Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 59

Thread: FIDE SWISS Rules Revisited

  1. | #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    40

    Default FIDE SWISS Rules Revisited

    Code:
    C.04.1 Basic rules for Swiss Systems
    The following rules are valid for each Swiss system unless explicitly stated otherwise.
    
    a
    	
    
    The number of rounds to be played is declared beforehand
    
    b
    	
    
    Two players shall not play each other more than once
    
    c
    	
    
    Should the total number of players be (or become) odd, one player is unpaired. He receives a bye: no colour and as many points as are rewarded for a win, unless the regulations of the tournament state otherwise
    
    d
    	
    
    A player who, for whatever reason, has received any number of points without playing, shall not receive a bye.
    
    e
    	
    
    In general, players are paired to others with the same score
    
    f
    	
    
    For each player the difference of the number of black and the number of white games shall not be greater than 2 or less than 2.
    Each system may have exceptions to this rule in the last round of a tournament.
    
    g
    	
    
    No player will receive the same colour three times in a row.
    Each system may have exceptions to this rule in the last round of a tournament.
    
    h
    	
    
        In general, a player is given a colour as many times as he is given the other colour.
        In general, a player is given the colour other than that he was given the previous round.   
    
    i
    	
    
    The pairing rules must be such transparent that the person who is in charge for the pairing can explain them
    Are these more onerous than having an event ACF rated?

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

    Default

    Perhaps you should disclose who you are and why you are posting this instead of hiding behind yet another silly hydra.

    The Basic Rules set minimum standards for a Swiss system. That doesn't mean that everything that follows them is acceptable to FIDE or for that matter the ACF. For instance under the Basic Rules, one could assign the bye to the highest-ranked player who had not already received it (or on some other ridiculous basis), but this would not be generally considered fair.
    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. | #3
    Tin Cup Champ 2004 Just2Good's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Cairns
    Posts
    7,098

    Thumbs down Playing The Man Instead Of The Ball

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    Perhaps you should disclose who you are and why you are posting this instead of hiding behind yet another silly hydra.
    Why should he? Would that make his question any less valid?
    .
    "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing."

    ~ Isaiah Berlin ~

  4. | #4
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    970

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Just2Good View Post
    Why should he? Would that make his question any less valid?
    The point of the question is not what it literally says. It is to insinuate that the answer is no and that having events ACF-rated is unduly onerous.

    But if there was full disclosure it would be very clear to all (even here) that the situtation that leads to the question being asked is self-inflicted, and that the problems with a certain club's rating submissions go well beyond whether pairings are in accord with Swiss rules.

    I hope that assists you to see that I am in fact playing the ball. You just have no idea what the ball even is, which for once, in this case, is not your fault.
    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.

  5. | #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    The point of the question is not what it literally says.
    The point of the question is what it literally says.
    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    It is to insinuate that the answer is no
    It is to explore the expectation that the answer is yes.

    But before the correctness of the expectation can be assessed as valid it is of value to be able to read the the ACF handbook of pairing rules for ACF-rated events only.
    Hence the question which asks is there a difference between an ACF-only Handbook and a FIDE handbook.



    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    ... and that having events ACF-rated is unduly onerous.
    On the contrary, I am of the experience that having events AFC-only rated events is not unduly onerous.

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    But if there was full disclosure it would be very clear to all (even here) that the situation that leads to the question being asked is self-inflicted, and that the problems with a certain club's rating submissions go well beyond whether pairings are in accord with Swiss rules.
    The core example that delineates between the published FIDE Handbook and the assumed requirements submission to the ACF-only system is:

    Setting
    Player A is paired to play player B in published pairings.
    Player B is forfeited because he is a no-show

    The game is submitted for FIDE rating with the record showing
    20 A + : B -
    according to the FIDE requirements.

    Past practice for submission for ACF-only rating has been to submit as
    20 A + : -
    30 B - : -

    which does disguise the forfeit-culprit among the general run of bye-recording at the foot of the pairings.

    As you can see, there is a less onerous protocol being assumed for local submission.

    The question at heart is: Where are the ACF requirements delineated? I presume they are less onerous.

  6. | #6
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    970

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NostrilAlarmus View Post
    It is to explore the expectation that the answer is yes.
    In order to dispute it. As I expected. No point being disingenuous about what you are doing.

    But before the correctness of the expectation can be assessed as valid it is of value to be able to read the the ACF handbook of pairing rules for ACF-rated events only.
    Hence the question which asks is there a difference between an ACF-only Handbook and a FIDE handbook.
    The question says nothing about any ACF Handbook. In any case there is no codified requirement for ACF-rated events to be paired by any specific system or set of systems, but the ACF has discretion to reject or withhold any tournament submitted.

