PDA

View Full Version : Sibling pairings, last round collusion



jase
15-03-2006, 11:40 PM
Sleepless,are you implying [name deleted] lost on purpose so [his sister] would have a chance to pick up the cash?:hmm:

Like Shaun's marketing "hypothetical", as soon as one checks the crosstable we can identify some loading in Mischa's post.

She raises a good point. Two actually:
1. Should officials manage the event so that such pairings, especially in the final round, are avoided where possible?
2. The validity of such games.

It's a big field, arbiters have some time pressures to pump out the final round draw, and it isn't always ot the front of your mind to make sure siblings aren't playing each other. That said, I think where possible, to prevent speculation and maintain the integrity of the event, such pairings should be avoided.

Was it a fair fight? Probably not. I do heartily concur with Barry's sentiments about [name deleted] getting a ratings prize.

If I was a kid needing a final round win for a few hundred bucks, and I was paired with my cousin in the final round ... :uhoh:

Last round deals don't require the same gene pool to stitch up. Here's two of my favourites:
1. [name deleted] asking for a little incentive to lose a final round of the Australian Lightning a few years ago. It's a favourite of mine because the fixers had miscalculated the scores and were conspiring to produce a disadvantageous result :doh:
2. Guy West, playing Max Fuller, last round of an event at the Shore Inn. A tidy cheque awaited the winner, whilst a draw would be practically useless to both of them. Guy suggested some 'insurance' - whereby both players strive their best to win, steering clear of passive or drawing lines, with the winner providing a little sugar to sweeten the loss. As honourable an 'arrangement' as you're likely to see. Max, a thorough gentleman of high moral, declined the deal, and lost.

WhiteElephant
15-03-2006, 11:54 PM
I find all these insinuations highly distasteful.

Jase, where are you getting your 'facts' from? And just because 2 siblings are playing each other in the final round does not mean the game will be fixed.

And welcome Ugoff :)

four four two
15-03-2006, 11:56 PM
While its not ideal to have siblings paired in the last round,I have to agree with Jason that such things can be hard to avoid when time is a constraint .

[rest edited - mod]

Libby
16-03-2006, 05:01 AM
[some edited-mod]

What about players in major events receiving draw offers from friends because they played really well, make a mistake and then are very disappointed about it? Those "lucky" offers don't come to everybody.

This is very unsavoury and does no-one any credit.

Of course the topic of pairing siblings in the final round is a tricky one but so is pairing friends, parents & children, even coaches & pupils, even grown-ups who agree to draws routinely in the final round - sometimes even before they sit at the board - so both secure money and may well shut a third party out of the contest.

WE have routinely paired the Ikedas & Olivers in final rounds of our events. Given it has occasionally ended (or even begun) with tears I have not had any reason to doubt the validity of results. But maybe that's our primitive chess culture in Canberra at work. Where we assume the best of people.

pax
16-03-2006, 08:17 AM
[some edited-mod]

I don't see why siblings should not be paired in final rounds. Why would you stop there? What about parents and children? Cousins? Friends? Colleagues? Club mates? People from the same state? BB chatters :hmm: ?

At the end of the day, it is illegal to collude to produce a result whether you are related to the player or not. If there is evidence of collusion, then steps should be taken. If not, then *shrug* and get on with life...

Rincewind
16-03-2006, 09:31 AM
WE have routinely paired the Ikedas & Olivers in final rounds of our events. Given it has occasionally ended (or even begun) with tears I have not had any reason to doubt the validity of results. But maybe that's our primitive chess culture in Canberra at work. Where we assume the best of people.

I believe this was not the case at the ANU Open last year. I watch Charles scan the final pairings for paired relatives and re-pair manually to overcome any problem. This could be an arbiter policy rather than a state association policy but mitigating actions are taken even in your beloved ACT.

Rincewind
16-03-2006, 09:34 AM
I don't know if there is any substance to the accusations but sibling pairings which go against rating in the final round of an event when the winner then finishes with a prize are always going to raise eyebrows. I think the arbiters owe it to the siblings to not allow this to happen.

jenni
16-03-2006, 10:31 AM
I believe this was not the case at the ANU Open last year. I watch Charles scan the final pairings for paired relatives and re-pair manually to overcome any problem. This could be an arbiter policy rather than a state association policy but mitigating actions are taken even in your beloved ACT.

I was told very early on in my chess career that DOP = GOD.

State associations almost never give parameters like that to DOPs. Charles is a huge softie and believes that you should avoid such pairings for many reasons. Cheating may be one of them, I don't know, but he also believes if it doesn't affect the result, why cause problems and unhappiness by having siblings play each other.

We had a problem in the ACT years ago, where a brother threw a game to his younger brother, thus enabling him to win a local title. The ACTJCL introduced a rule that siblings couldn't play each other in the last round. However that causes its own set of problems, as if one sibling is very strong, you could be handing an unfair advantage to the other sibling.

We abandoned that rule many years ago and just assume the kids are going to play honestly. If now and then they don't well so be it. It happens even among adults.

jenni
16-03-2006, 10:34 AM
WE have routinely paired the Ikedas & Olivers in final rounds of our events. Given it has occasionally ended (or even begun) with tears I have not had any reason to doubt the validity of results. .

Reminds me of Shannon's game against Tamzin in the last round of the Wonens' and Girls last year. Not even floods of tears from Tamzin, were enough to persuade Shannon into a draw....

shaun
16-03-2006, 11:00 AM
I believe this was not the case at the ANU Open last year. I watch Charles scan the final pairings for paired relatives and re-pair manually to overcome any problem. This could be an arbiter policy rather than a state association policy but mitigating actions are taken even in your beloved ACT.

Different arbiters take different approaches. I was roundly abused by an Australian IM for pairing him against his wife a few years ago (they were both on 3/3). Normally I don't even look at who plays who, all I do is check the scores, colours, floats etc

But Charles did miss one last round paring in that event where one player didn't play the position on its merits after his opponent started crying.

four four two
16-03-2006, 11:06 AM
A new technique of getting draws,crying!
If you cant take the heat of competition...:lol:

jenni
16-03-2006, 11:11 AM
But Charles did miss one last round paring in that event where one player didn't play the position on its merits after his opponent started crying.

I was overseas for the ANU, but I think I heard about this one. Did it involve a Victorian?

Rincewind
16-03-2006, 11:35 AM
I was overseas for the ANU, but I think I heard about this one. Did it involve a Victorian?

It did. In the end I played on and the final position was reasonably drawn after missing a reasonably strong continuation. Was the game to be fixed I would have just blown it and given James the game. After my earlier results in that tournament that would have been my least controversial loss.

Just let me pooint out that AT NO TIME did James offer a draw and he seriously considered playing on after my draw offer for some time. The offer came from me a couple of moves after missing a much stronger continuation.

While the tears did affect me emotionally, I did resolve to play on after that incident and the game continued.

More important factors were my respiratory infection and the fact that I was recovering from a very poor start and happy to get a draw against anyone within a couple of 100 points of me. Note I also offered a passive draw to Shannon the round before despite out rating her (at the time) by around 150 points and I was very happy she agreed.

Rincewind
16-03-2006, 11:42 AM
But Charles did miss one last round paring in that event where one player didn't play the position on its merits after his opponent started crying.

That is untrue and the game was played on its merits as I explained in my post to Jenni above.

Kerry Stead
16-03-2006, 12:24 PM
The directiuon that the thread has headed has got me thinking ...
Are there any other sports/games where you can finish tied for 33rd and recieve a prize of $300 (or roughly 6x entry)?
None immediately spring to mind ...

Rincewind
16-03-2006, 12:36 PM
The directiuon that the thread has headed has got me thinking ...
Are there any other sports/games where you can finish tied for 33rd and recieve a prize of $300 (or roughly 6x entry)?
None immediately spring to mind ...

This is true and may have contributed to the issue. Had from the pairings it been obvious that the game was a money game then perhaps the arbiters would have intervened. The fact it was buried half way down the table means it might have slipped by. Of course, this is supposition. Also possible is they just don't have a policy of avoiding sibling pairing in the final round.

jase
16-03-2006, 01:07 PM
That is a lie and the game was played on its merits as I explained in my post to Jenni above.

You explained that your opponent's tears affected you emotionally. That would seem to confirm Shaun's statement, not contradict it.

Perhaps you are asserting that emotions have nothing to do with how you handle a chess position? Now THAT is a lie ;)

Rincewind
16-03-2006, 01:22 PM
You explained that your opponent's tears affected you emotionally. That would seem to confirm Shaun's statement, not contradict it.

Alternatively, you are asserting that emotions have nothing to do with how you handle a chess position. Now THAT is a lie.

No one can completely divorce their emotions from the decision making process. I really don't care what you think about me. The more serious part of Shaun's comment (particular in a subsequent comment by 442) was that the tears were a ploy to secure a draw. At no time was James interested in a draw and considered the draw only after my offer and for some time too.

I did play on diligently after the incident occurred and only offered a draw after stuffing up the position sufficiently to have lost any previous advantage I may have had. If I had had played the strongest line I probably would have won but honestly the way I was playing at that time even that was very much in doubt.

Gattaca
16-03-2006, 01:43 PM
2. Guy West, playing Max Fuller, last round of an event at the Shore Inn. A tidy cheque awaited the winner, whilst a draw would be practically useless to both of them. Guy suggested some 'insurance' - whereby both players strive their best to win, steering clear of passive or drawing lines, with the winner providing a little sugar to sweeten the loss. As honourable an 'arrangement' as you're likely to see.


Hi Jason.

I just want to clarify that this insurance offer to Max wouldn't have had any bearing on the conduct of the game, as a draw was a bad result for both players regardless of any such arrangement. Both players had to play for a win with or without the arrangement, so it wasn't an attempt to get Max to avoid drawish lines, which was never going to happen!

I appreciate that you said it was "as honorable an arrangement as you're likely to see", but I would still like to draw a clear distinction between an illegal deal that influences the actual conduct or result of the game and an insurance bet to slightly ameliorate the pain of the loser, which such a game is almost always going to produce.

The concept of an insurance bet against yourself is quite well known. In some sports like Poker where organisers often go for huge first prizes compared to other placings (for publicity reasons) the players often have 'equity' in each other to try and smooth out what they see as unfair or unrepresentative fluctuations in remuneration. They still try their best to win, but they are not left completely empty handed if they finish one place below the prizes...

Soon there is going to be a poker tournament between 5 of the best players in the world with an $80 million winner takes all prize. A big publicity stunt, and the players would have to be mad gamblers not to take insurance. Imagine if in the final head to head match up someone was all-in with a pat flush on the flop and the other player called with one paired card only to draw a miracle full house. The runner up gets nothing and the winner gets $80 million.

