I think Mark should play vs. whichever one of Khalid / James he hasn't. If he's played neither then do a random draw.
Similarly, do a random draw from those elligible for whoever is left over from Khalid / James vs someone on .
Repeat for the players on 1 vs the left over players on 2 points then finally for Kenneth vs players on 1.
Therefore its chance who plays the player on a difference point.
1 with 2
3 - 4
5 - 6
7 - 9
8 - 10
11 - 12
13 - 14
Best I can do.
But it needs to fit in with the Swiss system rules where all players on the same score are ordered by grade, then the top half is paired with the bottom half.
This is not easy as there's too many odd numbered pools of certain scores. If I downfloat Khalid to the 2 point pool then they are uneven, maybe I float up the highest grade of each pool - For instance, float James up to Mark, float myself (Anthony) up to Khalid, then float Lincoln up to the 2 point pool.
Any ideas from anyone who knows the Swiss system?
More info needed:
You need to know who has played against whom already?
Plus, an optimal white/black allocation may not be possible, so it is important to see who has had two blacks/whites in a row already.
Hang on, I'll add the games.
Here's the games:
| Board | White | Grade | Vs | Black | Grade | Res |
| 1 | Zana Aziz | 98 | James Hunt | 162 | 0-1 | |
| 2 | Mark Szymanski | 151 | Hugh Boyd | 93 | 1-0 | |
| 3 | Ken Marsden | 85 | Khalid Mohammed | 142 | 0-1 | |
| 4 | Tony Ibbitson | 128 | John Light | 85 | 1-0 | |
| 5 | James Mackintosh | 85 | Lincoln Tomlin | 122 | 1-0 | |
| 6 | Jonathan Mahony | 108 | Alan Shires | 72 | 1-0 | |
| 7 | Scott Davies | 64 | Neil Broatch | 111 | 0-1 | |
| 8 | Robert Burns | 105 | Alan Riddle | 78 | 1-0 |
| Board | White | Grade | Vs | Black | Grade | Res |
| 1 | James Hunt | 162 | Jonathan Mahony | 108 | 1-0 | |
| 2 | Neil Broatch | 111 | Mark Szymanski | 151 | 0-1 | |
| 3 | Khalid Mohammed | 142 | Robert Burns | 105 | 1-0 | |
| 4 | James Mackintosh | 85 | Anthony Ibbitson | 128 | 0-1 | |
| 5 | John Light | 85 | Lincoln Tomlin | 122 | 0-1 | |
| 6 | Alan Shires | 72 | Zana Aziz | 98 | 0-1 | |
| 7 | Hugh Boyd | 93 | Scott Davies | 64 | 1-0 | |
| 8 | Alan Riddle | 78 | Ken Marsden | 85 | 1-0 |
| Board | White | Grade | Vs | Black | Grade | |
| 1 | Khalid Mohammed | 142 | James Hunt | 162 | 0.5-0.5 |
|
| 2 | Mark Szymanski | 151 | Tony Ibbitson | 128 | 1-0 |
|
| 3 | Lincoln Tomlin | 122 | Zana Aziz | 98 | 0-1 |
|
| 4 | Hugh Boyd | 93 | Neil Broatch | 111 | 0-1 |
|
| 5 | Jonathan Mahony | 108 | Alan Riddle | 78 | 1-0 |
|
| 6 | John Light |
85 | James Mackintosh | 85 | 1-0 |
|
| 7 | Alan Shires | 72 | John Light | 85 | Didn't play |
|
| 8 | Ken Marsden | 85 | Scott Davies | 64 | 0-1 |
You are supposed to float the bottom player from an uneven group down to the next group.
The first option is to pair James vs. Mark.
But if they both have already had two blacks or both have already had two whites, you can pair Mark vs. Khalid. Based on your Color Seeking list, this doesn't appear to be the case, so James vs Mark.
Then Khalid should be paired with the top out of the 2 points group. Again, the colors don't counter-indicate a pairing with Anthony, so we should have Anthony vs. Khalid.
