The only tie-break that needs no information about your opponents at all: it is computed from a single scoresheet. Here is the formula, a worked example where three players with identical scores end up more than twice apart, and an honest account of why scholastic events love it and serious ones keep it near the bottom of the list.
Cumulative = sum of the running totals after every round
After each round you note the running score, and at the end you add those numbers together. A player with results of 1, ½, 1 had running totals of 1, 1½ and 2½, so the cumulative score is 5.
The idea: a point scored in round one enters the sum five times, a point in the final round only once. Mathematically that rewards the player who went ahead early and held the top boards, where the opposition is stronger.
The practical virtue that keeps it alive: it can be computed the moment a player finishes their last game, without waiting for the hall. Buchholz and Sonneborn-Berger need the final scores of every opponent first.
All three finished on 3 out of 5. The only difference is when the points arrived, and the cumulative score separates them by more than a factor of two.
| Scenario | Results by round | Running totals | Cumulative |
|---|---|---|---|
| Early leader | 1 · 1 · 1 · 0 · 0 | 1 + 2 + 3 + 3 + 3 | 12 |
| Steady pace | 1 · 0 · 1 · 0 · 1 | 1 + 1 + 2 + 2 + 3 | 9 |
| Late surge | 0 · 0 · 1 · 1 · 1 | 0 + 0 + 1 + 2 + 3 | 5 |
Three points each. The early leader gets 12, the late surge 5. The measure states its preference plainly: points taken in the opening rounds are worth more.
Results of ½, 1, ½, 1, 0 give running totals of ½, 1½, 2, 3, 3, so the cumulative score is 10. Fractions appear freely in the sum and are not rounded.
Hence its usual place in a set of regulations: after the strength-of-opposition measures but before a drawing of lots. In junior and scholastic events it is often promoted higher, where ease of explanation outweighs mathematical rigour - it sits fourth in the US Chess recommended order. The full catalogue is in the tie-break reference, and the main Swiss measure is covered on the Buchholz page.
The cumulative score needs a round-by-round record - exactly what the Vibe Chess app stores by default. Every round keeps its pairings and results in the tournament card, so the measure can be reconstructed after the event, while the standings with the main coefficients are maintained automatically.
After each round you write down the player's running total, then add all those totals together. Results of 1, ½, 1 give running totals of 1, 1½ and 2½, so the measure is 5. No information about the opponents is needed - only the player's own results.
Whoever scored their points earlier. Between two players on the same final total, the one who led from the opening rounds comes out higher. The reasoning is that an early leader spent the event at the top tables against strong opposition, while the player catching up started from below.
Because you can explain it to a child and a parent in half a minute, and it needs no final crosstable. The arbiter computes it straight from the player's own scoresheet without waiting for the rest of the hall to finish.
Yes. US Chess calls it Cumulative and lists it among its standard tie-breaks; FIDE regulations call it the progressive score. Same formula, two names.
Yes: the contribution of the first rounds can be dropped to reduce the influence of the initial pairing. That variant is rarer and must be spelled out in the regulations, otherwise players cannot verify the arithmetic.
A missed round enters the running totals with whatever points were awarded for it: a point for a bye lifts the running total exactly as a win would. An early bye therefore inflates the measure noticeably, which is worth remembering when this tie-break is in your regulations.
Because it rewards a favourable draw. A player handed weak opponents in the opening rounds banks points early and collects a high cumulative score, even though their path was easier. That is why serious events place it after the strength-of-opposition measures rather than instead of them.
Technically yes, but there is little point: in a round-robin everyone faces the same field, and the order of opponents is dictated by the pairing table rather than by strength. Sonneborn-Berger and the Koya system are the right tools there.