The ethical standard for insurance bets should be that they don't give any incentive to vary your normal play or 'cook' the result.

[para referring to specific case deleted - mod]

Jason, your point is a good one though. Organisers should perhaps be given discretion to slightly modify Swiss pairings (when it wouldn't create a huge anomaly) to avoid such last round pairings. The difficulty with discretionary powers though is that it's hard to know where to draw the line, as you could make arbitrary cases for not pairing good friends against each other or not pairing two people from the same ethnic group, or whatever.

[rest of post is quoted on bookmakers and betting thread -mod]

jase
16-03-2006, 01:43 PM
At no time was James interested in a draw and considered the draw only after my offer and for some time too.

Now you claim to know the thoughts of the young fella? Keep digging Barry.

four four two
16-03-2006, 01:44 PM
Let me clarify my postion...I wasnt trying to imply that the junior involved purposely cried so as to get a draw. The point I was trying to get across is that adult players should treat their junior opponents the same way as they do older competitors.

If an adult player senses that a junior is going to take a loss badly they shouldnt go easy on them just because they are a junior.
Losing is part of competition,if you want to avoid losing simply dont play competition chess. I sometimes wonder whether some of the juniors of today feel alot of pressure to succeed...its a pity if they do.

They should be enjoying their tournament chess,whether they win ,lose or draw. The value of participating should be reinforced to all novice tournament players,whether they are juniors or not. The emphasis that winning is the only form of improvement shouldnt be encouraged,because it will only lead to disappointment.

jenni
16-03-2006, 01:48 PM
No one can completely divorce their emotions from the decision making process. I really don't care what you think about me. The more serious part of Shaun's comment (particular in a subsequent comment by 442) was that the tears were a ploy to secure a draw. At no time was James interested in a draw and considered the draw only after my offer and for some time too.

I did play on diligently after the incident occurred and only offered a draw after stuffing up the position sufficiently to have lost any previous advantage I may have had. If I had had played the strongest line I probably would have won but honestly the way I was playing at that time even that was very much in doubt.
What I think this shows is how easy it is to jump to conclusions. You see someone in tears after a move, you see a draw at the end of the game you jump to a certain conclusion. The same could be true in Sally and Derek's game. I have lost track of the number of times Shannon has beaten Gareth or Catherine Lip beat Michael, or Angela has had a good result over Ray. Lots of pressure in playing a sibling.

Very easy to look at the raw result and then jump to a conclusion.

What bemuses me is why Mischa felt it necessary to make a public accusation. I really think the Bulletin Board has sunk to a new low when accusations are made about an 11 year old and a 14 year old, who don't even post here and can't defend themselves.

Rincewind
16-03-2006, 01:51 PM
Now you claim to know the thoughts of the young fella? Keep digging Barry.

Don't be an idiot Jase. As is the custom I discussed the game afterwards with James. The fact that he did not offer a draw and only took my draw after some thought should be evidence enough that the tears were not affected for that purpose.

I actually thought my position was a little better than it was but owing to my lack of confidence and health I was willing to give that up for half a point. James considered the position as much more equal and he convinced me of that in the subsequent post mortem. Further evidence (if any was needed) of my poor form at the time.


The differences between this situation and the other is that James and I are not related and money was not riding on the game.

The situation I feel was one one of the arbiters having let down [name deleted]. The pairings should have been adjusted to protect them from suspicion.

Rincewind
16-03-2006, 01:55 PM
What I think this shows is how easy it is to jump to conclusions. You see someone in tears after a move, you see a draw at the end of the game you jump to a certain conclusion. The same could be true in Sally and Derek's game. I have lost track of the number of times Shannon has beaten Gareth or Catherine Lip beat Michael, or Angela has had a good result over Ray. Lots of pressure in playing a sibling.

Very easy to look at the raw result and then jump to a conclusion.

What bemuses me is why Mischa felt it necessary to make a public accusation. I really think the Bulletin Board has sunk to a new low when accusations are made about an 11 year old and a 14 year old, who don't even post here and can't defend themselves.

Yes I agree and this is the third time that I say that I believe the arbiters let down the players in this case. A policy of avoiding sibling pairings in the final round when prizes or titles are in the balance should widely employed. The middle pairings in a monster swiss as was the case here an alternative pairing should have been readily available had the issue been detected. But first someone would have to look for it.

WhiteElephant
16-03-2006, 02:04 PM
Yes I agree and this is the third time that I say that I believe the arbiters let down the players in this case. A policy of avoiding sibling pairings in the final round when prizes or titles are in the balance should widely employed. The middle pairings in a monster swiss as was the case here an alternative pairing should have been readily available had the issue been detected. But first someone would have to look for it.

But if arbiters start fiddling with draws, can't it lead to one of the siblings being repaired with someone significantly higher or lower rated and unfairly affect the result? There won't always be a similarly rated pairing available.

Rincewind
16-03-2006, 02:07 PM
Let me clarify my postion...I wasnt trying to imply that the junior involved purposely cried so as to get a draw. The point I was trying to get across is that adult players should treat their junior opponents the same way as they do older competitors.

If an adult player senses that a junior is going to take a loss badly they shouldnt go easy on them just because they are a junior.
Losing is part of competition,if you want to avoid losing simply dont play competition chess. I sometimes wonder whether some of the juniors of today feel alot of pressure to succeed...its a pity if they do.

They should be enjoying their tournament chess,whether they win ,lose or draw. The value of participating should be reinforced to all novice tournament players,whether they are juniors or not. The emphasis that winning is the only form of improvement shouldnt be encouraged,because it will only lead to disappointment.

I agree with your sentiment and note that I did in fact play on from that point a diligently as I was able owing to other mitigating factors.

Juniors playing in adult competitions need to conduct themselves as adults however the fact remains that they are young children and not always as in control of their emotions as adults (usually) are.

Rincewind
16-03-2006, 02:17 PM
Also where do you stop?

I think immediate family is a reasonable factor. Siblings, parents/children. I would also consider that coach/student pairings should be avoided in the same circumstances.

Friendships are shifting sands and too hard to provide a uniformly applicable policy against.

Ian Rout
16-03-2006, 02:21 PM
I am not enthusiastic about altering pairings in these circumstances, or most others. For one thing anybody who has siblings would be aware that the risk of them running dead against each other is minimal; trying too hard is a greater risk. Deals between friends are much more likely.

More importantly, though, as I have pointed out in other threads the Swiss pairing rules contain a balance which is disturbed if arbiters decide to make up new criteria. By definition changing one pairing involves changing at least one other which means at least four people are affected. In practice it's likely that some players in the score group will have played so the rearrangements will be more widespread. It's almost certain that somebody in line for a prize will get a much easier or harder game.

If it is done to be done it should be decided in advance (Swiss Perfect allows it to be implemented automatically), not on a whim. In this case the arbiters can't win; if they did decide to change the pairings, allowing a player to avoid an opponent 300+ points higher with presumably a good knowledge of her style and weaknesses, they could be criticised for that too.

Garvinator
16-03-2006, 02:22 PM
All things could happen but I believe in this case owing to the number of possible pairings a reasonable re-pairing would have been available. Perhaps someone with some manual Swiss pairing experience could confirm or deny this.
yes it is possible to do and quite easily done and no manual repairing is required.

At the start of the tournament, there is an option to bar certain pairings. For those who are familiar with swiss perfect, but not familiar with this option, it is located in the pairing section under tournament options.

What can be done is that the arbiter can choose to bar certain pairings at the start of the tournament (at any point in the tournament in fact).

Therefore, when it gets to the last round of the tournament and the arbiter hits the pair button in front of a few ppl, up pops the draw. The arbiter doesnt have to sit there and re pair players in front of a crowd.

pax
16-03-2006, 02:29 PM
But it is getting back to manual interventions - you really can't say what the consequences will be. There was a huge fuss last year at a NSW tournament, where Lee was pushed into changing a pairing to avoid 2 siblings playing. The people who ended up having their pairings changed to accommodate this, were very unhappy as they felt they got much harder pairings as a result.

If certain pairings are to be barred, this should be made known ahead of time (e.g siblings will not be paired in the last round).

It is very poor to decide on spec *after viewing the pairing* that it should be changed (unless there is a clearly demonstrable fault with the pairing). It is very important for arbiters to stand up to the pressure to change the draw after it has been released.

In my experience, 'friends' are more likely to fix a result (more likely a soft draw than a total throw) than siblings - the rivalry within families can make such games quite competitive.

Carl Gorka
16-03-2006, 02:36 PM
If certain pairings are to be barred, this should be made known ahead of time (e.g siblings will not be paired in the last round).

It is very poor to decide on spec *after viewing the pairing* that it should be changed (unless there is a clearly demonstrable fault with the pairing). It is very important for arbiters to stand up to the pressure to change the draw after it has been released.

In my experience, 'friends' are more likely to fix a result (more likely a soft draw than a total throw) than siblings - the rivalry within families can make such games quite competitive.

I don't think pairings should be altered either. The problem is not with the arbiters, but with the players. In England arbiters tend to do all they can to avoid players from the same club/family etc playing, but often it's just not possible.

And most of the time it isn't a problem. I mean if 2 guys are playing on a Saturday night and have a quick draw, by prior arrangement or not, nobody blinks an eyelid, although technically it may be wrong. Once in a while something suspicious comes up but it's then time to educate the players, not give grief to the arbiters.

Rincewind
16-03-2006, 02:41 PM
If certain pairings are to be barred, this should be made known ahead of time (e.g siblings will not be paired in the last round).

It is very poor to decide on spec *after viewing the pairing* that it should be changed (unless there is a clearly demonstrable fault with the pairing). It is very important for arbiters to stand up to the pressure to change the draw after it has been released.

In my experience, 'friends' are more likely to fix a result (more likely a soft draw than a total throw) than siblings - the rivalry within families can make such games quite competitive.

Yes, I agree with most of what you say here. I think there should be a policy and if pairing software allows this option to be implemented at the time of the first pairing (and gg indicated) then so much the better.

I am also against manual changing of pairings where possible and so was feeling some internal conflict over this discrepancy.

dunwannapost
16-03-2006, 02:42 PM
I have lost track of the number of times Shannon has beaten Gareth or Catherine Lip beat Michael, or Angela has had a good result over Ray. Lots of pressure in playing a sibling.
I havent, it is 4 times - the last 4 games we played.