The group with 2 points now has 3 players and it is the lowest rated player that should be floated down. Neil and Jonathan are paired and Zana is floated down.
The rules say that the player floated down is to be paired first. I read this to mean paired with the top player from the next section. In this case, I would pair with the top player where the colors match. So Zana is paired with Hugh.
For the remainder of the group with 1, the lowest rated person would get floated down and play Kenneth, the remainder are paired normally.
Ken is seeking Black so should he not be playing Lincoln? The bottom two are seeking white but have already played Ken, the others are also seeking black. This leaves Lincoln.
Arent all pairings done by computer programs now ? What does the uscf use ? Here I think its swissperfect or swissmanager...... I have noticed a trend though of " wrong pairings " and when the players complain the arbiter will simply dismiss it with a shrug and say " the computer does the pairings " and it seems after this nothing can be done...... however, this is a can of worms as pairings can be manually changed/manipulated !
BTW, Loomis did an excellent job , which means I must ask :
Loomis , are you now, or have you ever been, a mamber of the TD party ?! 
It's too late now for Swissperfect, it won't allow me to pair midway through a tournament.
The TD party? Let me check my registration cards.... Well, I'm not a card carrying member.
I used to be a TD. Actually running events is not so bad, it's the organization previous to it that's so much trouble. Plus, there are plenty of good TDs in my area.
Taking account of who has already played who (or whom?) causes problems in applying the rules strictly. But if the lowest 8 in the table (ie from Zana to Ken) are treated as a single group and split for pairing at the halfway point, a workable result is obtained with one exception:
1 James H v Mark
2 Tony v Khalid
3 Neil v Jon
4 Zana v John L
5 Lincoln v Alan
6 Hugh v Scott
7 James M v Ken
The game that doesn't fit is Hugh v Scott because they have already played each other. But if the last 2 games on the list swap partners, so that Hugh plays Ken and James plays Scott, that looks workable and seems to meet the spirit of the rules as nearly as can be.
Does that help?
Alan
Yeah that looks good to me Alan, cheers! T. The only problem is the colours again, unfortunately this cannot really be avoided.
I have taken everything into account:
Alan, you are almost spot on with your selection however, Zana should play Hugh - as he has been floated down, he should play the highest graded of the group(barring Lincoln as they have played)just as Khalid has with myself in the group above.
I have switched James and Ken around so that they both have a different colour to the last round.
Alan and Ken will have had 2 extra blacks so they are guaranteed white in the following round.
This is what I have:
James H v Mark
Tony v Khalid
Neil v Jon
Zana v Hugh
Lincoln v Alan
Scott v John
James M v Ken
Arent all pairings done by computer programs now ? What does the uscf use ? Here I think its swissperfect or swissmanager...... I have noticed a trend though of " wrong pairings " and when the players complain the arbiter will simply dismiss it with a shrug and say " the computer does the pairings " and it seems after this nothing can be done...... however, this is a can of worms as pairings can be manually changed/manipulated !
I only do pairings on paper. If the USCF will buy me a portable computer with a printer, maybe I'll change my mind about this.
They probably won't like it...but
1. Hunt Szymanski
2. Ibbitson Mohamed
3. Broach Mahoney
4. Aziz Tomlin
5. Davies Light
6. Riddle Boyd
7. Marsden Mackintosh
The first 3 boards were easy. The problem was that Marsden already played Davies & Riddle (the lowest two one-pointers).
And finally, if anyone complains about colors, I always say that it's their own fault for not winning their earlier round.
The club I play in and pair tournaments for has an end-of-the-month 10 minute tournament that has from 8 to 14 people. These tiny sections are the toughest to pair, given the variety of little rules about color allocation and score-groups and who gets dropped down etc. But it can be done...and without computers.
I was just about to do the draw for the 4th round of our club championship but as a couple have dropped out, the pairing is now much more difficult with odd numbers of the same score. Below is the information needed, please could someone tell me who should play who based on this? I know you don't know who's already played who but it will give me a rough idea. Cheers!