Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 102

Thread: FIDE Swiss Rules

  1. | #16
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    970

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NostrilAlarmus View Post
    You have this wrong.
    No, you are just jumping to the false conclusion that I was necessarily referring to the current tournament in that specific comment. If you respond to an explanative comment about past cases ("Your past practice wasn't an issue because no-one knew that you were submitting incorrect results.") with an irrelevant claim about the present case then you shouldn't be surprised if I just refer back to your confession of having misreported results in past events.
    Note: I have poster antichrist on ignore. On no account should anyone assume that I agree with, or am unable to refute, any comment by poster antichrist, simply because I have not responded to it. Chances are I have not even seen it. I am also sometimes denied the ability of reply to false accusations in the shoutbox.

  2. | #17
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    970

    Default

    A question on this:

    Quote Originally Posted by NostrilAlarmus View Post
    Actually, we don't say much when other games are in progress. Personally I just walk to the pairings sheet on the noticeboard and write +:-
    And then arrange an opponent for the player who has attended but has been left stranded.
    So let's assume this procedure was followed for round 6 in the case where two players were no-shows and their opponents were paired with each other, despite having already played, and supposedly for what was always meant (at least by you) to be an unrated game.

    The implication is that if a player's opponent does not show up then a forfeit will be recorded for them on the board and then an opponent arranged.

    But in round 4 there were also two cases of no-shows that resulted in re-pairings (a third didn't). And in these cases the players who played re-paired games did play a game that has been submitted for ratings and counted for points for future pairings purposes.

    Was +:- written on the pairings sheet on the noticeboard at any point in these cases? If not, what is the difference?
    Note: I have poster antichrist on ignore. On no account should anyone assume that I agree with, or am unable to refute, any comment by poster antichrist, simply because I have not responded to it. Chances are I have not even seen it. I am also sometimes denied the ability of reply to false accusations in the shoutbox.

  3. | #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    A question on this:



    So let's assume this procedure was followed for round 6 in the case where two players were no-shows and their opponents were paired with each other, despite having already played, and supposedly for what was always meant (at least by you) to be an unrated game.

    The implication is that if a player's opponent does not show up then a forfeit will be recorded for them on the board and then an opponent arranged.

    But in round 4 there were also two cases of no-shows that resulted in re-pairings (a third didn't). And in these cases the players who played re-paired games did play a game that has been submitted for ratings and counted for points for future pairings purposes.

    Was +:- written on the pairings sheet on the noticeboard at any point in these cases? If not, what is the difference?
    Some players immediately write forfeit on the notice-board sheet, and some players don't.
    Those that don't are then paired if that is possible. (Pairing with-a-rated-game was not possible in the R6 case because the two had already played).
    Those that do are usually out the door in a flash, unless they have to wait for a ride home (because a sibling does has a game in progress).

    Where two players (who have opponents who are no shows) proceed to play a rated game I reprint the pairing sheet with that game showing instead the forfeits they could have optioned to take.
    Last edited by NostrilAlarmus; 22-10-16 at 06:58 AM.

  4. | #19
    Siberian Chess Tiger Axiom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,925

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Axiom View Post
    Is it true that the ACF have not codifed their rule set on swiss tournaments? If so then are they not set a posteriori?
    What does"PROVISIONAL Pairings" mean in regard to the non-published ACF codified rule set?
    "Don't let the snow get down the back of your pants" ~ SCT

  5. | #20
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    970

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NostrilAlarmus View Post
    Some players immediately write forfeit on the notice-board sheet, and some players don't.
    Those that don't are then paired if that is possible. (Pairing with-a-rated-game was not possible in the R6 case because the two had already played).
    Those that do are usually out the door in a flash, unless they have to wait for a ride home (because a sibling does has a game in progress).

    Where two players (who have opponents who are no shows) proceed to play a rated game I reprint the pairing sheet with that game showing instead the forfeits they could have optioned to take.
    Hmmm. Firstly you said "Actually, we don't say much when other games are in progress. Personally I just walk to the pairings sheet on the noticeboard and write +:-
    And then arrange an opponent for the player who has attended but has been left stranded."