There is a clear difference in psychology when playing a sibling. Just because [someone] might have not played his best should not be interpreted as "throwing" the game.

jenni
16-03-2006, 02:43 PM
- the rivalry within families can make such games quite competitive.
Absolutely - Shannon and Gareth used to fight each other until they only had a king apiece before they would consent to a draw. :D

Garvinator
16-03-2006, 02:45 PM
Absolutely - Shannon and Gareth used to fight each other until they only had a king apiece before they would consent to a draw. :D
and they still wanted to argue about it;) :cool:

jenni
16-03-2006, 02:49 PM
and they still wanted to argue about it;) :cool:

:lol:

WhiteElephant
16-03-2006, 02:55 PM
When I was about 14, a friend and I tried to win the best game prize at Doeberl so we found some GM game in a book about 5 mins before our tournament game. Because we didn't have enough time, we tried to memorise it as best we could, then every few moves, one of us would forget the next move and run to the hotel room to check the book.

:) :) :)

The problem was, at one point, one of us played the wrong move, which led to another wrong move and so on, until we had about 5 pieces en prise at the same time. Eventually we realised we were screwed and had no hope of returning to the original game so we just started taking all the pieces on offer and somehow finished the game off. It's hilarious now that I think back on it, but I never tried that again!

Ian Rout
16-03-2006, 03:04 PM
However as I said earlier our experience was that we solved one problem and created another, as not having to play your sibling often gave an advantage.
Probably a good thing it was abandoned considering the consequences for ACT events. Shannon Oliver doesn't have to play Gareth, Tamzin doesn't have to play either, Miona Ikeda avoids Junta, Michael Reading avoids Jeremy, and Emma Guo doesn't play Sherab.

And that's before we get into parent/child or married couples in open events.

Rincewind
16-03-2006, 03:05 PM
When I was about 14, a friend and I tried to win the best game prize at Doeberl so we found some GM game in a book about 5 mins before our tournament game. Because we didn't have enough time, we tried to memorise it as best we could, then every few moves, one of us would forget the next move and run to the hotel room to check the book.

:) :) :)

The problem was, at one point, one of us played the wrong move, which led to another wrong move and so on, until we had about 5 pieces en prise at the same time. Eventually we realised we were screwed and had no hope of returning to the original game so we just started taking all the pieces on offer and somehow finished the game off. It's hilarious now that I think back on it, but I never tried that again!

That is not something I have ever tried. If I had I doubt it is something I would willingly confess to in a public forum.


Then again perhaps plagiarism might be something you don't normally have to worry about...

I heard recently that the Law Society was going to be approaching universities for the records of students to see if they were ever disciplined for plagiarism as undergraduates. I assume so that people of poor character are prevented from joining the Society. Perhaps someone knows more about this they could provide details in a new thread.


Not that I think that an unsuccessful attempt at plagiarism at the age of 14 is indicative of any character flaw in the adult WhiteElephant.

Rincewind
16-03-2006, 03:09 PM
Probably a good thing it was abandoned considering the consequences for ACT events. Shannon Oliver doesn't have to play Gareth, Tamzin doesn't have to play either, Miona Ikeda avoids Junta, Michael Reading avoids Jeremy, and Emma Guo doesn't play Sherab.

And that's before we get into parent/child or married couples in open events.

In many cases the siblings are not close matches and so SHOULD be paired in earlier rounds if at all. Just avoiding them in the final round of swiss events would still have an impact but much less what you describe here.

WhiteElephant
16-03-2006, 03:10 PM
That is not something I have ever tried. If I had I doubt it is something I would willingly confess to in a public forum.


Then again perhaps plagiarism might be something you don't normally have to worry about...

I heard recently that the Law Society was going to be approaching universities for the records of students to see if they were ever disciplined for plagiarism as undergraduates. I assume so that people of poor character are prevented from joining the Society. Perhaps someone knows more about this they could provide details in a new thread.


Not that I think that an unsuccessful attempt at plagiarism at the age of 14 is indicative of any character flaw in the adult WhiteElephant.

I think we alll test boundaries as kids and learn from our mistakes. If you have never done anything naughty as a kid then I would say that is a sad state of affairs.

four four two
16-03-2006, 03:10 PM
People of poor character joining the Law society?:lol:
Heaven forbid that should happen...I mean what justice system would we end up with?:hmm:
Where money takes precedent over principles.;)

Rincewind
16-03-2006, 03:12 PM
I think we alll test boundaries as kids and learn from our mistakes. If you have never done anything naughty as a kid then I would say that is a sad state of affairs.

I agree and would even extend that to first year uni students, at least.

442, yes the irony is delicious. ;)

Ian Rout
16-03-2006, 03:57 PM
In many cases the siblings are not close matches and so SHOULD be paired in earlier rounds if at all. Just avoiding them in the final round of swiss events would still have an impact but much less what you describe here.
Every little bit helps and can make a difference now and then.

Largely though what you say is true, so the drawback of not pairing siblings could be seen as more cosmetic than real. On the other hand the same is true of the benefit.

I suppose if we wanted to get into the realm of real silliness we could even it up by allowing everybody who doesn't have a higher-rated sibling to nominate a pseudo-brother who they couldn't be paired with in the last round.

Rincewind
16-03-2006, 03:59 PM
I suppose if we wanted to get into the realm of real silliness we could even it up by allowing everybody who doesn't have a higher-rated sibling to nominate a pseudo-brother who they couldn't be paired with in the last round.

:clap: Can I pick the number 1 seed, just to be on the safe side. :)

jenni
16-03-2006, 04:02 PM
I havent, it is 4 times - the last 4 games we played.

.

:lol: Sounds like it still hurts. Shannon asked Gareth to do some work with her last night on some opening theory. Tony made the crack that all he was doing was helping her to beat him and a look of real anxiety crossed his face. :rolleyes:

Rhubarb
16-03-2006, 05:04 PM
[A preemptive apology to anyone expecting to see anything to do with Ballarat. I wouldn't envy any mod the task of splitting this thread, as it's already convoluted.]

First of all, I should say that I think the "gentlemen's agreement" insurance deal (in which both players strive to win), as mentioned by Jase and Gattaca, is a minor peccadillo in comparison with the whole range of ways to collude in chess.

I could name at least a dozen players who I have personally witnessed make an insurance deal in the last round. What amazes me is that none of them seem to think they have done anything wrong. Personally, I think they need re-educating. When I mention that third parties may lose money because of such a deal, they invariably say: "Oh, it would never come to that."


I appreciate that you said it was "as honorable an arrangement as you're likely to see", but I would still like to draw a clear distinction between an illegal deal that influences the actual conduct or result of the game and an insurance bet to slightly ameliorate the pain of the loser, which such a game is almost always going to produce.
Yes, but such a game won't always produce a loser. What if you fought yourselves into a dead-drawn position? Probably you would accept a draw, you say. So, what if you had an inferior endgame with no realistic chance of winning and only some chance of drawing? Do you fight tooth and nail to try to hold the game? Or do you just kind of drift, knowing that you will pick up a few hundred when you lose. And what if you were in a slightly worse position and you really needed a few hundred dollars?

Individuals who make insurance deals may say that they will still play chess to the best of their abilities - "if it's drawn, it's drawn" - and I certainly believe that Gattaca would do so, but you just know that the more widespread insurance deals become, the more dodgy results you'll get.


The concept of an insurance bet against yourself is quite well known. In some sports like Poker where organisers often go for huge first prizes compared to other placings (for publicity reasons) the players often have 'equity' in each other to try and smooth out what they see as unfair or unrepresentative fluctuations in remuneration. They still try their best to win, but they are not left completely empty handed if they finish one place below the prizes...

Soon there is going to be a poker tournament between 5 of the best players in the world with an $80 million winner takes all prize. A big publicity stunt, and the players would have to be mad gamblers not to take insurance. Imagine if in the final head to head match up someone was all-in with a pat flush on the flop and the other player called with one paired card only to draw a miracle full house. The runner up gets nothing and the winner gets $80 million. This example isn't relevant as no third party stands to lose money from such an insurance deal.


The ethical standard for insurance bets should be that they don't give any incentive to vary your normal play or 'cook' the result.
Because of the possible result of a draw, the ethical standard for insurance bets in chess is that they are unethical.

PHAT
16-03-2006, 05:37 PM
[...I think the "gentlemen's agreement" insurance deal (in which both players strive to win), as mentioned by Jase and Gattaca, is a minor peccadillo in comparison with the whole range of ways to collude in chess ... the ethical standard for insurance bets in chess is that they are unethical.

Spot on. "Arrangements" that are designed to either directly or indirectly effect prize money allocation are flatout colussion to thieve. I have been asked to accept a win so that X would not win. A very disappointing attidude to have to negociate. (And no, I did not dob.)

UELleida
16-03-2006, 05:56 PM
Probably a good thing it was abandoned considering the consequences for ACT events.

Not to mention Tasmanian events :)

UELleida
16-03-2006, 05:59 PM
Shannon still has not forgiven a certain ACT boy, who threw a game in the last round to a South Australian girl in the Australian Junior Lightning Championships in 2001. I think he was rather taken with her charms and didn't care whether he won or not. Unfortunately that point made a huge difference in titles and any number of girls (including the girl's sister), were rather upset.

What a sucker! The other girls know the score :)

Rhubarb
16-03-2006, 06:07 PM
Spot on. "Arrangements" that are designed to either directly or indirectly effect prize money allocation are flatout colussion to thieve. I don't think you've made much effort to either quote me in a meaningful fashion or understand what I was saying. If it wasn't for the possible result of a draw in chess I would have no problem with two opponents making a last-round insurance deal with each other. Without a possible draw it would be a closed system and the players could split the money up however the hell they wanted for all I (or anyone else) would care.

To reiterate, the insurance deal where both players try their hardest to win is the most minor of all sins on the collusion scale.


I have been asked to accept a win so that X would not win. A very disappointing attidude to have to negociate. (And no, I did not dob.)Perhaps you could clarify. You have been asked to accept a win? wtf?

PHAT
16-03-2006, 06:27 PM
To reiterate, the insurance deal where both players try their hardest to win is the most minor of all sins on the collusion scale.

An I was refering to the the case where one of them must win or both go down the gurgler. ( I do read ;) )


Perhaps you could clarify. You have been asked to accept a win? wtf?Accepting the win from Y would have seen me beat X ..... Y hates X. So, with that offer having been made to me I felt (in myself) that I had to lose even when there was a 1% chance that I could have won. I lost.

arosar
16-03-2006, 06:34 PM
I tell you something about unethical offers. This one took place just 2 moves from the finish of a game. The scene was Adelaide '04, Aus Ch, minor division.

Seeing he was going to be mated in two, this highly prominent player offers his opponent $50 to accept a draw. The opponent turns around and says, "we could talk business mate, but how about raising it to $100?" The first player declines and loses.

AR

Gattaca
16-03-2006, 07:13 PM
First of all, I should say that I think the "gentlemen's agreement" insurance deal (in which both players strive to win), as mentioned by Jase and Gattaca, is a minor peccadillo in comparison with the whole range of ways to collude in chess.

