PDA

View Full Version : Round 11 Australian Championship



Rhubarb
25-04-2006, 07:58 AM
Since it's April going on May, why don't you be interesting for once, Garvin and tell us what should have happened.


...maybe round eleven from 2006 Australian Championships as well.

What are the pairings?

What actually happened?

What should have happened?

Why were certain arbiters influenced by non-arbiters (who had an 'interest' in the matter)?

Why were other arbiters so gutless as to agree?

Why, why, why? Well it's not your fault, gg, but you do seem to know.

Garvinator
25-04-2006, 09:35 AM
Since it's April going on May, why don't you be interesting for once, Garvin and tell us what should have happened.


What are the pairings?

What actually happened?

What should have happened?

Why were certain arbiters influenced by non-arbiters (who had an 'interest' in the matter)?

Why, why, why? Well it's not your fault, gg, but you do seem to know.
Hello Greg,

I do believe that there has been plenty of discussion previously on the pairings for round 11 of the Australian Championship and how they came about. I have had a look and cant seem to find the threads about it, can someone else find it.

Also I do recall Jason Lyons and Bill Gletsos posting about this matter.

If they cant be found to save me a heap of posting, I will write a bit about it. I might even give Bill's calculation method ago for the first time:eek:

What I can say though quickly is that Bill's method wasnt used at all for any of the pairings AFAIK.

arosar
25-04-2006, 09:49 AM
We're talking about the change to the two top boards in particular and how board 1 appeared to be a walk in the park?

Who are these non arbiters?

And the following gutless arbiters are Bekker, Lyons, Zworestine?

AR

Garvinator
25-04-2006, 09:52 AM
We're talking about the change to the two top boards in particular and how board 1 appeared to be a walk in the park? yes, especially in relevance to the other pairing of Rogers-Goldenberg, Smerdon-Song

arosar
25-04-2006, 10:00 AM
And the non arbiter is?

Also, ask FM Igor Goldenberg if there was something "special" of the last round of Doeberl. But that is for another discussion.

AR

Rhubarb
25-04-2006, 10:34 AM
And the following gutless arbiters are Bekker, Lyons, Zworestine?

ARIn particular, not Lyons. Make a point of that.

Bill Gletsos
25-04-2006, 10:54 AM
yes, especially in relevance to the other pairing of Rogers-Goldenberg, Smerdon-SongThis is false. Rogers was never paired by SP to play Goldenberg.

The comparative pairings can be seen in http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=85690&postcount=27

Rhubarb
25-04-2006, 11:07 AM
Hello Bill,

Can you describe the pairing system in the last round, with particular attention to the top two boards, and did this differ from the previous rounds and why?

Regards.

Garvinator
25-04-2006, 11:24 AM
This is false. Rogers was never paired by SP to play Goldenberg.

The comparative pairings can be seen in http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=85690&postcount=27
Thanks Bill. I was getting there;)

You have posted the pairings from the different programs already, so I dont need to now:)

Bill Gletsos
25-04-2006, 12:05 PM
Hello Bill,

Can you describe the pairing system in the last round, with particular attention to the top two boards, and did this differ from the previous rounds and why?The post I quoted above shows the diferences between SP rounds and how the rounds were played.
The manual pairing of Round 7 was in my opinion wrong. Six of the 14 boards were wrong.
The manual pairing on boards 12 & 13 made in round 9 was in my opinion correct. SP had it wrong.

Round 11 was a complete mess. The manual pairings are in my opinion simply wrong.

antichrist
25-04-2006, 12:07 PM
Thanks Bill. I was getting there;)

You have posted the pairings from the different programs already, so I dont need to now:)

GG, you disappoint me. I was just beginning to think you may be a heavy as Greg was backing off but then you throw in the towel once BG come on the scene. Are you trying to get on ACF?

Rhubarb
25-04-2006, 12:18 PM
The question remains, both the programs asked it.

Why did Charles Zworestine ask Cathy Rogers (not an arbiter) for her opinion on the last-round draw? Why did he agree with her? Why did the other arbiters cave in and agree with him? Why did Lyons get outvoted as an arbiter?

Why on earth did any idiot with any kind of sense of fair play agree to such a farcical last-round draw?

Kevin Bonham
25-04-2006, 12:26 PM
I missed much of the discussion on this at the time, so once more with feeling (or point me to the relevant previous discussion) : was the pairing change in round 11 triggered by a complaint, and if so by who and on what basis?

Garvinator
25-04-2006, 12:28 PM
GG, you disappoint me. I was just beginning to think you may be a heavy as Greg was backing off but then you throw in the towel once BG come on the scene. Are you trying to get on ACF?
well you can be disappointed ac.

I am not throwing in the towel at all. I was wrong in my memory, something I was sure to find out later today as I was constructing the pairings for both sp and sm5. Bill had already done them previously, so no need to waste my time.