    (my bold)

    Writing the forfeit in yourself at this point would make sense if you already knew that the player was staying but had no suitable opponent, and therefore they were definitely getting a forfeit win. But if you haven't arranged an opponent for them then how can you know this?
    Note: I have poster antichrist on ignore. On no account should anyone assume that I agree with, or am unable to refute, any comment by poster antichrist, simply because I have not responded to it. Chances are I have not even seen it. I am also sometimes denied the ability of reply to false accusations in the shoutbox.

  6. | #21
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    Hmmm. Firstly you said "Actually, we don't say much when other games are in progress. Personally I just walk to the pairings sheet on the noticeboard and write +:-
    And then arrange an opponent for the player who has attended but has been left stranded."

    (my bold)

    Writing the forfeit in yourself at this point would make sense...

    Writing the forfeit in at a point does make sense because a player has that option if the pairings have moved from being provisional.

    But two such players are also presented with the option to play an arranged rated game if a suitable opponent can be arranged.


    As I said "Where two players (who have opponents who are no shows) proceed to play a rated game I reprint the pairing sheet with that game showing instead of the forfeits they could have optioned to take."

    You have already commented that parts of this are ethically problematic.
    I don't see it that way at all.
    What is on offer to the players is
    a) take +:- and run
    or
    b) play a rated-game with an appropriate opponent who faces the same choice.

    I see choice between a) and b) as a better outcome than mandating a) which I presume you are pushing.

    It seems to me that provisional pairings exposed on Monday night on chatboards, for games to be played on Friday nights, are exposed for the purpose of preparation against a defined opponent. If the opponent turns out to be a no-show then why should the preparation opportunity then be cashed in as a +:- and not as point to be earned over the board.



    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    ....if you already knew that the player was staying but had no suitable opponent, and therefore they were definitely getting a forfeit win. But if you haven't arranged an opponent for them then how can you know this?
    Last edited by NostrilAlarmus; 22-10-16 at 10:03 PM.

  7. | #22
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    970

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NostrilAlarmus View Post
    You have already commented that parts of this are ethically problematic.
    What I referred to as ethically problematic is repairing two players who have already played, for a game that they may well think is a rated game, without making it clear to them the game will not be rated.

    I see choice between a) and b) as a better outcome than mandating a) which I presume you are pushing.
    I don't yet have a view on whether the situation of absent players should be handled differently. I have some concern that a player who missed a game by arriving late was given a one-point bye, thereby being rewarded for not showing up on time.
    Note: I have poster antichrist on ignore. On no account should anyone assume that I agree with, or am unable to refute, any comment by poster antichrist, simply because I have not responded to it. Chances are I have not even seen it. I am also sometimes denied the ability of reply to false accusations in the shoutbox.

  8. | #23
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    What I referred to as ethically problematic is repairing two players who have already played, for a game that they may well think is a rated game, ...

    You may well have a point that I have become biased by experience with the Australian Golf Association rating scheme where there is a requirement to rate any game (golf round) played under existing conditions on the day. In this way, all finished rounds of golf influence the handicap rating of a player, and this is done to ensure that the rating of a player is truly reflective of totality of rounds played. The round of golf is counted for handicap rating even if the player is not enrolled for the competition-of-the-day.

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    ..without making it clear to them the game will not be rated.
    And it clear from the analogy I have just outlined that the choice to not rate the game is Bill's, not mine.

    I ensure that the players have the correct point score counting towards prizes; which I think is fair, equitable and ethical.
    But the choice to keep a supervised, hard fought game, played under Arbiter supervision from being rated, is not a choice we can make locally.

    C.04.1 Basic rules for Swiss Systems
    The following rules are valid for each Swiss system unless explicitly stated otherwise.

    ...

    b


    Two players shall not play each other more than once




    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    I don't yet have a view on whether the situation of absent players should be handled differently. I have some concern that a player who missed a game by arriving late was given a one-point bye, thereby being rewarded for not showing up on time.
    I will hold off on comment on this one until you PM me round and board number.

  9. | #24
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    970

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NostrilAlarmus View Post
    You may well have a point that I have become biased by experience with the Australian Golf Association rating scheme where there is a requirement to rate any game (golf round) played under existing conditions on the day. In this way, all finished rounds of golf influence the handicap rating of a player, and this is done to ensure that the rating of a player is truly reflective of totality of rounds played. The round of golf is counted for handicap rating even if the player is not enrolled for the competition-of-the-day.
    That requirement makes sense because anything else is throwing away data. But this is not what was done in the case where two players who had already played each other played each other again. The data were discarded by not submitting that game as a played game for rating.