I could name at least a dozen players who I have personally witnessed make an insurance deal in the last round. What amazes me is that none of them seem to think they have done anything wrong. Personally, I think they need re-educating. When I mention that third parties may lose money because of such a deal, they invariably say: "Oh, it would never come to that."

Yes, but such a game won't always produce a loser. What if you fought yourselves into a dead-drawn position? Probably you would accept a draw, you say. So, what if you had an inferior endgame with no realistic chance of winning and only some chance of drawing? Do you fight tooth and nail to try to hold the game? Or do you just kind of drift, knowing that you will pick up a few hundred when you lose. And what if you were in a slightly worse position and you really needed a few hundred dollars?

Individuals who make insurance deals may say that they will still play chess to the best of their abilities - "if it's drawn, it's drawn" - and I certainly believe that Gattaca would do so, but you just know that the more widespread insurance deals become, the more dodgy results you'll get.

Because of the possible result of a draw, the ethical standard for insurance bets in chess is that they are unethical.

Yes, on reflection you're right Greg.

Chess is different from sports with no draws. Insurance deals in chess could in some cases rely on the integrity of the players not to affect the result and as such are unethical.

I hadn't thought of the scenario you mentioned where you are defending a difficult ending (maybe like your Rook versus their Rook, Bishop pawn and Rook pawn on the same side) and you have a small financial incentive to lose rather than fight hard for the useless draw. Even if it was only subconscious, it is an undesirable situation.

Fortunately that was a one off a long time ago and I haven't offered insurance since and certainly wouldn't again after the scenario you outlined. It's definitely unethical to create a situation where a deal could negatively affect anyone else's prizemoney and that certainly wasn't my intention.

I'd love to run a book on a Championship again, if only because it presents delicious opportunities to annoy egotistical chessplayers by having their odds longer than they think are deserved :P Apart from being banned by the ACF I'd probably get done for not having a bookmakers license though. We live in over regulated times.

If I become dictator of Australia the first thing I'll do is free up the skies and let anyone with any kind of flying machine take to the air. There's too much congestion on our roads... Sure, people would die, but they'd die with their spirits soaring, high above the traffic snarl. Not nice for their relatives or the people who have to scrape their gizzards off the high voltage power lines, but what freedom comes without sacrifice?

Anyway, I digress...

Libby
16-03-2006, 07:18 PM
Sorry Barry, if you were running our events you would understand how impractical & difficult it would be not to pair families like the Olivers & Ikedas. As they have often circulated in similar sections of the draw it completely screws the draw and outcomes for several players in the tournament, it doesn't just affect one pair. We don't "engineer" our pairings. Visiting arbiters may choose to do so, in their independant role, but we don't. We use Swiss Perfect and rely on the pairings created. We don't "fiddle" because we use voluntary arbiters and we are mostly parents and as soon as we "engineer" a draw we are open to many accusations.

Kayleigh played at Tuggeranong (adults, not ACTJCL) Club for an extended period where (in a realtively small field) three father-son pairings were "barred." The effect was a gross distortion of the draw

If I chose to cite an alternative scenario it was no less valid than the original choice to "air" the dubious remarks directed towards Sally & Derek.

I also don't see how - even assuming Sally & Derek "cooked" a result - that is any more contentious than the 5 min draws which occur routinely in chess to secure prizes. When "x" secures a draw for their own first place, they may well elevate "y" who squeezes "z" out of contention. And "z" has no say in all of this because they are playing "q" who plays the game on it's merits.

Although siblings look more "obvious" I suggest as much or more is determined between friends and how do you police that?

My children have played each other (in the past when there was some vague prospect of a contest) with great acrimony & animosity and both wanted to win. I was tempted to interfere with the draw in the very last such outing a few years ago as it happened in a final round. But what happens? Do both girls play easier opponents and potentially I have "rigged" an outcome to the benefit of both? And what about the "easier" opponent I force into a pairing with them? Maybe they were in line for a different prize and I have generated a much tougher contest for them than perhaps their direct competitor for that prize?

It seems to me you have come to the same conclusion over this as our last disagreement. That the fault is in the system or with the administrators who are letting everyone down but no fault lies with those who are making "accusations" or "insinuations" that would have them absolutely foaming at the mouth if they were directed the other way.

I choose to believe the ACT siblings I have seen in action at our events have played their games on their merits. I think if you peruse our crosstables from our events (on our website) that is borne out by the results. If the culture elsewhere is not promoting the same behaviour then that is the problem and not the pairing system.

Rincewind
16-03-2006, 07:19 PM
Sorry Barry, if you were running our events you would understand how impractical & difficult it would be not to pair families like the Olivers & Ikedas. As they have often circulated in similar sections of the draw it completely screws the draw and outcomes for several players in the tournament, it doesn't just affect one pair. We don't "engineer" our pairings. Visiting arbiters may choose to do so, in their independant role, but we don't. We use Swiss Perfect and rely on the pairings created. We don't "fiddle" because we use voluntary arbiters and we are mostly parents and as soon as we "engineer" a draw we are open to many accusations.

Kayleigh played at Tuggeranong (adults, not ACTJCL) Club for an extended period where (in a realtively small field) three father-son pairings were "barred." The effect was a gross distortion of the draw

If I chose to cite an alternative scenario it was no less valid than the original choice to "air" the dubious remarks directed towards Sally & Derek.

I also don't see how - even assuming Sally & Derek "cooked" a result - that is any more contentious than the 5 min draws which occur routinely in chess to secure prizes. When "x"


Perhaps you don't understand my position. I am only talking about avoiding sibling pairings in the final round and using the software to do this automatically. This means sibling pairing can still occur in any other round and by utilising a feature of the software no manual "cooking" is required. It may not be the way things are done in the ACT I still believe it is a useful suggestion and maybe there are some small improvements possible to the way things are done in the ACT. Hard to believe I know but entertain the thought for a minute.

As for this particular incident at Ballarat, I am only interested in it so far as it is an example of the sort of speculation that can occur when sibling pairing are permitted and a +300 rating point upset affects prizemoney allocation. As for comments on the truth or otherwise, I'll leave that to people who were there. But reiterate that I think the arbiters could help by removing the possibility of speculation all together.

Lucena
16-03-2006, 07:19 PM
Perhaps you could clarify. You have been asked to accept a win? wtf?

Don't laugh. I was offered a win once and demanded a real game of chess. I certainly got what I asked for - I ended up getting smashed:owned:. And no, I am not going to go into more details or name names.

Rincewind
16-03-2006, 07:30 PM
But wait there's more...


secures a draw for their own first place, they may well elevate "y" who squeezes "z" out of contention. And "z" has no say in all of this because they are playing "q" who plays the game on it's merits.

Although siblings look more "obvious" I suggest as much or more is determined between friends and how do you police that?

My children have played each other (in the past when there was some vague prospect of a contest) with great acrimony & animosity and both wanted to win. I was tempted to interfere with the draw in the very last such outing a few years ago as it happened in a final round. But what happens? Do both girls play easier opponents and potentially I have "rigged" an outcome that way. And what about the "easier" opponent I force into a pairing with them? Maybe they are in line for a different prize and I have generated a much tougher contest for them than perhaps their direct competitor for a prize?

It seems to me you have come to the same conclusion over this as our last disagreement. That the fault is in the system or with the administrators who are letting everyone down but no fault lies with those who are making "accusations" or "insinuations" that would have them absolutely foaming at the mouth if they were directed the other way.

I choose to believe the ACT siblings I have seen in action at our events have played their games on their merits. I think if you peruse our crosstables from our events (on our website) that is borne out by the results. If the culture elsewhere is not promoting the same behaviour then that is the problem and not the pairing system.

Libby, the one foaming at the mouth is you. I'm interested in possible improvements to the status quo and you seem to be defending the ACT status quo. If you think there is no opportunity for improvement then you are just being a road block to change. I believe there is always a opportunity to improve and will continue to question how things are done. If you don't like that then I'm afraid that's tough.

You obviously don't like the style of some of the posters here. That's life if you want to report a post to the moderators please do so otherwise disagree with them on a thread. I'm not interested in discussing the truth or otherwise of the alleged collusion. I'm interested in looking for ways to stop it happennig again.

I don't know them at all well but from what I've seen [names deleted] seem to be good kids. I regret that the pairing has left them open to speculation. I'll let you judge the comments from people who were present yourself. As I wasn't there that's all I will say.

Libby
16-03-2006, 07:38 PM
Perhaps you don't understand my position.

I know. It's always so helpful to have you point out what a doofus I am ;)


I am only talking about avoiding sibling pairings in the final round and using the software to do this automatically.

Golly - I even know how to do this :) In small fields - such as we are often talking about for our more elite activities - the impact of a "fixed" family result can be just as possible & predictable no matter when the match takes place. Especially in our Women & Girls events for example - 3 Olivers compete (too scary I know :lol: ) but if they wanted to fix an outcome they could go a long way towards achieving it.

Not to mention - esp in small fields - the impact of pairing two of your higher seeds in an earlier round. Do we give them a bonus point or accelerate them afterwards if they lose? How do we ensure, in a small event, it doesn't give them a free ride through the bottom half?


It may not be the way things are done in the ACT I still believe it is a useful suggestion and maybe there are some small improvements possible to the way things are done in the ACT. Hard to believe I know but entertain the thought for a minute.

No. I prefer to say it's easy to imagine we can improve things in the ACT. That's why we experiment with ideas, programs and formats. When we spruike, it's because an idea has worked well for us and we are trying to share. Occasionally we make suggestions about what hasn't worked for us. Instead of reading it all as shameless boasting you could try occasionally to exercise reasonable doubt over the motives :owned:

Libby
16-03-2006, 07:44 PM
But wait there's more...

Wasn't intended to be. I managed to unwittingly post mid-thought :rolleyes: Have now deleted a post for the first time.

Rincewind
16-03-2006, 07:47 PM
Golly - I even know how to do this :) In small fields - such as we are often talking about for our more elite activities - the impact of a "fixed" family result can be just as possible & predictable no matter when the match takes place. Especially in our Women & Girls events for example - 3 Olivers compete (too scary I know :lol: ) but if they wanted to fix an outcome they could go a long way towards achieving it.

Not to mention - esp in small fields - the impact of pairing two of your higher seeds in an earlier round. Do we give them a bonus point or accelerate them afterwards if they lose? How do we ensure, in a small event, it doesn't give them a free ride through the bottom half?

Well perhaps you do have some specific tournament for which the idea has problems. However this sounds like the exception rather than the rule and as larger prizemoneys are at stake in the bigger fields there is probably an argument of limited point to the exercise anyway.