Bill Gletsos
25-04-2006, 12:39 PM
I missed much of the discussion on this at the time, so once more with feeling (or point me to the relevant previous discussion) : was the pairing change in round 11 triggered by a complaint, and if so by who and on what basis?http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=88148&postcount=81

Kevin Bonham
25-04-2006, 01:09 PM
So let me be absolutely clear on this - there was no formal player complaint and the draw was changed by the arbiters before any provisional pairings had been publicly released - is that correct?

Garvinator
25-04-2006, 01:32 PM
So let me be absolutely clear on this - there was no formal player complaint and the draw was changed by the arbiters before any provisional pairings had been publicly released - is that correct?
correct and I was there.

After the round seven goings on, it was agreed by all four arbiters that they would sit down together for each round and do the pairings together after each round had finished. I was allowed to participate in the discussions as a learning experience (someone has to learn somehow) and there wasnt any complaints about this.

From my memory,
I had heard that there was some discussion between Charles and Cathy regarding the round eleven pairings before the following (below) took place.

Charles said that the pairings for round eleven were wrong and a discussion was held about the pairings and everyone went through the chess organisers handbook in turn, plus looking at the pairing rules directly.

We only had protos (which we learnt wasnt reliable or trustworthy) and swiss perfect to work from (no swiss master 5 or swiss manager for round eleven).

Charles put his case forward that the pairings were wrong (I dont remember what grounds exactly, it was four months ago). Jason disagreed with this and they debated it a bit.

Charles then presented what he believed were the correct pairings. More discussions were held and there was a vote taken. It was decided by a majority of 3-1 to go with the Charles pairings.

Something I have learnt from recent experience is that it is possible to do pairings by mathematical formula (thanks Bill). In Brisbane, there was certainly no discussion at any time of lets check the maths.

Kevin Bonham
25-04-2006, 01:51 PM
Something I have learnt from recent experience is that it is possible to do pairings by mathematical formula (thanks Bill). In Brisbane, there was certainly no discussion at any time of lets check the maths.

It is a rather tedious and lengthy process going through the maths of section C by hand. However in a one-round-per-day tournament in a case where there is a proposal to override a computer-generated draw, I cannot see a reason not to do so.

Bill Gletsos
25-04-2006, 02:17 PM
The question remains, both the programs asked it.Note that at the time both programs were not available to the arbiters.

Why did Charles Zworestine ask Cathy Rogers (not an arbiter) for her opinion on the last-round draw? Why did he agree with her? Why did the other arbiters cave in and agree with him? Why did Lyons get outvoted as an arbiter?I would be interested to know Jason's reasons for objecting to the change.
Was it because he hadmanually checked the SP pairings and was convinced of their accuracy or was it that he was just following his previously stated opinion that there should be no manual intervention except in extraordinary situations.

Why on earth did any idiot with any kind of sense of fair play agree to such a farcical last-round draw?Too be fair I can easily see how the arbiters came up with the last round draw that they did and at a quick glance it seems reasonable.
Unfortunately it is at odds with the Dutch pairing rules.

Garvinator
25-04-2006, 02:34 PM
Too be fair I can easily see how the arbiters came up with the last round draw that they did and at a quick glance it seems reasonable.
Unfortunately it is at odds with the Dutch pairing rules.
to add to this, I think it is rather over the top and way out of line to make claims like this-
Why on earth did any idiot with any kind of sense of fair play agree to such a farcical, last-round draw? It is disparaging and casts an unfair picture on the events of the pairings of the last round.
The pairings were agreed to by a majority of the IA's present. Therefore, to makes claims like I have quoted includes them all. Remember, Bekker and Eime agreed with Charles.

[NB - text in the last bit Garvin is responding to has been edited - mod]

jenni
25-04-2006, 02:49 PM
Charles is genuinely interested in trying to arrive at a point where pairings do not have to be changed. Any implication that pairings were fixed to favour anyone is just plain unfair.

On Sunday night Charles and I reran the Aus champs and Girls under 12 using swiss master 5 and Charles made notes on differences. As already stated by Bill elsewhere, Swiss master arrived at the same pairing as swiss perfect for the smerdon - Song match up.

Charles is planning to go through this with Bill (within the time constraints of him trying to earn a living - he is really behind with Uni work, after spending 10 days in Canberra DOP'ing tournaments).

I think at the end of all this we will have a better understanding of where the problems are and what to do about it and also perhaps the ACF making a ruling on what has to be done for major events.

The girls under 12 was interesting, with some rather bizzarre things being done with the bye by round 11. Probably a function of 11 rounds and 15 players.

Charles did feel swiss master handled some things better than swiss perfect.

