to reduce randomness: an opponent who withdrew after round one drags your coefficient down through no fault of yours.

A detailed treatment with examples - the Buchholz score.

How it is computed: the sum of the scores of opponents you beat, plus half the scores of those you drew with. Losses do not count.

The logic: what matters is not merely whom you played but whom you beat. A win over a leader is worth more than a win over the tail.

Where it applies: the standard tie-break in round robins, where Buchholz is useless - everybody played everybody, so the sums are nearly identical. In detail - how it is calculated and the round-robin system.

How it is computed: the sum of the running totals after each round. Results of 1, 1½, 2½, 3½, 4 give 1 + 1.5 + 2.5 + 3.5 + 4 = 12.5.

The logic: whoever scored earlier and led during the event ranks higher. Somebody who lost early and caught up at the end gets less.

The catch: it is a contested measure. An early lead often means weaker opponents in the first rounds, so it is rarely used as the first tie-break - normally third or fourth in the list - about the cumulative score.

How it is computed: who won the game between the players concerned.

The logic: the one players understand instantly - «we played, I won». There is nothing to argue with.

The limitation: in a Swiss the players may never have met, in which case the criterion simply does not apply. So it is placed after another measure, or first with the proviso «where the players met». In a round robin it always applies - direct encounter.

• Number of wins. Whoever won more games ranks higher. Simple and popular: it rewards playing for a win rather than a draw.
• Games played with Black. Whoever had Black more often ranks higher on equal points: colour is an objective disadvantage.
• The Koya system. Points scored against opponents who themselves scored 50% or more. Used in round robins - the Koya system.
• Average opponent rating. Shows how hard the road was, but only works where everybody has a rating - opponents' average.
• Performance. The rating implied by the tournament result. Rarely used as a tie-break, more often as a description of the performance itself.
• A draw of lots. The last resort when everything else is level. It sounds unsporting, and the only thing better is a play-off match, for which there is usually no time.

The criteria apply in order: if the first does not separate the players, you move to the second. These are the sequences that hold up.

«Where points are equal, places are decided on tie-break» is useless: it answers nothing. The correct version looks like this:

That last sentence matters: it covers the case where the players cannot be separated at all. A ready template - tournament regulations.

In the Vibe Chess app the table computes points and Buchholz automatically after each round, and Sonneborn-Berger in round robins. There is no recalculation to do by hand before the prize-giving.