PDA

View Full Version : Swiss Rule F2 not clear



drbean
08-07-2009, 11:53 AM
In a swiss tournament, after the first round, preferences for the next round are the consequence of the pairings (as realized) in the previous round.

But Rule F.2 states:



F.2 Byes, and pairing not actually played, or lost by one of the
players due to arriving late or not at all, will not be taken into
account with respect to colour, Such a pairing is not considered to be
illegal in future rounds.


So in such cases, preferences for the next round are NOT the consequence of the pairing in the previous round.

What is not clear to me is the meaning of the second sentence. Is it saying that pairings not actually played, and which might be thought to be illegal because of B1a (about players meeting more than once), are not in fact illegal.

The first part of F.2 is all about color preferences, so I think it's not clear whether the second part is also about just color preferences or all illegalities under the Rules.

So, the question is:

Is it OK for two players to meet more than once, if they didn't actually meet the first time?

Kevin Bonham
08-07-2009, 12:25 PM
So, the question is:

Is it OK for two players to meet more than once, if they didn't actually meet the first time?

Yes. If players are paired to play against each other but one of them forfeits then it is permitted to pair these players again in a later round. The reason for this is that actually playing the same person twice is obviously against the principles of the system but playing someone who you have already had a forfeit result against is not, since a forfeit result does not contribute anything to the diversity of opponents you have actually met.

Many players find the re-pairing of forfeited pairings unusual and I have known some to complain vigorously about it.

Denis_Jessop
08-07-2009, 09:35 PM
The quoted rule F2 which I note is taken from the FIDE Handbook, raises a couple of interesting questions given that the Handbook says that the Rukes have not been amended since 1998.

In his "Chess Organiser's Handbook" (3rd ed. 2005), Stewart Reuben gives the text as follows:


F.2 Byes, and pairings not actually played, or lost by one of the
players due to arriving late or not at all, should not be taken into
account with respect to colour. Such a pairing is not considered words omitted illegal in future rounds.

The changes are instructive. In my view the current FIDE version raises dr Bean's ambiguity.

In the first instance, "should" is not an appropriate word as it implies that the provision is discretionary, not mandatory. The current version is worse as it is a mixture of poor English and poor drafting. Better wording would be "is not to be" in either version.

As for the omitted words, the ambiguity is squarely raised. The Reuben text makes it fairly clear that the pairing referred to is a subsequent pairing. The FIDE version adds words that, arguably, blur, rather than clarify, the meaning.

In any case the FIDE version is corrupt as it lacks an "s" on the end of "pairing" and has a comma instead of a full stop after "colour" and before "Such".

DJ

Kevin Bonham
08-07-2009, 10:00 PM
Is this one of the cases where the text in the Reuben editions after the first is perhaps superior but nonetheless not kosher? He got some flak for including wordings that were not FIDE-approved in edition 2 and I think this carried over into edition 3 as well.

Bill Gletsos
08-07-2009, 10:26 PM
My understanding is that the official F2 wording is:

Byes, and pairing not actually played, or lost by one of the players due to arriving late or not at all, will not be taken into account with respect to colour. Such a pairing is not considered to be illegal in future rounds.

Note the above is also the wording in the first edition of Reuben's book.

Denis_Jessop
09-07-2009, 08:42 PM
My understanding is that the official F2 wording is:

Byes, and pairing not actually played, or lost by one of the players due to arriving late or not at all, will not be taken into account with respect to colour. Such a pairing is not considered to be illegal in future rounds.

Note the above is also the wording in the first edition of Reuben's book.

That makes it clear that the Reuben version is unofficial. What's more I note that, in the 2nd ed of his book he makes the final sentence read:

"Such pairings may be used in future rounds"

which is probably the clearest but also the furthest from the FIDE text. Stewart is a bit naughty in not drawing these variations, and others he has made, to the readers' attention.

DJ