Garvinator
25-04-2006, 02:54 PM
On Sunday night Charles and I reran the Aus champs and Girls under 12 using swiss master 5 and Charles made notes on differences. As already stated by Bill elsewhere, Swiss master arrived at the same pairing as swiss perfect for the smerdon - Song match up. ok, saves me some time;)


Charles did feel swiss master handled some things better than swiss perfect.might be time to consider a change of recommended program by the acf? More testing required of course over many months.

Kevin Bonham
25-04-2006, 03:36 PM
Moderation Notice

While it is acceptable to post concerns about the fact that a draw was amended in apparent difference to the actual rules, or about the fact that a person who has a conflict of interest was consulted during this process, some of the conclusions drawn from this have been too strong given the evidence (or lack thereof) presented on those points. I have therefore edited several posts and deleted some which either made such claims or innocently quoted them.

Claims about the intention of any person in performing an action should not be made without evidence demonstrating those intentions. If this continues the thread will be locked or removed. Defamation concerns have been raised by a third party.

Any responses to this post to the feedback thread and not here, thanks.

Oepty
25-04-2006, 04:57 PM
I tihnk it worth noting Cathy Rogers was the media officer, or something like that, so had an offical interest in the draw.
Scott

Rhubarb
25-04-2006, 05:06 PM
to add to this, I think it is rather over the top and way out of line to make claims like this- gg, mate, you're a laugh and a half.


It is disparaging and casts an unfair picture on the events of the pairings of the last round.AR worked you out before you were born.


The pairings were agreed to by a majority of the IA's present. Therefore, to makes claims like I have quoted includes them all. Remember, Bekker and Eime agreed with Charles.Yes I know.

[NB - text in the last bit Garvin is responding to has been edited - mod][/QUOTE]

antichrist
25-04-2006, 05:10 PM
Greg mate, even I can laugh when you pick on someone else. I will stay out of your way.

Rhubarb
25-04-2006, 05:14 PM
I tihnk it worth noting Cathy Rogers was the media officer, or something like that, so had an offical interest in the draw.
ScottNow you're taking the piss, Freddy.

Oepty
25-04-2006, 05:55 PM
Now you're taking the piss, Freddy.

No I am not Greg.

Rhubarb
25-04-2006, 06:01 PM
No I am not Greg.I believe you.

arosar
25-04-2006, 10:53 PM
Are we allowed to see the report that was submitted by the Brisbanne organisers to the ACF?

AR

Bill Gletsos
26-04-2006, 12:07 AM
Ok, lets look at round 11.

The pairing information for Round 11 is as follows:

Place No Opponents Colours Float Score


1-2 2 : 17,11,7,1,10,9,4,3,8,5 BWBWBWBWBW D 8
9 : 24,1,3,5,4,2,7,13,10,8 WWBWBBWWBB D 8

3 4 : 19,15,29,7,9,1,2,6,3,12 BWBWWBWBBW D 7.5

4 3 : 18,10,9,25,6,7,13,2,4,1 WBWBWWBBWW U 6.5

5-7 1 : 16,9,6,2,8,4,5,11,7,3 WBWBWWBBWB D 6
7 : 22,27,2,4,11,3,9,12,1,13 WBWBWBBWBW uD 6
28 : 13,5,12,24,15,21,27,8,26,23 BWBWBWBWBW d 6

8-12 8 : 23,13,17,29,1,12,11,28,2,9 BWBWBBWBWW U 5.5
10 : 25,3,5,23,2,13,18,16,9,14 BWBWWBWBWB u 5.5
13 : 28,8,18,19,27,10,3,9,14,7 WBWBBWWBWB U 5.5
14 : 29,22,21,11,5,23,24,15,13,10 BWBWBWBWBW 5.5
18 : 3,25,13,15,21,27,10,5,23,6 BWBWBWBWBW D 5.5

13-19 5 : 20,28,10,9,14,11,1,18,6,2 WBWBWBWBWB Ud 5
6 : 21,23,1,27,3,29,12,4,5,18 BWBWBWBWBB U 5
11 : 26,2,19,14,7,5,8,1,12,20 WBWBBWBWBW 5
12 : 27,21,28,17,23,8,6,7,11,4 BWWBBWWBWB U 5
15 : 30,4,27,18,28,20,16,14,22,25 WBWBWBWBWB 5
23 : 8,6,16,10,12,14,20,29,18,28 WBWBWBWBWB 5
25 : 10,18,20,3,19,22,29,24,16,15 WBWWBBWBWW 5

20-23 16 : 1,24,23,21,29,19,15,10,25,30 BWBWBWBWBW D 4.5
22 : 7,14,26,30,20,25,19,27,15,21 BBWBWWBWBW 4.5
24 : 9,16,30,28,17,26,14,25,-,29 BBWBWBWW-B Ud 4.5
27 : 12,7,15,6,13,18,28,22,20,- WWBBWBWBW- uD 4.5