    The core example that delineates between the published FIDE Handbook and the assumed requirements submission to the ACF-only system is:

    Setting
    Player A is paired to play player B in published pairings.
    Player B is forfeited because he is a no-show

    The game is submitted for FIDE rating with the record showing
    20 A + : B -
    according to the FIDE requirements.

    Past practice for submission for ACF-only rating has been to submit as
    20 A + : -
    30 B - : -

    which does disguise the forfeit-culprit among the general run of bye-recording at the foot of the pairings.

    As you can see, there is a less onerous protocol being assumed for local submission.

    The question at heart is: Where are the ACF requirements delineated? I presume they are less onerous.
    No, that's not even among the list of right questions. Firstly all this is a minor part of the problem, with the alleged coding of played games as unplayed (and issues of a similar level) a far more serious problem.

    Secondly, the right question about submitting games in a format with one player shown as a one-point bye and the other as a zero-point bye (when in fact one forfeited to the other) is not whether the ACF allows that format but whether the ACF knows that format is being incorrectly employed.

    Your past practice wasn't an issue because no-one knew that you were submitting incorrect results. Now it is known there are problems it would be a very good idea for you to ensure that all future ratings submissions are exactly what actually happened.
    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.

  7. | #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    In order to dispute it. As I expected. No point being disingenuous about what you are doing.
    You can continue to paraphrase the original question and/or its intent; but put away your tar brush for the moment
    Actually, I did not mind which answer came back <more onerous, less onerous, equivalent, the same, there is no codified set>.
    Now that you have detailed this below we can move on. Thanks for your clarity.



    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    The question says nothing about any ACF Handbook. In any case there is no codified requirement for ACF-rated events to be paired by any specific system or set of systems, but the ACF has discretion to reject or withhold any tournament submitted.
    And fair enough too.
    Thanks for your clarity.



    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    No, that's not even among the list of right questions. Firstly all this is a minor part of the problem, ...
    There is only one Club event that is to be FIDE rated, and it has been advised to me that the recording a result in the SwissPerfect file should have been
    20 A + : C -
    because that allows compliance with the FIDE rule (i) [The pairing rules must be such transparent that the person who is in charge for the pairing can explain them].
    I accept that is a benefit that is obtained by this form of display, and we should change the file to comply.

    20 A + : -

    will thus be re-submitted as

    20 A + : C -


    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    with the alleged coding of played games as unplayed (and issues of a similar level) a far more serious problem.
    Player A in the FIDE event received 1 point because the opponent (C) failed to attend. There was no suitable other player available in the Hall to substitute. So no FIDE game was played by A. But then you may have had access to correspondence on the FIDE event that I have not seen.

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    Secondly, the right question about submitting games in a format with one player shown as a one-point bye and the other as a zero-point bye (when in fact one forfeited to the other) is not whether the ACF allows that format but whether the ACF knows that format is being incorrectly employed.
    And this is why the game will be re-submitted as
    20 A + : C -
    as the required change to the file.


    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    Your past practice wasn't an issue because no-one knew that you were submitting incorrect results. ...
    It would be fair to note that the previously used format
    20 A + : -
    30 B - : -
    leads to the same rating calculations and the same prize distribution.

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    Now it is known there are problems it would be a very good idea for you to ensure that all future ratings submissions are exactly what actually happened.
    What actually happened is that A played no FIDE rated game and received a point on forfeit.

  8. | #8
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    970

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MOZstrilAlarmus View Post
    You can continue to paraphrase the original question and/or its intent; but put away your tar brush for the moment
    Perhaps you should consider retracting and apologising for your persistent false claims of a banning quota on Chesschat.

    with the alleged coding of played games as unplayed (and issues of a similar level) a far more serious problem.
    Player A in the FIDE event received 1 point because the opponent (C) failed to attend. There was no suitable other player available in the Hall to substitute. So no FIDE game was played by A. But then you may have had access to correspondence on the FIDE event that I have not seen.
    As concerns this particular tournament, the situation I referred to there was not the one you refer to.
    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.

  9. | #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    Perhaps you should consider retracting and apologising for your persistent false claims of a banning quota on Chesschat.



    As concerns this particular tournament, the situation I referred to there was not the one you refer to.
    It appears you have not tabled any more concerns with the FIDE rated tournament; and hence I am going to presume the simple

    change(s) the file to comply.

    20 A + : -

    will thus be re-submitted as

    20 A + : C -

    will be sufficient to get this important event into the FIDE rating stream.

    That is a big issue for our playing population, and its resolution has been been achieved by a close examination of the FIDE Handbook (and (i) in particular). Thank you for your assistance.
    The fix is easy, even if the debate in public was necessarily forensic.

  10. | #10
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    970

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NostrilAlarmus View Post
    It appears you have not tabled any more concerns with the FIDE rated tournament; and hence I am going to presume the simple

    change(s) the file to comply.

    20 A + : -

    will thus be re-submitted as

    20 A + : C -

    will be sufficient to get this important event into the FIDE rating stream.
    You can presume what you like. I would not dream of trying to stop you from presuming things.

    That is a big issue for our playing population, and its resolution has been been achieved by a close examination of the FIDE Handbook (and (i) in particular). Thank you for your assistance.
    I'm not sure how I feel about being thanked on a spurious pretext.
    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.

  11. | #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    You can presume what you like. I would not dream of trying to stop you from presuming things.



    I'm not sure how I feel about being thanked.....

    Ozchess may have turned over a new leaf to recognize your efforts.



    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    ....on a spurious pretext.
    Uh oh. Sounds ominous.

  12. | #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post

    .......


    No, that's not even among the list of right questions.
    Overnight I am in receipt of a detailed review of every Arbiter action/decision from round 2 to round 6.
    23 decisions.
    3 notes on recording protocol.

    Overall, as a result of this review, the files were walked back to the state as managed by the R2-R6 Arbiter, and re-submitted. There are no results or pairings or prizes changed as a result of the review.
    Only the recording protocol has been changed, and that change is described in this thread. Your observation on this protocol issue " Firstly all this is a minor part of the problem" is agreed.




    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    Firstly all this is a minor part of the problem, with the alleged coding of played games as unplayed (and issues of a similar level) a far more serious problem.
    The allegation has been reviewed and found to be incorrect. And odd; given that the alleged round 6 pairing had been already been paired and played in round 2.

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    Secondly, the right question about submitting games in a format with one player shown as a one-point bye and the other as a zero-point bye (when in fact one forfeited to the other) is not whether the ACF allows that format but whether the ACF knows that format is being incorrectly employed.
    I am now aware of three different protocols for this format
    1. The convention used in rounds 2 to 6 by the Assistant Arbiter
    2. The convention used in the submission of results by the Chief Arbiter
    3. The FIDE regulation in post 1.

    The third obviously should be followed.


    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    Your past practice wasn't an issue because no-one knew that you were submitting incorrect results.
    The review of this tournament has revealed no incorrect results



    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    Now it is known there are problems ...
    When any allegations stand up under scrutiny you may have a point. But until then


    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    ...it would be a very good idea for you to ensure that all future ratings submissions are exactly what actually happened.
    As I said in post 7, what actually happened is what is actually documented. No results have changed after review.

  13. | #13
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    970

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NostrilAlarmus View Post
    The allegation has been reviewed and found to be incorrect.
    That is disputed. I have seen two accounts, which vary as to whether you all along knew these players had already played or only discovered it when trying to enter data. I don't know if it can be established which is correct. If either is correct then there is nothing odd about the players believing they played a real game rather than a casual game. Players will not necessarily know how strange it is to play the same player twice.

    Even if the first version is correct, not telling players their game won't be rated is ethically problematic.

    When any allegations stand up under scrutiny you may have a point.
    An allegation doesn't fall over just because you offer a differing version of events. That isn't "scrutiny".

    After all you are the one who falsely claims there are banning quotas on Chesschat and who has continued to maintain this ludicrous claim in public for years despite the complete lack of any evidence that such quotas exist (they don't). That suggests either extreme insincerity or extreme cluelessness, and doesn't dispose me towards treating you as a credible witness.

    The review of this tournament has revealed no incorrect results
    This is just more of your word-game nonsense. Whatever the story on the other matter, it is clear that you reported players as receiving byes who in fact won on forfeit.
    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.

  14. | #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    ....

    Even if the first version is correct, not telling players their game won't be rated is ethically problematic.
    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.



    ...



    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    This is just more of your word-game nonsense. Whatever the story on the other matter, it is clear that you reported players as receiving byes who in fact won on forfeit.
    You have this wrong.
    My records presented to the Chief Arbiter on his return showed +:-
    He overwrote that result ( and other similar), as 1-0, on the first submission through to Bill.
    On the second submission he has reverted back to my +:- after review.
    I believe he has told Bill this on an email dated Wed 19/10/2016 7:32 AM
    And when I go back to read this email I notice you were on the distribution list. It is described in point 1 early in that email.

    It was also referenced in my post on Ozchess Yesterday, 09:19 AM.
    Then I posted <Overall, as a result of this review, the files were walked back to the state as managed by the R2-R6 Arbiter, and re-submitted.>, see in particular the bolded text.
    At no stage have I recorded the result as 1-0.

    When I started this thread I was unaware the 1st submission of SP files had the format 1-0.
    I first became aware of this over-write Wednesday 19/10 around 8.30pm.

  15. | #15
    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.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Members who have read this thread since 28-12-19, 02:06 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
  •