    And it clear from the analogy I have just outlined that the choice to not rate the game is Bill's, not mine.
    But for questions being raised Bill would not have even known there was a game to make that choice about. In the submitted form the game never happened.

    I ensure that the players have the correct point score counting towards prizes; which I think is fair, equitable and ethical.
    But the choice to keep a supervised, hard fought game, played under Arbiter supervision from being rated, is not a choice we can make locally.

    C.04.1 Basic rules for Swiss Systems
    The following rules are valid for each Swiss system unless explicitly stated otherwise.

    ...

    b


    Two players shall not play each other more than once
    Actually no FIDE rules determine whether a game is rateable by the ACF. At FIDE level it is the Rating Regulations that determine whether a game is rateable (what a surprise!), and not necessarily the Swiss Pairing rules. Both the ACF and FIDE have discretion to rate this game if they choose, but neither will know they have this discretion if a game played under rated-play conditions and not stated to be unrated is not even submitted.


    I will hold off on comment on this one until you PM me round and board number.
    PMing is cumbersome. Round 4 board 22.
    Note: I have poster antichrist on ignore. On no account should anyone assume that I agree with, or am unable to refute, any comment by poster antichrist, simply because I have not responded to it. Chances are I have not even seen it. I am also sometimes denied the ability of reply to false accusations in the shoutbox.

  10. | #25
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    ... The data were discarded by not submitting that game as a played game for rating.



    ... Both the ACF and FIDE have discretion to rate this game if they choose, but neither will know they have this discretion if a game played under rated-play conditions and not stated to be unrated is not even submitted.
    Can you advise how we do this?




    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    PMing is cumbersome. Round 4 board 22.
    I don't have a copy of the re-submission.

  11. | #26
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    970

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NostrilAlarmus View Post
    Can you advise how we do this?
    I can but really why should I? You do know how to use Swiss Perfect, don't you? You do know how to explain an unusual situation when submitting it for rating in an email, don't you? I'm a volunteer administrator, not a volunteer holder of hands for the wilfully hopeless.

    I don't have a copy of the re-submission.
    I am referring to the SP files attached to the email sent by the Chief Arbiter of the event on 19 Oct, which was CC:d to you.
    Note: I have poster antichrist on ignore. On no account should anyone assume that I agree with, or am unable to refute, any comment by poster antichrist, simply because I have not responded to it. Chances are I have not even seen it. I am also sometimes denied the ability of reply to false accusations in the shoutbox.

  12. | #27
    Senior Member Firegoat7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Currently playing at Hobsons Bay chess club where the tournaments are the best value in the state!
    Posts
    3,349

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    I can but really why should I?
    A clear cut example of bad faith. When an elected volunteer for the ACF responds, in this manner ,to a genuine question from an elected state volunteer, it demonstrates "bad faith". Different people in the Australian chess community constantly chastise players for criticising volunteers. Their claim is that you should not criticise volunteers. I have often considered that claim as a smoke and mirror excuse for inept management. It should be obvious, that ANY official who acts in "bad faith" towards its own elected body, should and ought to be publicly criticised. The right to criticise is, quite frankly, a liberal Western democratic tradition that ought to be viewed as a strength of the society. It is simply disgraceful that Kevin Bonham would respond to a harmless question in such a manner. His response is unhelpful, polarising and sets a very bad standard for an ACF official. The Ozchess forum has suggested previously that Kevin Bonham is a public relations disaster for Australian chess. Thankfully Ozchess remains a site free from censorship by ACF moderators, the same people who stifle public debate on Chesschat.
    Ozchess died on the 7/4/2013- killed by Gatekeepers



  13. | #28
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    .... You do know how to explain an unusual situation when submitting it for rating in an email, don't you? ....
    Well, actually, no.
    Over the 15 years of creating SP files I have had no success in getting a rated-game status for two players who play a second time.
    I have tried
    i) creating an eighth round with the game as the only board in that round
    ii) creating a separate tournament with that game as the only board and round
    iii) not reporting the 2nd game at all.

    Each of these approaches has drawn its own criticism [and in the cases i) and ii), rejection], and I have not successfully found how to get the game rated.