24-26 20 : 5,29,25,26,22,15,23,30,27,11 BWBWBWBWBB d 4
26 : 11,17,22,20,30,24,-,21,28,19 BWBBWW-BWB uD 4
29 : 14,20,4,8,16,6,25,23,30,24 WBWBWBBWBW D 4

27-28 19 : 4,30,11,13,25,16,22,-,21,26 WBBWWBW-BW Ud 3.5
21 : 6,12,14,16,18,28,30,26,19,22 WBWBWBBWWB u 3.5

29 30 : 15,19,24,22,26,-,21,20,29,16 BWBWB-WBWB U 1.5


The numbers refer to the players as follows:

No Name

1. Ftacnik, Lubomir
2. Rogers, Ian
3. Schmaltz, Roland
4. Chandler, Murray G
5. Johansen, Darryl K
6. Zhao, Zong-Yuan
7. Lane, Gary W
8. Wohl, Aleksander H
9. Smerdon, David C
10. Solomon, Stephen J
11. Bjelobrk, Igor
12. Canfell, Gregory J
13. Xie, George
14. Goldenberg, Igor
15. Humphrey, Jonathan
16. Guthrie, Aaron
17. Levi, Eddy L
18. Smirnov, Vladimir
19. Dougherty, Michael
20. Caoili, Arianne B
21. Lakner, Jay
22. Booth, Stewart
23. Ly, Moulthun
24. Bird, Andrew
25. Pyke, Malcolm L
26. Wallis, Christopher
27. Moylan, Laura A
28. Song, Raymond
29. Obst, James
30. Frame, Nigel

Ok we start with C1.
Since Rogers has played Smerdon, then iin line with C1 they both drop to the next score group.
However this does not help as they have both played Chandler. Thus C1 is applied again.
Afain this does not help as Rogers Smerdon & Chandler have all played Schmaltz.
There apply C1 again.

Now note that we have 4 players floating down and only 3 players in the 6 point score group. As per A3 this means the score group is treated as homogenous even though it consists of players on different scores.

So from C2 we calculate x.
w=2, b=5, q=4 thus x=1
From C3 we calculate p.
p=3
Following C4 we get:

S1 S2
Rogers Schmaltz
Smerdon Ftacnik
Chandler Lane
Song

Now it should be abundantly obvious that you cannot get 3 pairings (p=3) from the above group no matter how you carry out transpositions or exchanges in line with C7 & C8.
Therefore you fall thru all the rest of section C down to C14.
In line with C14, p=2 and x=0.
Restart at C4.
Again C7 & C8 are of no use, so again you end up at C14.
Thus p=1 and x=0.

Now starting with

S1 S2
Rogers Schmaltz
Smerdon Ftacnik
Chandler Lane
Song
So by carrying out C7 can we get one pairing (p=1) that is a colour match (since x=0) by trying transpositions of S2 determined by section D.
Section D results in the transpositions being tried in the following order.
Schmaltz, Ftacnik, Song, Lane (Note that this gives a pairing of Chandelr V song as a valid pairing (p=1) but is not a colour match so fails the x=0.)
Schmaltz, Lane, Ftacnik, Song
Schmatz, Lane, Song, Ftacnik
Schmaltz, Song, Ftacnik, Lane

This last transposition gives us:

S1 S2
Rogers Schmaltz
Smerdon Song
Chandler Ftacnik
Lane

The smerdon V Song game meets the p=1 and x=0 criteria.
Therefore the pairing is Serdon V Song.

The remaining 5 players all no drop to the next score group in accordance with C1.

Note that we have 5 dropping joining the 5 players on 5.5. Thus again according to A3 we treat this as a homogenous group.
again we calculate x and p.
w=3, b=7, q=5, thus x=2
p=5


Following C4 we get:

S1 S2
Rogers Wohl
Chandler Solomon
Schmaltz Xie
Ftacnik Goldenberg
Lane Smirnov
So no carrying out c7 and transpositions in line with section D can we get 5 pairings where 2 pairings (with all 4 players having black colour pref) cannot be granted.
No I could go thru all the transpositions, but it should be abundantly obvious that any sequence of transpotitions that has Rogers playing either Wohl or Solomon are no good as Ian has already played boith of them.
Therefore the first transposition to ntry is:
Xie, Wohl, Solomon, Goldenberg, Smirnov

However Schmaltz has played Solomon.
Now I could go thru the transpositions following the one above but it is clear they will fail as long as Schmaltz is paired with Solomon.
Therefore with this in mind the next try is:
Xie, Wohl, Goldenberg, Solomon, Smirnov

This gives:

S1 S2
Rogers Xie
Chandler Wohl
Schmaltz Goldenberg
Ftacnik Solomon
Lane Smirnov

Now these 5 pairings are valid however they do not satisfy the x=2 condition as 4 of the pairings do not have colour matchs.

Therefore try the next transposition:
Xie, Wohl, Goldenberg, Smirnov, Solomon

This gives:

S1 S2
Rogers Xie
Chandler Wohl
Schmaltz Goldenberg
Ftacnik Smirnov
Lane Solomon
In this 3 pairings get the colour match and 2 dont. Therefore x=2 is satisfied.

So we get:
Xie V Rogers (colour match, colours assigned as per E1)
Chandler V Wohl (non colour match, colours assigned as per E2)
Goldenberg V Schmaltz (non colour match, colours assigned as per E2)
Ftacnik V Smirnov (colour match, colours assigned as per E1)
Solomon V Lane (colour match, colours assigned as per E1)

antichrist
26-04-2006, 08:58 AM
Bill, I am just trying to get a run of seven latest posts up on the front page. If I may ask, how come when we do a manual draw for about 50-60 people we don't come across this trouble or are we blissfully ignorant?

Ian Rout
26-04-2006, 09:18 AM
Bill, I am just trying to get a run of seven latest posts up on the front page. If I may ask, how come when we do a manual draw for about 50-60 people we don't come across this trouble or are we blissfully ignorant?
Partly with 50 players in a seven-round tournament there are fewer pairings precluded through having already happened which often makes pairings more obvious. Partly also though in pre-computer days (or current times with manual pairings) it was harder to do the forensics because few people had access to the full pairing history. Also with a bulletin board you can have a conversation about it.

antichrist
26-04-2006, 09:51 AM
Partly with 50 players in a seven-round tournament there are fewer pairings precluded through having already happened which often makes pairings more obvious. Partly also though in pre-computer days (or current times with manual pairings) it was harder to do the forensics because few people had access to the full pairing history. Also with a bulletin board you can have a conversation about it.

It is brilliant how they are all working it out. They should pubish it (get it off the net quickly) and become famous. Those old fashioned quaint days did have their advantages.

arosar
26-04-2006, 11:32 AM
So now we have scientific and mathematical proof that R11 in Aus Champ must deserve a big question mark the size of this continent.

We have Bill to thank for this. How does the ACF intend to proceed from here? As I understand it, the Brissy organisers submitted a report that was highly critical of everything that happened in Brissy.

AR

Rhubarb
26-04-2006, 08:09 PM
Any implication that pairings were fixed to favour anyone is just plain unfair.Okay, I accept that there is no evidence that the pairings were fixed, and in my anger I went too far. I apologise for that and thank KB for deleting the relevant parts of my posts.

PHAT
26-04-2006, 08:53 PM
Round 11 was a schemozzle because the ACF is a joke.

It should have decreed that Swiss Perfect will be the gold standard years ago. Furthermore, it never will, because it is a useless irrelevant dinosaur - it is less than the sum of its whole. Kill it.

jenni
26-04-2006, 08:58 PM
Okay, I accept that there is no evidence that the pairings were fixed, and in my anger I went too far. I apologise for that and thank KB for deleting the relevant parts of my posts.

That's OK :) Passions run high with these things. I agree that we need to do something about it.

Kevin Bonham
26-04-2006, 09:16 PM
I think you need to keep arbiter autonomy to change draws intact in case of unexpected new kinds of errors - no-one wants to get stuck with a clearly ridiculous draw. However, what about requiring unanimous agreement from the arbiters to override the draw? Is that a good idea?

It's really concerning to me that this (incorrect overrides) is happening in more than isolated cases and involving some of the best arbiters in the nation.

Kevin Bonham
26-04-2006, 09:18 PM
It should have decreed that Swiss Perfect will be the gold standard years ago.

That is a terrible idea. Swiss Perfect has some really bad bugs. I was involved in an incident in 2001 when it needlessly double-downfloated one of the leaders in the final round giving him =1st on a platter rather than a tougher game.

PHAT
26-04-2006, 10:29 PM
That is a terrible idea. Swiss Perfect has some really bad bugs. I was involved in an incident in 2001 when it needlessly double-downfloated one of the leaders in the final round giving him =1st on a platter rather than a tougher game.

Better a rare bug than having DOPs going the fiddle again and again and again.

BTW, the buck stops at the ACF. This fiasco is as much the ACF's fault as the DOPs whom they allow to stuff up draws.

Kevin Bonham
26-04-2006, 11:02 PM
Better a rare bug than having DOPs going the fiddle again and again and again.

Not convinced. The big bugs are much more severe in impact than the DOP fiddles - although less controversial in terms of perception.


BTW, the buck stops at the ACF. This fiasco is as much the ACF's fault as the DOPs whom they allow to stuff up draws.