However, in large swisses as of occur on weekenders when there is plenty of room to move in the field, do you see anything wrong with the idea?

Do you think avoiding the speculation by a simply mitigation a useful exercise?


No. I prefer to say it's easy to imagine we can improve things in the ACT. That's why we experiment with ideas, programs and formats. When we spruike, it's because an idea has worked well for us and we are trying to share. Occasionally we make suggestions about what hasn't worked for us. Instead of reading it all as shameless boasting you could try occasionally to exercise reasonable doubt over the motives :owned:

Sometimes you offer useful ideas but often it is just boasting.

Rincewind
16-03-2006, 07:48 PM
Have now deleted a post for the first time.

There is a first time for everything. Now try accepting come constructive criticism with "that is an interesting idea, we'll take it on board and discuss it at our next meeting".

Libby
16-03-2006, 08:08 PM
Well perhaps you do have some specific tournament for which the idea has problems. However this sounds like the exception rather than the rule and as larger prizemoneys are at stake in the bigger fields there is probably an argument of limited point to the exercise anyway.

All of my remarks were in the context of the difficulties the concept presents for our activities. We remain hands-off with the draw for the reasons I have outlined before. Other arbiters and organisers are free to choose.


However, in large swisses as of occur on weekenders when there is plenty of room to move in the field, do you see anything wrong with the idea?

Personal opinion - I don't see the need. Nor do I think it addresses the number of potentially rigged results and prize outcomes I've suggested (and you've not responded to) between friends or between those who can secure prizes for themselves at the expense of a legitimate prizewinner playing the game on it's merits. I see this kind of problem frequently at events.


Do you think avoiding the speculation by a simply mitigation a useful exercise?

I'd prefer not to have launched the speculation and we haven't suffered from it in my experience when the scenario has arisen in events over many years. It suggests a lack of integrity in this sport and that seems like a bigger issue.


Sometimes you offer useful ideas but often it is just boasting. Well lucky there are so many ideas being shared full stop isn't it? Yes, it's boastful to speak of successes. Sometimes it's tricky not to if you are proud of programs & achievements. I like to share ideas. I am "ideas-oriented" and frustrated by chess' "place." I want to take it somewhere. Not FIDE & the ACF or some grand plan. I want to take it forward in my community and I want to see that happening, or know what's already happening elsewhere. But that's not the stuff getting aired here or occupying the best of our available time.

WhiteElephant
16-03-2006, 08:14 PM
Sometimes you offer useful ideas but often it is just boasting.

I can't recall ever reading one of Libby's posts and thinking that. I think other states can learn from the programs and systems in place in Canberra.

Rincewind
16-03-2006, 08:23 PM
All of my remarks were in the context of the difficulties the concept presents for our activities. We remain hands-off with the draw for the reasons I have outlined before. Other arbiters and organisers are free to choose.

You don't need to be hands on to implement my suggestion. The software still does the pairing automatically.


Personal opinion - I don't see the need. Nor do I think it addresses the number of potentially rigged results and prize outcomes I've suggested (and you've not responded to) between friends or between those who can secure prizes for themselves at the expense of a legitimate prizewinner playing the game on it's merits. I see this kind of problem frequently at events.

Well that is your personal opinion. However to say an idea is no good because it doesn't address issues it is not designed to address is fallacious. I never said it will remove all speculation over collusion. Also pointless is the anecdotal comments about how the Olivers, Lips, Smiths, etc fight so hard in games between siblings. It could well be true but really you fail to see the point. The collusion is not so much the issue as the speculation over collusion this could happen whether there was any collusion or not.


I'd prefer not to have launched the speculation and we haven't suffered from it in my experience when the scenario has arisen in events over many years. It suggests a lack of integrity in this sport and that seems like a bigger issue.

So you say but I don't see that has anything to do with me.


Well lucky there are so many ideas being shared full stop isn't it? Yes, it's boastful to speak of successes. Sometimes it's tricky not to if you are proud of programs & achievements. I like to share ideas. I am "ideas-oriented" and frustrated by chess' "place." I want to take it somewhere. Not FIDE & the ACF or some grand plan. I want to take it forward in my community and I want to see that happening, or know what's already happening elsewhere. But that's not the stuff getting aired here or occupying the best of our available time.

Nothing wrong with the occasional boast.

Rincewind
16-03-2006, 08:26 PM
I can't recall ever reading one of Libby's posts and thinking that. I think other states can learn from the programs and systems in place in Canberra.

Yes and do you think the reverse is also true or has Canberra acheived a zenith which the other states can only try to emulate?

jenni
16-03-2006, 08:28 PM
Yes and do you think the reverse is also true or has Canberra acheived a zenith which the other states can only try to emulate?

Sounds good to me. :lol:

Rincewind
16-03-2006, 08:38 PM
I don't think it's possible to achieve a zenith, since everything can be improved on. I am also happy to hear about the achievements made in other states.

From my experince Charles Z seems to think it is a worthwhile exercise to avoid sibling being paired in the last round of a tournament. Sucha policy would have avoided the possibility of speculation such as that which occur after the Ballarat Begonia. What do you think of that idea?

Libby
16-03-2006, 08:38 PM
You don't need to be hands on to implement my suggestion. The software still does the pairing automatically.

I know - but you need to ask it to.


Well that is your personal opinion. However to say an idea is no good because it doesn't address issues it is not designed to address is fallacious. I never said it will remove all speculation over collusion. Also pointless is the anecdotal comments about how the Olivers, Lips, Smiths, etc fight so hard in games between siblings. It could well be true but really you fail to see the point. The collusion is not so much the issue as the speculation over collusion this could happen whether there was any collusion or not.

Barry I have said people are free to implement what they feel is necessary to their event. I don't personally think a greater good is achieved by manipulating a draw to prevent people thinking the worst of people. Particularly without addressing the Board 1 & 2 draws that happen routinely in events - no names or finger pointing required - to secure prizes. Somehow the significance of someone perhaps thinking some siblings might have shaken hands on a possibly false result doesn't resonate with me as much as the routine draws at various points in the draw in the final round, without playing and considering the position, just with a couple of pawn pushes.


So you say but I don't see that has anything to do with me. It's not all about you Barry. Did I say it was? It was an observation.


Nothing wrong with the occasional boast.
I feel so validated now ...

Libby
16-03-2006, 08:46 PM
I don't think it's possible to achieve a zenith, since everything can be improved on. I am also happy to hear about the achievements made in other states.

Careful. Could be read as incitement to spruike ;)

It would obviously be more acceptable if I just chose to talk about my daughter's every good game :hmm:

Rincewind
16-03-2006, 08:48 PM
I know - but you need to ask it to.

You also need to ask it to pair at all. I don't see that asking Swiss Perfect to pair in a particular way invalidates a "hands-off" policy.


Barry I have said people are free to implement what they feel is necessary to their event. I don't personally think a greater good is achieved by manipulating a draw to prevent people thinking the worst of people. Particularly without addressing the Board 1 & 2 draws that happen routinely in events - no names or finger pointing required - to secure prizes. Somehow the significance of someone perhaps thinking some siblings might have shaken hands on a possibly false result doesn't resonate with me as much as the routine draws at various points in the draw in the final round, without playing and considering the position, just with a couple of pawn pushes.

I guess we just have a philosophically different position. Personally agreeing to draws I find less of an issue that 300+ point upsets which allow prize money for one sibling when the other had no chance of winning. It just isn't competitive and the winning player is jumping a full point in the last round rather than both player advancing half a point. Player who wind up 1/2 a point behind are going to felt more hardly done by I think.


It's not all about you Barry. Did I say it was? It was an observation.

Sorry it was in a post which seemed to be a reply to one of mine so I naturally assumed...

Was this last comment directed at me?


I feel so validated now ...

Now I feel dirty.

Libby
16-03-2006, 09:08 PM
You also need to ask it to pair at all. I don't see that asking Swiss Perfect to pair in a particular way invalidates a "hands-off" policy. So how do we do it then? Do we create the pairing in a particular round to satisfy the need to ensure siblings play early? Or do we add in the criteria to remove the possibility of pairings in the final round? All require an intervention at some stage and all, as a consequence have impacts on other players and other pairings. All, under scrutiny from those who choose to look for such things, can see advantage or disadvantage created for other players in the draw and all are traced back to manipulation on one level.

We remove ourselves - as parents - from that position. Which is kind of the same thing you are arguing for in the context of amending the draw to avoid sibling pairings. That needs to be done - you suggest - to remove the possibility of people thinking the result could be "suss." We have just applied the concept at the first level of the pairing process.




I guess we just have a philosophically different position.

There's not much wrong with that.


Personally agreeing to draws I find less of an issue that 300+ point upsets which allow prize money for one sibling when the other had no chance of winning. It just isn't competitive and the winning player is jumping a full point in the last round rather than both player advancing half a point. Player who wind up 1/2 a point behind are going to felt more hardly done by I think.

This seems as invalid (using specific data) as my supposed Lip/Oliver/Smith examples. Not every sibling is 300 points ahead and not every 300 point "upset" in a junior match is suggestive of a problem. Your position either applies to all sibling pairings, or it doesn't.

You don't have an issue with agreed draws? I have a problem when prizes are secured when a game has, effectively, not been played. Tell me Sally got Derek with a 4-move-mate and I'll think it's in the same ballpark. The disadvantage to any player who misses a prize, when on form or conduct a "draw" looks very "fishy" and I'll say that player has every reason to feel gypped. Chess has a culture where draws are acceptable over the phone, over a drink before the game or even because the lower ranked player can't believe their luck when the offer comes. It's routine, no-one bats an eyelid but the impact down the line can be just the same as the scenario between Sally & Derek. Kayleigh has had the benefit of being offered a draw & winning money ahead of others as a consequence.


Sorry it was in a post which seemed to be a reply to one of mine so I naturally assumed...

That this meant you?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rincewind
Do you think avoiding the speculation by a simply mitigation a useful exercise?

Originally Posted by Libby
I'd prefer not to have launched the speculation and we haven't suffered from it in my experience when the scenario has arisen in events over many years. It suggests a lack of integrity in this sport and that seems like a bigger issue.

Rincewind
16-03-2006, 09:24 PM
So how do we do it then? Do we create the pairing in a particular round to satisfy the need to ensure siblings play early? Or do we add in the criteria to remove the possibility of pairings in the final round? All require an intervention at some stage and all, as a consequence have impacts on other players and other pairings. All, under scrutiny from those who choose to look for such things, can see advantage or disadvantage created for other players in the draw and all are traced back to manipulation on one level.

I think the second is the simplest. I believe the only intervetion is to have the sibling information entered in the system and then enable the option before the last round pairing is performed.


