Official Champion Determination Policy

Objective
The All India National Scrabble Champion of the Year title is awarded to the player who demonstrates the highest level of consistent performance across nationally recognized Scrabble tournaments conducted in India during a calendar year.

The champion is determined using a placement-based points system designed to reward sustained excellence while allowing flexible participation because a player may not play ALL the tournaments in a year.

Eligible Tournaments

All Scrabble tournaments conducted in India during the calendar year are eligible provided they:
• Are SAI rated tournaments
• Are 3-day or 4-day tournaments
• Have a minimum of 16 participating players

The following tournaments meet these criteria in the year 2025

We need to have a different treatment for an Open division vs Division A because of the variance in the competitiveness between these two types of tournaments. This is handled in the latter section of the document.

Player Eligibility
To be considered for the All India National Scrabble Champion title:
• A player must participate in at least M tournaments during the year
• M = ⌈Total Number of Eligible Tournaments ÷ 2⌉i.e 4 out of 9 tournaments.

The player should hold Indian citizenship, to be considered a candidate for the title.

National Ranking Points (Primary Metric)

Ranking Points are awarded based on final standings within the relevant division of each tournament. International participants are included in tournament play and final standings; however, for championship calculations, points are reassigned based on the relative finishing positions of eligible Indian players only..

The rationale for the above point system is provided in Appendix A.

Field Multipliers

Tournament points shall be adjusted using two independent multipliers: a Field Strength Multiplier reflecting the competitive level of the division, and a Field Size Multiplier reflecting field depth. The final points awarded shall be the product of base placement points and both multipliers, subject to a maximum combined multiplier cap.

1. Field Strength

Field Strength measures how strong a tournament field is relative to the national player pool, based on the ratings of participating players.

Rather than relying on fixed divisions or labels, field strength is determined using an objective, rating-based approach that reflects the actual competitive environment of each tournament.

Field strength is calculated using the trimmed mean of player ratings in the tournament:

• A defined percentage of the lowest-rated players and highest-rated players are excluded to reduce distortion from outliers
  
  
• The average rating of the remaining players represents the Effective Field Rating (EFR)
  
  

This approach:

• Reflects the strength of a “typical” opponent
• Captures competitive depth without being skewed by extreme ratings
• Applies consistently to both Open and Tiered formats
  
  

While Division A events typically feature higher-rated players, Open tournaments may also contain strong and competitive fields. A rating-based field strength calculation ensures that:

• Strong Open events are recognised appropriately
• Division A events are rewarded based on actual field strength, not labels
• Over-weighting any single format is avoided, preserving participation incentives across the circuit
  
  

The Effective Field Rating is normalised against a national baseline rating to produce a Field Strength Multiplier, which is applied uniformly across all tournament formats.

2. Field Size Multiplier – How many opponents must you outperform?

This  tables mean:

• Div A needs fewer players to be considered “large”
• Open needs more players to reach the same size multiplier

So effectively:

“A Div A field of 20 feels like an Open field of 32.”

This becomes the field size multiplier. The Field Size Multiplier reflects competitive depth and is applied independently of field strength.

Final Points

= Base Placement Points

× Field Strength Multiplier

× Field Size Multiplier

Best-N Results Rule
Only a player’s best N tournament results are counted, where N = M = 4 (for 2025). This ensures that players who have played more tournaments do not get an undue advantage. The same number of tournaments are considered for all players.

Determination of the All India National Scrabble Champion
The eligible player with the highest cumulative total of their best N tournament scores is declared the All India National Scrabble Champion of the Year.

Tie-Breaking Criteria
If players are tied, one or more of the following criteria may be used as tie-breakers.
1. Highest single-tournament score
2. Best performance in the largest tournament
3. Year-end SAI rating
4. Look at the results of the tournaments where both the tied players competed

Why Should the Highest Year-End SAI Rating Not be Considered to Decide the National Champion?

ELO ratings measure relative playing strength over time and are used for seeding, matchmaking, and long-term player evaluation.

The highest year-end Elo rating does not necessarily reflect the best performance during a specific calendar year because:
• ELO incorporates results from previous years
• High-rated players may maintain ratings with limited participation
• ELO does not require consistency across multiple tournaments
• Ratings are influenced by opponent ratings and pairing order

Appendix A

Purpose of This Appendix
This appendix provides the rationale for the choices made in the point allocation to the places.

The tournament points allocation is designed to balance two equally important objectives:
– Reward winning and top finishes meaningfully
– Recognize sustained, consistent performance across a season

The system ensures that the National Scrabble Champion of the Year reflects year-long excellence, not isolated peaks or historical reputation.

The Proposed Points Allocation
1st – 100
2nd – 80
3rd – 65
4th – 55
5th – 45
6th – 35
7th – 25
8th–10th – 15
11th – 15th – 5

Why this Model?

1. Diminishing Returns Reflect Competitive Reality
   Point gaps decrease progressively, reflecting that differences between top placements are more significant than those lower down the table
2. Consistency Is Valued More Than Isolated Success
   A single tournament win cannot alone secure a national title. Multiple strong finishes are required.
3. Statistical Stability and Fairness
   This model reduces volatility from pairing randomness and narrow margins. Purely Linear or Zero-Based systems amplify randomness, discourage participation, and increase disputes.

Comparison with Other Sports

• Tennis (ATP/WTA): Highly top-heavy systems suitable for elimination formats but not Scrabble.
• Motorsport (Formula 1): Points awarded deeply, rewarding consistency.
• Golf (PGA/FedEx Cup): Placement depth rewarded and season titles separated from ratings.

Appendix B

Purpose of This Appendix
This appendix provides explanatory guidance to clarify why ELO ratings are not used as the primary metric for determining the National Champion of the Year.

Example Scenarios

Scenario 1: Legacy Rating Bias
Player A begins the year rated 2050 and plays only two tournaments, finishing 3rd and 4th. Player B begins the year rated 1850 and plays five tournaments, winning two and finishing in the top four of all five. Player A may end the year with a higher ELO rating due to historical performance, while Player B is the rightful National Champion based on year-long dominance.

Scenario 2: Risk Avoidance
A high-rated player may limit participation to protect ELO rating, while another player competes frequently and performs consistently well. A championship system must reward competition and participation, not avoidance.

Scenario 3: Consistency vs Isolated Peaks
A player who wins a single tournament but performs inconsistently elsewhere may gain ELO advantage, while another player who finishes near the top in every tournament demonstrates superior consistency. The points-based system correctly favors the latter.

Summary

• ELO is a statistical estimate of relative strength, not a competition outcome. Championships are based on results, not estimates.
• A Champion of the Year must earn the title through performance in that year, not through results accumulated in previous seasons.
• Year-end ELO still carries historical weight and does not require sufficient participation during the championship year.
• ELO remains essential for seeding, evaluation, and recognition through a separate award for the ‘Most Improved Player of The Year’.

The separation of championship determination and rating systems aligns with best practices in competitive sports and ensures fairness, transparency, and player confidence.

For any queries or suggestions to improve the framework to determine the National Champion , please reach out to Siddharth Nithyanand,  Ritu Chadha or Rajeev Menon.