Putting it a bit strongly but I believe that now there is a clear problem we should start looking for solutions - though if you read the threads you'll see some of the arbiters concerned are already moving towards using better programs.

arosar
26-04-2006, 11:05 PM
Hey Kevo, are you able to leak us that Brissy organisers' report?

AR

PHAT
26-04-2006, 11:06 PM
...I believe that now there is a clear problem we should start looking for solutions - though if you read the threads you'll see some of the arbiters concerned are already moving towards using better programs.

Too little too late.

Just admit that the ACF brain is as dead as disco. :hand:

Kevin Bonham
26-04-2006, 11:37 PM
Hey Kevo, are you able to leak us that Brissy organisers' report?

I am able to leak all sorts of things, but invariably disinclined to do so. :P

PHAT
26-04-2006, 11:55 PM
I am able to leak all sorts of things, but invariably disinclined to do so. :P

Companyman V..

Garvinator
27-04-2006, 12:16 AM
Putting it a bit strongly but I believe that now there is a clear problem we should start looking for solutions - though if you read the threads you'll see some of the arbiters concerned are already moving towards using better programs.
I am more curious about how 'we' got into a situation where an 'obviously' flawed pairing program has been 'endorsed' as the acf standard program?

(Sorry for the ' ' all over the place, but not sure what the right wording is?)

As I said earlier, might be time to change the official pairing program of the acf.

Garvinator
27-04-2006, 12:17 AM
Better a rare bug than having DOPs going the fiddle again and again and again.

BTW, the buck stops at the ACF. This fiasco is as much the ACF's fault as the DOPs whom they allow to stuff up draws.
Sorry Matt, but the acf cannot really make any such ruling. The fide pairing laws are clear that the final call regarding pairings lie with the arbiter, the pairing program is only a tool.

Kevin Bonham
27-04-2006, 01:23 AM
I am more curious about how 'we' got into a situation where an 'obviously' flawed pairing program has been 'endorsed' as the acf standard program?

(Sorry for the ' ' all over the place, but not sure what the right wording is?)

As I said earlier, might be time to change the official pairing program of the acf.

If there is a practical way to arrange cheap mass distribution of an alternative then I agree with this especially as SiP is not likely to be available to the ACF in an improved version. When it started to be widely used there were no other practical choices and its faults were not immediately known.

Brian_Jones
27-04-2006, 08:49 AM
Hey Kevo, are you able to leak us that Brissy organisers' report? AR

I would be very interested to read this report. Please send in confidence.

As regards pairing programs, I recommend Swiss-Manager.

PHAT
27-04-2006, 09:15 AM
Sorry Matt, but the acf cannot really make any such ruling. The fide pairing laws are clear that the final call regarding pairings lie with the arbiter, the pairing program is only a tool.

If FIDE endorse SP, the ACF can say. By-Law X: Games paired for Swiss events, that were not generated by SP wil not be rated.

If the ACF can generate automatic national bans, with penalties for "defiance," it can also do so for pairing.

Ian Rout
27-04-2006, 09:19 AM
I am more curious about how 'we' got into a situation where an 'obviously' flawed pairing program has been 'endorsed' as the acf standard program?
I think "flawed" is a bit strong. It gets it right or close most of the time, and more often than most humans. You'll sit around a long time waiting for a computer program (to do anything, not just pairings) that doesn't have bugs.

And for that reason those who want to mindlessly follow computer instructions are just, well, mindless.

PHAT
27-04-2006, 09:27 AM
And for that reason those who want to mindlessly follow computer instructions are just, well, mindless.

... or mindful, of how those humans who love to challenge machines, continue to cause more trouble than they are worth paying.

pax
27-04-2006, 09:33 AM
As regards pairing programs, I recommend Swiss-Manager.

Weren't you the one recommending PROTOS?! :hand:

pax
27-04-2006, 09:40 AM
Putting it a bit strongly but I believe that now there is a clear problem we should start looking for solutions - though if you read the threads you'll see some of the arbiters concerned are already moving towards using better programs.

Is there really any point in changing the official program, when arbiters insist on changing pairings that turn out to be correct?

Brian_Jones
27-04-2006, 11:33 AM
Weren't you the one recommending PROTOS?! :hand:

I was using Protos as an example of a FIDE approved program (because of the author's position in FIDE).

I was one of the first Protos users in Australia (1990) when the ACF purchased Protos and it was used in the Australian Championship at UTS in Sydney.

(BTW Pax, I was involved with Insearch-UTS many years ago. When VC was Gus Guthrie and Rod Belcher Head of EE).

But today I recommend Swiss-Manager.

pax
27-04-2006, 01:11 PM
Any comment on the comparison between Swiss Master and Swiss Manager? According to Geurt, they pair identically (as they should if they correctly implement the Dutch rules). Is Swiss Manager better from the point of view of user interface, or of handling unusual situations (like accelerations - sounds like SM may not handle these directly)?