We remove ourselves - as parents - from that position. Which is kind of the same thing you are arguing for in the context of amending the draw to avoid sibling pairings. That needs to be done - you suggest - to remove the possibility of people thinking the result could be "suss." We have just applied the concept at the first level of the pairing process.

Sorry is this supposed to be an independent paragraph? I'm having trouble following what your point is.


This seems as invalid (using specific data) as my supposed Lip/Oliver/Smith examples. Not every sibling is 300 points ahead and not every 300 point "upset" in a junior match is suggestive of a problem. Your position either applies to all sibling pairings, or it doesn't.

You don't have an issue with agreed draws? I have a problem when prizes are secured when a game has, effectively, not been played. Tell me Sally got Derek with a 4-move-mate and I'll think it's in the same ballpark. The disadvantage to any player who misses a prize, when on form or conduct a "draw" looks very "fishy" and I'll say that player has every reason to feel gypped. Chess has a culture where draws are acceptable over the phone, over a drink before the game or even because the lower ranked player can't believe their luck when the offer comes. It's routine, no-one bats an eyelid but the impact down the line can be just the same as the scenario between Sally & Derek. Kayleigh has had the benefit of being offered a draw & winning money ahead of others as a consequence.

I don't believe it needs to apply to all sibling pairings. My 300 point upset was taken frmo the current example. Other possibe collusion scenarios are possible and are equally worth mitigating against.

I did not say I didn't not have a problem with agreed draws just less of a problem with agreed draws than people throwing games. A draw is a 1/2 point each and so there is some quid pro quo even if they are not hard fought. Also full loses, if arranged, have more victims for the reasons already supplied. My suggestion mitigates against arranged draws too though so this is not a valid problem with the idea.


That this meant you?

Yes and as I pointed out, I don't have anything to contribute to the speculation as I was not present. People will speculate either here or elsewhere believe that is unavoidable, what is avoidable are certain pairings which will be contentious when upsets occur.

Libby
16-03-2006, 09:43 PM
I think the second is the simplest. I believe the only intervetion is to have the sibling information entered in the system and then enable the option before the last round pairing is performed.

Now I'm not sure what you mean? You want us to enable the bar on sibling pairings in the final round? Because it's simplest or because it's best? Irrespective of the impact, standings, and changes created for other pairings?


Sorry is this supposed to be an independent paragraph? I'm having trouble following what your point is.
Ok - a bit clumsy. An intervention of any kind in the draw is open to exactly the same speculation and criticisms as those raised to avoid pairing of siblings. You suggest an action should be taken to prevent speculation arising. If we manually intervene in any way with the draw, with any possibility of perceived advantage (which can be found very easily by those who look for it) then we are open to such speculation ourselves. particularly when a bar on a final round pairing prevents a highly ranked player from meeting the highest ranked player. WE think this is the bigger issue for us but may not be so for others.


I don't believe it needs to apply to all sibling pairings. My 300 point upset was taken frmo the current example. Other possibe collusion scenarios are possible and are equally worth mitigating against.

There'll been an awful lot of "adjusting" required for the draw then.


I did not say I didn't not have a problem with agreed draws just less of a problem with agreed draws than people throwing games. A draw is a 1/2 point each and so there is some quid pro quo even if they are not hard fought. Also full loses, if arranged, have more victims for the reasons already supplied. My suggestion mitigates against arranged draws too though so this is not a valid problem with the idea. Sometimes you don't need a full point, sometimes only half. If Sally only needed half a point for a prize and some random person was prepared to accept it from her the outcome is the same. Players have colluded and someone gets the money. You'll have to clear up for me if it is the result itself that caused the problem (ie the win/loss) or the fact that it led to a prize? Because in different scenarios a different score can lead to the same prize outcome.


Yes and as I pointed out, I don't have anything to contribute to the speculation as I was not present. People will speculate either here or elsewhere believe that is unavoidable, what is avoidable are certain pairings which will be contentious when upsets occur.

Oakaly-doakaly. I thought it was something to do with the integrity of the game comment. Which wasn't directed at you but was the more important point I was trying to make.

Rincewind
16-03-2006, 10:08 PM
Now I'm not sure what you mean? You want us to enable the bar on sibling pairings in the final round? Because it's simplest or because it's best? Irrespective of the impact, standings, and changes created for other pairings?

Well it is a pragmatic world. To my mind it provides most of the advantages with minimal additional work.


Ok - a bit clumsy. An intervention of any kind in the draw is open to exactly the same speculation and criticisms as those raised to avoid pairing of siblings. You suggest an action should be taken to prevent speculation arising. If we manually intervene in any way with the draw, with any possibility of perceived advantage (which can be found very easily by those who look for it) then we are open to such speculation ourselves. particularly when a bar on a final round pairing prevents a highly ranked player from meeting the highest ranked player. WE think this is the bigger issue for us but may not be so for others.

If you mean speculation in the pairing process iself, if it is a published policy which is understood, there would be no speculation.


There'll been an awful lot of "adjusting" required for the draw then.

No the advantages I was talking about would flow natually from the one idea. Just preventing sibling pairings in the final round.


Sometimes you don't need a full point, sometimes only half. If Sally only needed half a point for a prize and some random person was prepared to accept it from her the outcome is the same. Players have colluded and someone gets the money. You'll have to clear up for me if it is the result itself that caused the problem (ie the win/loss) or the fact that it led to a prize? Because in different scenarios a different score can lead to the same prize outcome.

Yes and if you bar sibling pairing then the speculation around any collusion sibling pairings in the final round are all removed in one fell swoop.


Oakaly-doakaly. I thought it was something to do with the integrity of the game comment. Which wasn't directed at you but was the more important point I was trying to make.

Yes, Libby.

Libby
16-03-2006, 10:23 PM
OK - as an example. From one of our actual events this is the change to the final round. Correct pairings first and pairings (barring Oliver pairings) second. Entering this final round, Shannon is ranked first, Kayleigh second (has already played Shannon) and Tamzin third. Six boards are changed. And the impact to results is potentially significant.

It may well amend fewer, even less significant, boards in a bigger swiss but if this need to avoid speculation exists, surely it exists equally no matter what size event we are dealing with?

I think this example suggests you can be removing a "speculative" evil and replacing it with another one. No matter which way you jump someone will see fit to wonder at what you have done.

1 Tamzin Oliver vs Shannon Oliver
2 Kayleigh Smith vs Miona Ikeda
3 Lara Ong vs Emma Guo
4 Alana Chibnall vs Jennie Nicholson
5 Megan Setiabudi vs Jenni Oliver
6 Grace Huang vs Alice Kristofferson
7 Lucinda Flood vsNatalie Shadwell
8 Priyanka Gakhar vs Courtney Evans-Turner
9 Kelly Lokan vs Rebecca Davey
10 Gala Huang vs Amy Flood
11 Natalie Gowor BYE

No Name Result Name

1 Emma Guo : Shannon Oliver
2 Kayleigh Smith : Tamzin Oliver
3 Miona Ikeda : Lara Ong
4 Grace Huang : Jennie Nicholson
5 Alana Chibnall : Jenni Oliver
6 Megan Setiabudi : Alice Kristofferson
7 Lucinda Flood : Natalie Shadwell
8 Priyanka Gakhar : Courtney Evans-Turner
9 Kelly Lokan : Rebecca Davey
10 Gala Huang : Amy Flood
11 Natalie Gowor 1:0 BYE

Rincewind
17-03-2006, 12:06 AM
OK - as an example. From one of our actual events this is the change to the final round. Correct pairings first and pairings (barring Oliver pairings) second. Entering this final round, Shannon is ranked first, Kayleigh second (has already played Shannon) and Tamzin third. Six boards are changed. And the impact to results is potentially significant.

It may well amend fewer, even less significant, boards in a bigger swiss but if this need to avoid speculation exists, surely it exists equally no matter what size event we are dealing with?

I think this example suggests you can be removing a "speculative" evil and replacing it with another one. No matter which way you jump someone will see fit to wonder at what you have done.

Yes, Libby.

Libby
17-03-2006, 04:44 AM
Yes, Libby.

Thanks Baz :P

Just a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" example. I thought it was OK to acknowledge people feel differently on things?

You've asked the ACTJCL (or me) to be big enough to acknowledge/consider another way of doing things. As Jenni pointed out, we've more than acknowledged it - we've enacted it in the past. And found, due to possibilities like those in my example, it didn't work for us and that, since changing our policy, we have not had reason to doubt the integrity of the results.

So that's where I'm coming from. More simple than a conspiracy theory and actually based on real experience and not with the intention of being boastful.

bobby1972
17-03-2006, 08:42 AM
why doesn`t everyone just give the kids a break,leave them alone.

Igor_Goldenberg
17-03-2006, 09:29 AM
Any swiss tournament is a bit of lottery. Increasing number of players and/or having fewer rounds increase the role of luck. This is my feeling about open prizes.

Despite not having personal experience, I'd think this is greatly magnified for any rating group (and the lower the group, the more is left to a chance). Player A might have performance rating of 1800 and trail by half a point player B with a performance of 1300.

Given such a high influence of a pure luck of pairing, the effect of firends/relatives/siblings/etc... pails in significance.

I also heard a stories of son beating father (or vice versa) or friend beating friend resulting in both missing out on a prize (sometimes quite significant).

While fixing is possible and no doubt occurs, IMHO it is not a major influence on prize distribution, especially for rating groups in a large swiss.

Rincewind
17-03-2006, 09:52 AM
You've asked the ACTJCL (or me) to be big enough to acknowledge/consider another way of doing things. As Jenni pointed out, we've more than acknowledged it - we've enacted it in the past. And found, due to possibilities like those in my example, it didn't work for us and that, since changing our policy, we have not had reason to doubt the integrity of the results.

The problem is most of your objections are no related to the argument at all or else repeats of issues as I have already acknowledged as limiting cases where you may decide to not use the sibling pairing ban in the last round.

Yes in small fields there may be problems. Don't apply the policy in that event but be sure that it is announced beforehand so that people will know and there won't be speculation of collusion.

I still think the whole speculation on the result from Ballarat was unfortunate and owing to human nature and to the fact there were some players who may have felt slighted that their result was worthy of a prize except they were eclipsed by a interfamily upset in the last round unavoidable. The issue was not that it was reported here or how it was reported here. Although I wasn't there it seems to me the speculation here was simply reflective of the post tournament speculation at the event.

In the case of Ballarat, such speculation would be reduced if a simple policy was applied whereby pairing between immediate family members was not allowed in the final round. It may not work for small fields and the primary purpose is not to prevent collusion but to prevent speculation.

Rincewind
17-03-2006, 09:58 AM
Any swiss tournament is a bit of lottery. Increasing number of players and/or having fewer rounds increase the role of luck. This is my feeling about open prizes.