    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    I am referring to the SP files attached to the email sent by the Chief Arbiter of the event on 19 Oct, which was CC:d to you.
    Thanks. I was looking at our DROPBOX record which I anticipated would be the latest, and is not apparently.

  14. | #29
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    970

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Firegoat7 View Post
    A clear cut example of bad faith.
    This from a hypocrite whose faith towards me is so bad that he threatened me with violence and still hasn't apologised many years later, together with many other such examples of obvious bias.

    You also ignore that the person I supposedly display "bad faith" towards has frequently made false accusations that I moderate according to a banning quota. It doesn't seem to have occurred to you that I know who NostrilAlarmus is and that faith is a two-way street. He has persistently not displayed it towards me.

    Different people in the Australian chess community constantly chastise players for criticising volunteers. Their claim is that you should not criticise volunteers.
    You should not criticise volunteers, because you constantly seek to damage Australian chess by making criticisms of them that are false, and there is absolutely no prospect of your critical faculties ever overcoming your massive bias, hatred, intellectual incompetence and staggering lack of quality control. You should, in your own best interests, get off the internet and spend some time in a more harmonious environment, preferably a padded cell.

    But beyond that, you are missing the point. I wasn't saying volunteers should never be criticised, I was saying people shouldn't be wasting my time with stuff they really should be able to work out for themselves.

    The right to criticise is, quite frankly, a liberal Western democratic tradition that ought to be viewed as a strength of the society.
    You are the biggest hypocrite on earth for saying this. Frequently when I have criticised you (example earlier this year) you have falsely claimed I am challenging your right to free speech by making such criticisms, and thereby shown that you reject the "liberal Western democratic tradition" you refer to. You have the legal right in a liberal democracy to make an idiot of yourself with your criticisms and I have the right to point out that you are a hateful braindead nincompoop who has only escaped being banned again through my forebearance and generosity. Of course, both our rights are subject to those of the owners of property on which we post, but if they restrict that, we are free to employ them somewhere else.

    Thankfully Ozchess remains a site free from censorship by ACF moderators, the same people who stifle public debate on Chesschat.
    There is plenty of room for debate on Chesschat and always has been. Those who got themselves banned or left did so for other reasons. You yourself left because you could not take getting whipped in every argument you started.
    Last edited by HydraTED; 30-10-16 at 06:53 PM. Reason: spelling
    Note: I have poster antichrist on ignore. On no account should anyone assume that I agree with, or am unable to refute, any comment by poster antichrist, simply because I have not responded to it. Chances are I have not even seen it. I am also sometimes denied the ability of reply to false accusations in the shoutbox.

  15. | #30
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    970

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NostrilAlarmus View Post
    Well, actually, no.
    Over the 15 years of creating SP files I have had no success in getting a rated-game status for two players who play a second time.
    I have tried
    i) creating an eighth round with the game as the only board in that round
    ii) creating a separate tournament with that game as the only board and round
    iii) not reporting the 2nd game at all.

    Each of these approaches has drawn its own criticism [and in the cases i) and ii), rejection], and I have not successfully found how to get the game rated.
    Seriously? You obviously know how to do a manual pairing because you wouldn't be able to create a separate tournament or round with that game otherwise. You also seem to know how to edit a pairing manually, including adding a game not previously included in a round's draw. So it beggars belief that you haven't tried just manually adding that game to the round it was actually played in. It works so far as doing the pairings is concerned. A Verify Correctness test will of course tell you players have already played, but it is not necessary for the pairing to be valid in that regard for SP to accept it and to pair the next round once results are submitted. (One note of caution though, irrelevant to this case: including more than one game involving a given player in the same round will cause issues with scoring.)

    Of course, it is up to the Ratings Officer to decide whether to rate such a game, and the circumstances of the irregularity should be documented with the ratings submission. It is preferable by far in my view to not have the players play anything they could consider to be a rated game in the circumstances, but if you do decide to allow one there are clearly ways of reporting it.
    Note: I have poster antichrist on ignore. On no account should anyone assume that I agree with, or am unable to refute, any comment by poster antichrist, simply because I have not responded to it. Chances are I have not even seen it. I am also sometimes denied the ability of reply to false accusations in the shoutbox.

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Members who have read this thread since 22-02-20, 11:13 PM : 0

Actions :  (View-Readers)  (Set Date)  (Clear Date)

There are no names to display.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •