Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 59

Thread: FIDE SWISS Rules Revisited

  1. | #31
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    It is only a risk if you include multiple results for the same player in the same round.



    But you are not even remotely consistent about this. From your own accounts you allow a player the choice of grabbing the forfeit and running even when it is highly likely that the player could be paired against someone they had not previously played. So you are already incentivising grabbing the forfeit point - indeed the player who chooses to stay and be re-paired risks their standing in the tournament. The only player you are applying this form of deceptive and fanatical so-called encouragement to is the player who chooses to stay because they want to play a rated game. And even then, they're not getting what they actually want; they're only staying because they think that they are getting it. And in some situations - say, a player who is worried about their rating then defeats a higher rated player in what they think is a rated game - the effect could be very discouraging.

    Do you do this to adult players or only juniors?
    First of all let me note that there are 117 junior members at our venue and less than 30 active adult members.
    Second, I arranged a second game yesterday for OB (DOB = 5/7/1924) against an adult, under tournament supervision. (Bob had finished his first game so quickly that it was relevant to justify his drive from Warrandyte to Ashwood).

  2. | #32
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NostrilAlarmus View Post
    Second, I arranged a second game yesterday for OB (DOB = 5/7/1924) against an adult, under tournament supervision. (Bob had finished his first game so quickly that it was relevant to justify his drive from Warrandyte to Ashwood).
    And would there have been any reason for either player to believe this second game was a rated game?
    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. | #33
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    And would there have been any reason for either player to believe this second game was a rated game?
    It is not a topic I raise or raised.

  4. | #34
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    40

    Default

    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.
    I was using a hydra in the faint hope that when the detail of some disputed pairings was discussed on the thread we could protect the identities of player participants. Hoping the events and Club would remain private.
    Was it 'silly'?
    I would have classed it whimsical. But as always .."in the eyes of the beholder."

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    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.
    In my SP submissions
    • 1/2 point byes are assigned by the Arbiter for forewarned absences within the T&C's of the Competition
    • Zero-point byes are assigned by the Arbiter for unapproved absences (although I am more inclined to denote these as -:- rather than PLAYER 0: Bye 0)
    • 1 point byes by the computer only, when there is an odd number of players.

  5. | #35
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    .... 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.)
    You have not commented on the the concept of adding the extra game as an eighth round (for a 7 round tournament). An accompanying explanation could be sent through to the ACF Rating Officer indicating the round eight entry is a game played on the date of round x, because both players had opponents who were no shows. The problem of the issue with scoring is automatically resolved in the simplest manner as prize-lists are drawn up according to standings at the end of round 7. And the players do not make the assumption that they are playing an unrated game because it is in fact to be rated (at the ACF Ratings Officer discretion of course).

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    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.
    Agreed and here is hoping for some future success with 'the eighth round' approach.

  6. | #36
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NostrilAlarmus View Post
    You have not commented on the the concept of adding the extra game as an eighth round (for a 7 round tournament).
    I think it is all rather silly. If two players have no opponent who they have not previously played then they should both be given forfeit wins. If they wish to play an unrated game against each other they can but it should be clear that it is not rated and does not count for scoring purposes. If they take the forfeit and go then so be it.

    Also, if you have a set forfeit time then you shouldn't be breaking up pairings and re-pairing players before that time elapses.

    But really, if you want to have players play a second game that is rated, and the Ratings Officers will allow this, then it is up to you to sort out a protocol for that with the Ratings Officers in advance and submit it according to that protocol. This is none of my concern.

    What is of my concern (with my FIDE hat on) is that players in a FIDE-rated tournament are potentially being deceived into thinking they are playing a rated game that is then not rated. I will consider it a matter for FIDE-level disciplinary action should I hear of such a case again. In FIDE-rated events, players who play a second game against each other are to be informed of whether the game is to be rated or not at the commencement of the game. If you are unsure whether such a game can be rated, then inform them that the game will not be rated and do not submit it.

    I was using a hydra in the faint hope that when the detail of some disputed pairings was discussed on the thread we could protect the identities of player participants. Hoping the events and Club would remain private.
    I do not believe 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.

  7. | #37
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    ....

    But really, if you want to have players play a second game that is rated, and the Ratings Officers will allow this, then it is up to you to sort out a protocol for that with the Ratings Officers in advance and submit it according to that protocol. This is none of my concern.

    ...

    It may not be of your concern but I have appreciated your input to describe how it is feasible to document these situations. We had no success in the past with various approaches but you have given me confidence that there is a navigable path through the protocols, in particular for ACF rating anyway.

    When two players attend to play a rated chess game I like to encourage the achievement of that objective.
    Given time, we will learn the red-tape obligations and protocols.

  8. | #38
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NostrilAlarmus View Post
    It may not be of your concern but I have appreciated your input to describe how it is feasible to document these situations. We had no success in the past with various approaches but you have given me confidence that there is a navigable path through the protocols, in particular for ACF rating anyway.

    When two players attend to play a rated chess game I like to encourage the achievement of that objective.
    Given time, we will learn the red-tape obligations and protocols.
    As I understand it, these games do not count towards tournament score. It is hard to see that they should even then be considered part of the tournament. Isolated games between two players are like private matches and not rateable.
    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. | #39
    Volunteer MOZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    MOZ* is my main signon; PMs to me should be directed here. Other special purpose signons are used.
    Posts
    5,151

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    As I understand it, these games do not count towards tournament score. It is hard to see that they should even then be considered part of the tournament. Isolated games between two players are like private matches and not rateable.
    There are in excess of 10 coaching groups sending youngsters to our tournaments.
    The last thing they would want to see is me send the youngster home from a tournament session with +:- and no score-sheet for the next coaching appointment. We had 54 attend the QuickPlay tournament on Sunday and another 47 active in the ClassicPlay ARVO later in the afternoon.
    Score-sheets for the coaches, rated games for the parents; these are some of the main objectives.
    FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

  10. | #40
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MOZ View Post
    There are in excess of 10 coaching groups sending youngsters to our tournaments.
    The last thing they would want to see is me send the youngster home from a tournament session with +:- and no score-sheet for the next coaching appointment. We had 54 attend the QuickPlay tournament on Sunday and another 47 active in the ClassicPlay ARVO later in the afternoon.
    Score-sheets for the coaches, rated games for the parents; these are some of the main objectives.
    But you are not sending the youngsters home. It's quite clear you're trying hard to re-pair them with someone they haven't already played if you can, so they get a rateable game. It's also quite clear you're willing to have them play a game against someone they've already played, and the question mark is over whether that game is rateable. Some of the youngsters, apparently, on finding out that that game is not rateable in the rare case that no opponent can be found for them who they have not already played, are choosing to leave. If the youngsters themselves are not meeting their coaches/parents expectations that they stay and play a game even if it can't be a rated game, that's not your problem. It's a problem between the coaches/parents and the juniors concerned.
    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. | #41
    Volunteer MOZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    MOZ* is my main signon; PMs to me should be directed here. Other special purpose signons are used.
    Posts
    5,151

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    But you are not sending the youngsters home. It's quite clear you're trying hard to re-pair them with someone they haven't already played if you can, so they get a rateable game. It's also quite clear you're willing to have them play a game against someone they've already played, and the question mark is over whether that game is rateable. Some of the youngsters, apparently, on finding out that that game is not rateable in the rare case that no opponent can be found for them who they have not already played, are choosing to leave. If the youngsters themselves are not meeting their coaches/parents expectations that they stay and play a game even if it can't be a rated game, that's not your problem. It's a problem between the coaches/parents and the juniors concerned.
    Encouraging chess to be played is what we do.
    It why we operate from a Community Centre.


    But, you are of course entitled to your view.
    Thank you for your engagement.
    FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

  12. | #42
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MOZ View Post
    Encouraging chess to be played is what we do.
    Let's see how much "encouraging chess" you do when some day some junior who is worried about their rating drops out because their once-ever win over a much stronger opponent was not rated when they thought it would be.
    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.

  13. | #43
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NostrilAlarmus View Post
    So, after trying all these creative work-arounds we have defaulted to the strategy one could describe as
    A Encouraging chess to be played, instead of 'get the forfeit point and run'
    B Living with the ethical whatever.
    Since this thread is supposed to be about FIDE rules, here is some "ethical whatever" you need to live with:

    Quote Originally Posted by FIDE Disciplinary Regulations for Arbiters
    1. In exercising his duties the Arbiter must comply with the relevant FIDE Laws of Chess, rules and
    regulations, the regulations of the tournament, circulars, directives and decisions of the Arbiters’
    Commissions and other bodies of each organizing authority, the provisions of this Regulation, as
    well as the principles of good faith, ethics and sports probity, good sportsmanship, fair play and
    morality. The Arbiter shall also show excellent sporting and social behavior and ethics.

    2. The Arbiter who acts in contradiction of the above commits a disciplinary offense and shall be
    disciplined
    [..]

    3. Cases of disciplinary misconduct by the arbiters and their associated remedies shall be as follows:

    [..]

    e. Deliberately changing the pairings in a tournament (disqualification from 4 to 18 months).
    f. Deliberately misrepresenting the score sheet, or the match protocol, or the report of the
    tournament
    (disqualification from 4 to 18 months).

    [..]
    (all bolding mine)

    Note that 3e does not preclude issuing provisional pairings that are changed before the final version because of absences. It mainly exists to police cases where an arbiter fiddles the computer pairings in order to assist someone to achieve a norm, but could in theory be applied to any contentious case of altering finalised pairings.

    You need to consider whether some of your practices are consistent with the standards of a FIDE-rated tournament, if you intend to continue them.
    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. | #44
    Tin Cup Champ 2004 Just2Good's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Cairns
    Posts
    7,094

    Thumbs down Kevin and the Raw Prawn

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    Let's see how much "encouraging chess" you do when some day some junior who is worried about their rating drops out because their once-ever win over a much stronger opponent was not rated when they thought it would be.
    And how often have you seen that happen? Probably Never .....
    .
    "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing."

    ~ Isaiah Berlin ~

  15. | #45
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Just2Good View Post
    And how often have you seen that happen? Probably Never .....
    Well I've probably never seen the handling of the rateability of games within Australia be handled so badly as the tournaments that have served as examples for this thread.

    But I have seen parents pull children out of competition for not meeting the parents' unrealistic expectation of how many games they would win. I've also seen many juniors who were so obsessed with their rating (even in a rubbish ratings system like Tornelo) that they would ask questions about it after almost every game. And some juniors are very easily discouraged when things do not go their way.

    We've had cases in Australia of adults quitting chess because of ratings point losses that they earned through lousy play. And of course we've had people from here attacking the rating system for allegedly causing that!
    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 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 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
  •