Despite not having personal experience, I'd think this is greatly magnified for any rating group (and the lower the group, the more is left to a chance). Player A might have performance rating of 1800 and trail by half a point player B with a performance of 1300.

Given such a high influence of a pure luck of pairing, the effect of firends/relatives/siblings/etc... pails in significance.

I also heard a stories of son beating father (or vice versa) or friend beating friend resulting in both missing out on a prize (sometimes quite significant).

While fixing is possible and no doubt occurs, IMHO it is not a major influence on prize distribution, especially for rating groups in a large swiss.

Igor, I believe collusion occurs much less often than it is speculated on. The primary purpose of my suggestion is to prevent the speculation not the collusion.

As you point out low rating group prizes in big swiss draws is a lottery. As one with some experience in this area I wholeheartedly agree and the figures you pluck from the air are completely realistic and I those sort of discrepancies are typical.

However, as a policy of avoiding such pairings in the last round of large swisses could be enacted easily and it would reduce the opportunity for speculation I think the exercise would be worthwhile from a cost vs benefit perspective. It does not make swiss a better system for distributing prizes to lower rating groups, it just protects players from one level of speculation.

jenni
17-03-2006, 10:19 AM
Igor, I believe collusion occurs much less often than it is speculated on. The primary purpose of my suggestion is to prevent the speculation not the collusion.


But there are so many different ways that people can collude that you are only going to stop the speculation for one tiny little segment.

All seems a bit silly and a knee-jerk reaction.

Much better to try and bring in some standards for coaches, where this sort of ethical behaviour is taught. A sort of re-engineering for the future.....

pballard
17-03-2006, 10:26 AM
Sorry if this point has already been mentioned...


I think the second is the simplest. I believe the only intervetion is to have the sibling information entered in the system and then enable the option before the last round pairing is performed.


That's fine if the siblings are in the middle of the draw, but what if they are due to meet on one of the top boards? Having them avoid each other could then seriously skew the pairings.

Count me in with the "no intervention" crowd.

Besides, there's a large amount of luck in ratings prizes anyway.

Rincewind
17-03-2006, 10:29 AM
But there are so many different ways that people can collude that you are only going to stop the speculation for one tiny little segment.

All seems a bit silly and a knee-jerk reaction.

Much better to try and bring in some standards for coaches, where this sort of ethical behaviour is taught. A sort of re-engineering for the future.....

Well you might call it knee-jerk then again I might say your position is burying your head in the sand.

I just had a quick look at the cross table. AFAICT there were four families with multiple members playing at Ballarat. The Stojics, Daltons, Potters and Yus. Only one game involved two family members playing each other. That game resulted in unfortunate speculation which could have been easily avoided without unduly perverting the draw.

Seems to me to be a small price to pay for a tangible benefit.

Yes a standard for coaches is something which is sorely needed and may prevent collusion. However, I doubt it will do much to prevent speculation which is more the issue.

jenni
17-03-2006, 10:35 AM
Sorry if this point has already been mentioned...



That's fine if the siblings are in the middle of the draw, but what if they are due to meet on one of the top boards? Having them avoid each other could then seriously skew the pairings.

Count me in with the "no intervention" crowd.

Besides, there's a large amount of luck in ratings prizes anyway.

:lol: :lol: The point has actually been mentioned a few times. But I'll forgive you for not being prepared to read all of this thread. :)

Rincewind
17-03-2006, 10:36 AM
That's fine if the siblings are in the middle of the draw, but what if they are due to meet on one of the top boards? Having them avoid each other could then seriously skew the pairings.

Yes and I guess if a skewed draw was to result then it might be an issue. In swisses like that at Ballarat, I doubt you could come up with a draw which could be considered entirely fair. Also considering the specifics of this tournament it would only have been the Stojics that would probably be in this boat but even that would have been unlikely due to the strength of the field and lack of really strong pair of siblings that are likely to dominate. In fact it is only the Songs that come to mind as likely to ever be in that situation in a big swiss field.


Count me in with the "no intervention" crowd.

Me too. Since barring certain pairings is a feature of the software I don't see my idea is one of intervention anymore than colour balancing is intervention. I'm in favour of allowing automated pairings as much as possible.


Besides, there's a large amount of luck in ratings prizes anyway.

You seem to think I am trying to prevent collusion from affecting results. As I'm and looking to prevent speculation the luck factor is not relevant.

Igor_Goldenberg
17-03-2006, 10:41 AM
Any system is imperfect mostly due to human imperfection. You can always pick out a particular case that could have been fixed if a relevant authority had bent the rules slightly.

Yet the bigger problem rise: by allowing to bend the rules (with the good intention) you allow for a situation when, due to human imperfection, the rule will be bend again, with disastrous (or just unintended) result.

But perhaps allowing the authority to bend the rules is not a good idea. In this case why don't we just change the rule altogether to fix this little imperfection. However, the close examination will reveal that changed rule might cause some other unintended consequences with worse results then original problem.

Given the low magnitude of the original problem, the best solution might be not to interfere at all.

The entire written above can be applied to a Ballarat tournament and the game between Yu siblings. It can be applied on a much broader scale to many socio - economical problems as well.

jenni
17-03-2006, 10:42 AM
However, I doubt it will do much to prevent speculation which is more the issue.

You are never going to prevent speculation and paranoia. Sometimes it will be justified, sometimes it will just be that someone doesn't like the people involved. There was a huge amount of hysteria at Doeberl last year about potential collusion for a major prize. Perhaps justified, but personalities played a part...

Rincewind
17-03-2006, 10:56 AM
Any system is imperfect mostly due to human imperfection. You can always pick out a particular case that could have been fixed if a relevant authority had bent the rules slightly.

Yet the bigger problem rise: by allowing to bend the rules (with the good intention) you allow for a situation when, due to human imperfection, the rule will be bend again, with disastrous (or just unintended) result.

But perhaps allowing the authority to bend the rules is not a good idea. In this case why don't we just change the rule altogether to fix this little imperfection. However, the close examination will reveal that changed rule might cause some other unintended consequences with worse results then original problem.

Given the low magnitude of the original problem, the best solution might be not to interfere at all.

The entire written above can be applied to a Ballarat tournament and the game between Yu siblings. It can be applied on a much broader scale to many socio - economical problems as well.

Igor, many things MIGHT be the best solution. I doubt lack of interference is the best solution in all that many occasions. Generally if there is a problem I believe it needs to be fixed as I don't subscribe to the philosophy that market forces work for the public good.

The question is the cost of the solution against the benefits. In this discussion there have been arguments that in small fields the cost exceeds the benefit. I accept this. However in many tournaments I believe the cost is minimal and the benefits tangible.

WhiteElephant
17-03-2006, 10:58 AM
Maybe we should bar the following pairings:

1) siblings
2) friends
3. roommates
4) blondes
5) people with the same kind of car
6) people with nose rings
7) people who wear Nike
etc.

I want to reitarate my position: where do you draw the line? Collusion can come from any 2 players, even from players who did not know each other before the start of the tournament. By barring a particular group, you are saying that this group is more likely to cheat, which is unfair to them and an unhealthy suspicion with which to begin a chess tournament.

Rincewind
17-03-2006, 10:58 AM
You are never going to prevent speculation and paranoia. Sometimes it will be justified, sometimes it will just be that someone doesn't like the people involved. There was a huge amount of hysteria at Doeberl last year about potential collusion for a major prize. Perhaps justified, but personalities played a part...

I never said you could prevent all speculation. But a clearly defined speculation can be prevented and would have been prevented in this case.

Rincewind
17-03-2006, 10:59 AM
Maybe we should bar the following pairings:

1) siblings
2) friends
3. roommates
4) blondes
5) people with the same kind of car
6) people with nose rings
7) people who wear Nike
etc.

I want to reitarate my position: where do you draw the line? Collusion can come from any 2 players, even from players who did not know each other before the start of the tournament. By barring a particular group, you are saying that this group is more likely to cheat, which is unfair to them and an unhealthy suspicion with which to begin a chess tournament.

White Elephant please don't raise points which have already been discussed and answered. I'm certainly not going to waste my time with such ridiculous posts in the future.

WhiteElephant
17-03-2006, 11:02 AM
White Elephant please don't raise points which have already been discussed and answered. I'm certainly not going to waste my time with such ridiculous posts in the future.

I raised it because you seem to be arguing exactly the same thing today as you did all day yesterday (and not doing a better job of convincing anyone by the way).

arosar
17-03-2006, 11:02 AM
OK, seriously, I'm just not convinced by this argument that we want to avoid speculation, no matter how miniscule, ergo avoid sibling pairings.

Let people speculate. Let them prove it. I say, assume innocence. As far as I am concerned, our expectation of sibling pairings should be no more or less than any other kind of pairing.

AR

Rincewind
17-03-2006, 11:06 AM
I raised it because you seem to be arguing exactly the same thing today as you did all day yesterday (and not doing a better job of convincing anyone by the way).

As you can only speak for your self I'll take it on board that you remain unconvinced. It certainly won't stop me replying to people who raise valid points. People such as yourself who post purely specious arguments will probably be ignored in the future.

WhiteElephant
17-03-2006, 11:16 AM
As you can only speak for your self I'll take it on board that you remain unconvinced. It certainly won't stop me replying to people who raise valid points. People such as yourself who post purely specious arguments will probably be ignored in the future.

I tried to phrase my point with a bit of humour which you clearly lack. A few others have raised the same point I have, perhaps you think that any point of view different to your is 'specious?'

jenni
17-03-2006, 11:30 AM
The suspicions come from the excuses [name deleted] made after the game, but these may have been for a number of reasons. I don't think siblings/friends/clubmates etc need to be given special treatment in the pairings and I think results should generally be taken by others as a fair reflection of the game.

Perhaps the main issue from all of this is the excuses people make for losing games. If you got beat, then take it fairly and don't make an excuse which may be blown out of proportion. Otherwise, it may be seen as collusion.

It is really really hard being beaten by a weaker sister (older or younger). I don't think Gareth use to dream up excuses - just went into a corner and contemplated suicide. :)

Igor_Goldenberg
17-03-2006, 11:56 AM
I don't subscribe to the philosophy that market forces work for the public good..

That's where we differ.


The question is the cost of the solution against the benefits. In this discussion there have been arguments that in small fields the cost exceeds the benefit. I accept this. However in many tournaments I believe the cost is minimal and the benefits tangible.

While the benefits of intervention are quite visible, the cost is often hidden and harder to estimate, as it is only fully revealed after "the solution" was implemented.