Brian_Jones
27-04-2006, 01:14 PM
Any comment on the comparison between Swiss Master and Swiss Manager? According to Guert, they pair identically (as they should if they correctly implement the Dutch rules). Is Swiss Manager better from the point of view of user interface, or of handling unusual situations (like accelerations - sounds like SM may not handle these directly)?

No comment.

Garvinator
27-04-2006, 01:40 PM
Any comment on the comparison between Swiss Master and Swiss Manager? According to Geurt, they pair identically (as they should if they correctly implement the Dutch rules). Is Swiss Manager better from the point of view of user interface, or of handling unusual situations (like accelerations - sounds like SM may not handle these directly)?
swiss master 5 might be able to handle acceleration, just havent been able to find it yet.

Swiss manager cost- 199 Euro for the full version
Swiss master 5 cost- 50 EURO for full version

peter_parr
27-04-2006, 02:15 PM
Hey Kevo, are you able to leak us that Brissy organisers' report? AR.



I would be very interested to read this report. Please send in confidence.

As regards pairing programs, I recommend Swiss-Manager.

The report is critical of the decision to change the pairings on the top boards in the final round of the Australian Championship and of the decision to change the pairings in an earlier round.

The arbiter for the championship was Jason Lyons (IA) and on each occasion Charles Zworestine (IA) insisted that the pairings as calculated by the computer program and confirmed as correct by Jason Lyons (IA) be altered.

The 4 international arbiters voted 3-1 to alter the pairings in the final round after a complaint was received about the computer pairings.

I personally do not agree with this decision.

I have spoken to many players who were in Brisbane who were all of the opinion that the pairings which affected first place should not have been changed.

I agree with Amiel and Brian that the report on Brisbane should be made public so all can learn from it.

A similar appeal in round 6 of the Doeberl Cup led to a change in the computer pairing by the arbiter.

Appeals by players against pairings are not permitted in many overseas events.

Finally the Australian Championship in Brisbane was very well organised in a high quality venue in the Brisbane CBD with good sponsorship, organisation and prize fund.
It is a great pity the only problem was altered pairings.


Peter Parr (IA)

arosar
27-04-2006, 02:53 PM
Even though it is 'critical', it is constructively critical.

AR

Garvinator
27-04-2006, 03:08 PM
I have spoken to many players who were in Brisbane who were all of the opinion that the pairings which affected first place should not have been changed.
as was said on the doeberl pair change thread, the opinion of the players is irrelevant unless they have a very good understanding of the dutch pairing laws and how they were applied in previous rounds.

jase
27-04-2006, 03:24 PM
as was said on the doeberl pair change thread, the opinion of the players is irrelevant unless they have a very good understanding of the dutch pairing laws and how they were applied in previous rounds.

I take a different view.

Whilst players may not have a full understanding of the designated pairing rules, it is important to the conduct of the event that players are comfortable with the fairness and objectivity of the pairings. The perceptions of players should not be ignored. A good arbiter will engage with the players if they have a query, without the demand that they are fully cognisant with the pairing rules in vogue.

One element of ensuring a great tournament is assuring players, through both good practice and communication, that the event is being directed competently and fairly. Players may then confidently concentrate on the chessboard, and not be caught up in discussions or arguments about the vagaries of the swiss draw.

Igor_Goldenberg
27-04-2006, 03:30 PM
as was said on the doeberl pair change thread, the opinion of the players is irrelevant unless they have a very good understanding of the dutch pairing laws and how they were applied in previous rounds.

I hope that "opinion of the players is irrelevant" does not reflect the mindset of the majority of organizers. Indeed, those pesty players just stay in the way of the well organised event.

As for understanding of the dutch pairing laws, if you cannot explain something in layman terms, you either don't understand it yourself or it's an utter rubbish.

As a player I expect few principles from the pairing, one of them is that leaders play with the strongest possible opponents (as in 6th round of Doeberl). Another is that colouring is at least mildly respected.

Bill Gletsos
27-04-2006, 03:32 PM
The arbiter for the championship was Jason Lyons (IA) and on each occasion Charles Zworestine (IA) insisted that the pairings as calculated by the computer program and confirmed as correct by Jason Lyons (IA) be altered.Did Jason Lyons (IA) confirm that all computer pairings were correct in all 3 rounds where manual pairings were actually done or did he confirm they were correct in all 11 rounds. If he did it for all 11 rounds then I'm impressed as that must have taken him a considerable amount of time calculating all those w, b, q, x, and p values etc.

I have spoken to many players who were in Brisbane who were all of the opinion that the pairings which affected first place should not have been changed.No doubt all these players have more than a passing aquaintance with the Dutch Pairing rules and understand them and were therefore qualified to judge that the computer generated pairings were in fact correct.

Igor_Goldenberg
27-04-2006, 03:33 PM
And the non arbiter is?

Also, ask FM Igor Goldenberg if there was something "special" of the last round of Doeberl. But that is for another discussion.

AR

Are you talking about 6th or 7th round? If 7th, what is so special about it?

arosar
27-04-2006, 03:41 PM
I hope that "opinion of the players is irrelevant" does not reflect the mindset of the majority of organizers.

I would hope not too. The problem with gray is that he takes too hard a line. No wonder he came in for special mention at Doeberl. Well, I think it was him.

AR

Garvinator
27-04-2006, 03:46 PM
I would hope not too. The problem with gray is that he takes too hard a line.
thanks for the compliment, it is about the first you have ever given me;)


No wonder he came in for special mention at Doeberl. Well, I think it was him.
care to share, dont leave us hanging in suspense, who was this person and what was the comment:P i wanna know every compliment about me expecting too much in behaviour etc:D

antichrist
11-01-2007, 03:36 PM
Thanks for clearing it up Michael...I had understood that once a pairing was published it had to stand.
My mistake.:)

Did Ian Rogers have a pairing changed a few years ago?

antichrist
11-01-2007, 04:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by antichrist
Did Ian Rogers have a pairing changed a few years ago?

KB
That is not quite fair on Ian Rogers. There was a case where Ian raised a concern and the arbiters incorrectly upheld it. But any player is entitled to raise such concerns - players should not be expected to have a faultless understanding of the system - and if a concern is incorrectly upheld that is the arbiters' fault, not the players.

AC: Was any other player disadvantaged by the change?

Kevin Bonham
11-01-2007, 04:26 PM
AC: Was any other player disadvantaged by the change?

Yes.

I assume this is the last Aus Champs pairing issue you are referring to.

Kevin Bonham
11-01-2007, 05:05 PM
AC I think this is the case you were looking for.

antichrist
11-01-2007, 05:43 PM
Yes.

I assume this is the last Aus Champs pairing issue you are referring to.

Well no wonder that people were spitting chips, there was an intervention and the correct draw was changed to an incorrect one that disadvantaged other players - what a schmozzle!

Is this correct?

Never happened in the SEC like that!

MichaelBaron
11-01-2007, 11:01 PM
That is not quite fair on Ian Rogers. There was a case where Ian raised a concern and the arbiters incorrectly upheld it. But any player is entitled to raise such concerns - players should not be expected to have a faultless understanding of the system - and if a concern is incorrectly upheld that is the arbiters' fault, not the players.

lets be honest, If the 'concern is raised by Mr Nobody, the arbiters are under no pressure to examine it objectively, while if "concern is raised" by a well known chess identity- the pressure starts building up.

I can recall another interesting episode, a very well known Melbourne chess player postponed the last round game from Vic Championships. Last round postpoments are generally not allowed. However, in his case - he was given a green light due to the fact that he was "a leading player". No 1200 rated amateur would be able to get away with it but the leading player did (in fact i think he has done it in more than one instance)

antichrist
11-01-2007, 11:07 PM
lets be honest, If the 'concern is raised by Mr Nobody, the arbiters are under no pressure to examine it objectively, while if "concern is raised" by a well known chess identity- the pressure starts building up.

I can recall another interesting episode, a very well known Melbourne chess player postponed the last round game from Vic Championships. Last round postpoments are generally not allowed. However, in his case - he was given a green light due to the fact that he was "a leading player". No 1200 rated amateur would be able to get away with it but the leading player did (in fact i think he has done it in more than one instance)

When on DOPPING committee (SEC) and we have come across a situation that looks biased, we call the "aggrieved" player in and explain how and why we have made that decision.

drbean
19-01-2007, 01:42 AM
Any comment on the comparison between Swiss Master and Swiss Manager? According to Geurt, they pair identically (as they should if they correctly implement the Dutch rules).

Perhaps the Dutch rules don't determine a single unique solution. Reading the rules, they don't seem very clear, and perhaps there is room for equally correct solutions.

It's not clear how you get to C10, for example. I guess you drop through to it if C7,8,9, in that order, don't get you a solution, but I'm not sure. A box-and-arrows diagram would be helpful, I think.

It's surprising that none of the programs, in the process of pairing, give a print-out of which rules they followed and in which order, and which pairs they produced with which rules. This would be very easy for the programs to do.

Another thing which it would be good to have are the FIDE tests that it will run on a candidate program. Presumably they are not available. I imagine they don't want to publish them because they are worried programs will be built to pass the tests instead of implement the algorithm.

But with the lack of any published FIDE swiss pairing examples, or judgements that this pairing follows the rules, and that one doesn't, implementors of the algorithm are making the algorithm up rather than implementing it, unless they are testing their implementation against some other actual, accepted pairings.