In the case of the pairing it will become fully evident when the rule "no pairing of siblings in the last round" backfires and produce undesired results which might be difficult to envisage before hand (ie siblings leading the tournament and the game between them decides the winner, etc...)

Rincewind
17-03-2006, 12:10 PM
I tried to phrase my point with a bit of humour which you clearly lack. A few others have raised the same point I have, perhaps you think that any point of view different to your is 'specious?'

Humour is a matter of opinion the following is not.

The point that friend collusion is not prevented was raised already. Yes my suggestion doesn't prevent it, it is no intended to. Room mates collusion is just a variety of friend and so offers nothing new.

The other suggestions: blondes, people with the same kind of car, people with nose rings, people who wear Nike, etc seemed to labour the point overmuch. Especially consider it had already been raised and I had answered it.

WhiteElephant
17-03-2006, 12:18 PM
Humour is a matter of opinion the following is not.

The point that friend collusion is not prevented was raised already. Yes my suggestion doesn't prevent it, it is no intended to. Room mates collusion is just a variety of friend and so offers nothing new.

The other suggestions: blondes, people with the same kind of car, people with nose rings, people who wear Nike, etc seemed to labour the point overmuch. Especially consider it had already been raised and I had answered it.

Didn't mean to be rude, sorry. I have too much time on my hands.

Kevin Bonham
19-03-2006, 02:45 PM
Moderation Notice: This discussion is now re-opened but do not make accusations against players by name or other identifying info unless you can prove them. If such accusations continue to be made the thread will be locked and offenders may be suspended.

By the way, none of those who have had posts edited in this thread did anything wrong - I just wanted to remove the existing references to specific players who don't post here in several cases. Generally posts entirely focussed on that situation haven't been brought back.

PHAT
19-03-2006, 03:00 PM
You tool. You've cut the heart out of the thread.

Who are you trying to protect? And why?

Kevin Bonham
19-03-2006, 03:04 PM
Who are you trying to protect?

A high-ranking KGB defector. We have him in a safe house nearby.

Garvinator
19-03-2006, 03:18 PM
A high-ranking KGB defector. We have him in a safe house nearby.
nearby for whom?

Rhubarb
19-03-2006, 04:40 PM
nearby for whom?Look, you obviously know nothing about intelligence work. It's an XK Red 27 technique.

Kevin Bonham
20-03-2006, 11:23 AM
OK, as there have had to be a few moderations since this thread was reopened, all specific discussion about either the recent alleged case of sibling pairing or the discussion about that incident is now banned from this thread whether names are mentioned or not - if you want to discuss the comments made on the previous thread do so in non-chess and don't mention names.

Posters have mentioned how sibling pairing issues apply in small states like the ACT and Tas. I can say that in Tasmania, the current approach is that many arbiters use SP to bar family pairings until the last 2-3 rounds of a weekender. This is done by entering family names as club names and barring pairings within the same "club". No-one here currently bars sibling pairings throughout the event. If there was evidence of collusion that would be different, however I have not seen a case of within-family collusion in a Tasmanian event for several years. The issue will be discussed again by the TCA in June and there may be a formal policy on it.

The last one I actually witnessed was within a state junior age group title that was played as a double round-robin several years ago. Name Suppressed was a player who was way too good for the rest of his age group and then some, and with four rounds to go after lunch on a given day had a picket fence and a 4.5 point lead. He asked for permission to forfeit the remaining rounds and go home, which was refused. He won three of the remaining four rounds but lost a game to his brother, a far far weaker player who had never even threatened to beat him before, thereby permitting his brother to come second. It was an obvious throw but the person running the division decided action wasn't needed and just gave him a ticking-off to discourage it from happening again.

four four two
20-03-2006, 11:27 AM
A clip around the ears with a chess board might have helped...:whistle:

Rincewind
20-03-2006, 12:00 PM
Posters have mentioned how sibling pairing issues apply in small states like the ACT and Tas. I can say that in Tasmania, the current approach is that many arbiters use SP to bar family pairings until the last 2-3 rounds of a weekender. This is done by entering family names as club names and barring pairings within the same "club". No-one here currently bars sibling pairings throughout the event.

Do you know if any effort is made to favour club pairing in the first 4-5 rounds?

Libby
20-03-2006, 12:04 PM
I think siblings are playing in the Commonwealth Games squash final and Jane Saville just beat her sister in the walk.

And we had a whole bunch of sibling pairings yesterday in our Aurtumn Weekender - 2 sets in the final round.

Nobody threw a game as far as I can work out. Fortunately, we also didn't experience the more common scenario (in my experience anyway) of tears or tantrums because the more skilled sibling was known to be far from likely to cut the weaker -and often older - sibling a break.

I think it is a massive beat up.

We did however, in the championship division, have a short agreed draw on the top board in the final round that secured prizes for both participants. Both boys received the raised eyebrow treatment and looked a little embarressed but it's hard to take further action when that is a routine practice in chess and one they will most likely observe at an event like Doeberl. And - giving them the benefit of the doubt - they draw often, had played quite a number of moves and it may well have been a drawn position so my assessment is somewhat speculative.

Fortunately they didn't squeeze out another player from prizes. That's my point about any agreed result, sibling or no, win or draw, having the potential to affect players and prizes all over the event in a way the players involved may not have considered or may not consider important themselves.

Can't see how it can be stamped out really.

arosar
20-03-2006, 12:05 PM
Of course, the concept of barring certain kinds of pairings is not new. In the Olympiad, I believe certain nations are not paired against each other.

AR

four four two
20-03-2006, 12:09 PM
Examples of nations not being paired would be ...USA vs Any Islamic Country?:hmm:

arosar
20-03-2006, 12:15 PM
Well, I swear I read something like this somewhere. I'm not lying, you know.

AR

Rincewind
20-03-2006, 12:19 PM
Examples of nations not being paired would be ...USA vs Any Islamic Country?:hmm:

Israel and certain islamic countries might be more likely. Really any country with a particularly acrimonious relationship it would make sense. Not to prevent collusion (or its speculation) but rather hostilities.

Rincewind
20-03-2006, 12:25 PM
I think it is a massive beat up.

You cannot deny that there was considerable speculation and it is the speculation of collusion which is the primary target of removing sibling pairings in the last round. In the two pairing you mention: were there rating differences of > 200 point and did the lower rated sibling win? If they had, regardless of whether the game was thrown or not then there could well have been speculation.


Can't see how it can be stamped out really.

Speculation of collusion between siblings in the last round of tournaments can be effectively stamped out by banning such pairings. This is done by some arbiters as a matter of course.

Not all speculation or collusion can be stamped out but some is better than none.

four four two
20-03-2006, 12:25 PM
If this is possible in an Olympiad,and I hope it isnt because its SO IMMATURE,then Australia might not be paired against Indonesia or Malaysia.:hmm:

Kevin Bonham
20-03-2006, 12:25 PM
Do you know if any effort is made to favour club pairing in the first 4-5 rounds?

That is when within-family pairings are barred. They are not barred in the last few rounds. The purpose of the policy is not to prevent collusion (since we have no evidence of it being a common event) but to prevent the situation in which players travel across the state only to play against their own brothers and sisters early in the event when they could easily play someone else with little net effect on the event.

In the last round of the Aussie Weekender in Launceston this January some pairings were rejigged manually to avoid a sibling pairing but that was with the consent of all players affected and in a situation where no prize could be affected.

Rincewind
20-03-2006, 12:34 PM
That is when within-family pairings are barred. They are not barred in the last few rounds. The purpose of the policy is not to prevent collusion (since we have no evidence of it being a common event) but to prevent the situation in which players travel across the state only to play against their own brothers and sisters early in the event when they could easily play someone else with little net effect on the event.

In the last round of the Aussie Weekender in Launceston this January some pairings were rejigged manually to avoid a sibling pairing but that was with the consent of all players affected and in a situation where no prize could be affected.

OK. Sorry I misread that. I can see an advantage of doing this ni the first round of a weekly tournament, For example, when Matt and I travelled to Campbelltown for the Fischer's ghost. Were we to be paired in the first round it would have been a wast of petrol. However, for a weekender, you're there anyway. Does it matter who you play?

arosar
20-03-2006, 12:39 PM
If this is possible in an Olympiad,and I hope it isnt because its SO IMMATURE,then Australia might not be paired against Indonesia or Malaysia.:hmm:

It's not immature man, it's just practical. I just went over to Gijssen and he speaks of politically prohibited pairings. That's where I read it! So it looks like it's done between individuals too.

AR

Ian Rout
20-03-2006, 12:47 PM
Israel and certain islamic countries might be more likely. Really any country with a particularly acrimonious relationship it would make sense. Not to prevent collusion (or its speculation) but rather hostilities.
The relevant section of the FIDE regulations is in section D.II.01 of the Handbook:

6.3.8.4 The General Assembly has passed a resolution that every team participating in the Chess Olympiad must declare in advance that it is willing to play against teams from any other affiliated Federations. The only possible exception would arise in the case of war. The Assembly accepted a proposal of the President that if any match could not be played owing to a state of war, its result would be decided on the basis of probabilities deduced from the players` FIDE ratings.

In the past "war" has been interpreted somewhat loosely, for instance Tunisia was allowed to refuse to play Israel in 1974 (I am aware of this one as I have the book of the tournament). Whether this still happens or whether the above ruling is specifically to tighten up this sort of thing I don't know. I think Gijssen may have discussed it in his column at some point.

Kevin Bonham
20-03-2006, 12:53 PM
OK. Sorry I misread that. I can see an advantage of doing this ni the first round of a weekly tournament, For example, when Matt and I travelled to Campbelltown for the Fischer's ghost. Were we to be paired in the first round it would have been a wast of petrol. However, for a weekender, you're there anyway. Does it matter who you play?

Apparently so as we've had quite strong feedback against in-family pairings involving juniors in the early rounds, while people seem to understand that there are valid arguments for allowing them later on.

I remember an excitable former Launceston club member being very stroppy when required to play another Launceston player in the first round after travelling down together from Launceston. But with only three clubs in the state, if we barred pairings within the same actual club to cover cases like this, pairing could become very difficult indeed.

four four two
20-03-2006, 12:55 PM
If a team in the olmypiad cant accept being paired with another team because of their prospective governments views,well they should be prepared to forfeit all of their games. :hand:

Imagine in the next olmypiad if every islamic country refuses to be paired with the USA/Israel/Denmark,wouldnt the olmypiad descend into a farce?:hmm:

Rincewind
20-03-2006, 01:03 PM
I remember an excitable former Launceston club member being very stroppy when required to play another Launceston player in the first round after travelling down together from Launceston. But with only three clubs in the state, if we barred pairings within the same actual club to cover cases like this, pairing could become very difficult indeed.

Unless you were running a club teams event. :)