PDA

View Full Version : Changing incorrect publicly released draws: a curiosity



Kevin Bonham
07-11-2006, 09:20 PM
Suppose this happens. A draw for the last round of an event is published but it is noticed that the draw is incorrect and that it gives a player three of one colour in a row who should not have three of one colour in a row, not even in the last round. Assuming there are no tournament conditions (etc) making special allowances for changing the draw, can this draw be changed?

F6 states "A pairing officially made public shall not be changed unless it violates the absolute pairing criteria (B1 and B2)."

B2(b) states "No player will receive the same colour three times in a row."

B6 states "Note: B2, B5 and B6 do not apply when pairing players with a score of over 50% in the last round."

My reading of this is that if a player on >50% (and paired with an opponent on >50%) is incorrectly given three of the same colour in a row in the final round, then the draw should stand as B2 does not apply in the final round.

Agree/disagree? Has anyone ever encountered this unusual situation?

Is F6 too restrictive? Should there be more circumstances under which a draw made public should be changed, eg what if players from vastly different score groups have been wrongly paired?

(This all has nothing directly to do with Elwood but was something I noticed while reading the relevant rules while making comments on that thread.)

Alan Shore
07-11-2006, 10:01 PM
I simply find B6 to be a real curiosity. How it can say B2 may not apply in those circumstances is quite incredible - I'd say giving someone three blacks in a row is harsher than pairing them with someone far higher. It may be a pretty subjective argument as to what preference you give for the sake of accuracy. May as well go back to the old 'guess which hand' colour technique and pair up ratings as close as possible if you make that kind of exception.

Kevin Bonham
07-11-2006, 10:18 PM
How it can say B2 may not apply in those circumstances is quite incredible - I'd say giving someone three blacks in a row is harsher than pairing them with someone far higher.

I don't agree, because white's statistical advantage is only about 56%:44% on average. If you have already had two blacks then having a third black disadvantages you only about as much as getting a white against a player rated c.90 points higher, unless you let it get to you.

Of course as a player who scores exactly the same (within fractions of one percent) with either colour I am a little bit biased on this; there may be others whose white percentage exceeds their black percentage by, say, 25. Even so they would still be better taking a third black against their own rating than taking a white against someone 250 points higher.

Alan Shore
07-11-2006, 10:37 PM
I don't agree, because white's statistical advantage is only about 56%:44% on average. If you have already had two blacks then having a third black disadvantages you only about as much as getting a white against a player rated c.90 points higher, unless you let it get to you.

Of course as a player who scores exactly the same (within fractions of one percent) with either colour I am a little bit biased on this; there may be others whose white percentage exceeds their black percentage by, say, 25. Even so they would still be better taking a third black against their own rating than taking a white against someone 250 points higher.

I'd agree the 'statistical' chances of winning would probably be higher with a pairing more considerate to rating than colour (contingent upon just how much of a difference), yet psychologically, I would prefer to play someone higher. Why? Generally when I play against a better opponent, the standard of play increases. There is the added motivation that during a final round there is a chance to win a prize. Getting three blacks may play on one's mind and get you in the wrong mindset for the final game (years ago I was grumbling about 2 blacks in a row that gave me 4B 2W in a 6 round tourn). Like I said before, I believe it to be a subjective thing - some players come to tournaments to play good games of chess and would like the higher pairing, others like the opportunity to win prizes and may wish to sacrifice colour for an easier opponent.

Kevin Bonham
07-11-2006, 11:23 PM
I'd agree the 'statistical' chances of winning would probably be higher with a pairing more considerate to rating than colour (contingent upon just how much of a difference), yet psychologically, I would prefer to play someone higher. Why? Generally when I play against a better opponent, the standard of play increases.

That's a legitimate point - just as colour is more a factor for some players than others, likewise with rating difference. Some players have what I call an "upset profile" in which they score nearly as highly against players 300 points above them as they do against those 300 below. Others however would probably be less likely to triumph against an even slightly higher rated opponent, and therefore more concerned about avoiding an upwards pairing than a run of three colours.

Basil
08-11-2006, 01:41 AM
Some players have what I call an "upset profile" in which they score nearly as highly against players 300 points above them as they do against those 300 below.

Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeere's Howie.

I appreciate at all times that an ability to regularly lose players 300 below allows me to wear big floppy shoes and and a bright coloured hat.

Oepty
09-11-2006, 05:34 PM
A bit of a change of topic I guess but I am interested in how F7 relates to F6. It seems to contradict it, but maybe I am missing something.
Scott

Kevin Bonham
09-11-2006, 05:52 PM
A bit of a change of topic I guess but I am interested in how F7 relates to F6. It seems to contradict it, but maybe I am missing something.
Scott

Another case of sloppy wording, alas; not only does F7 technically contradict F6, but it also technically contradicts itself.

F7 creates an exception to F6 and allows a draw that has been published to be altered if that draw is based on the three kinds of errors listed, provided that the game has not yet started.

Garvinator
10-11-2006, 12:09 AM
but it also technically contradicts itself.
now that is an impressive effort;)

Denis_Jessop
10-11-2006, 03:41 PM
Another case of sloppy wording, alas; not only does F7 technically contradict F6, but it also technically contradicts itself.

F7 creates an exception to F6 and allows a draw that has been published to be altered if that draw is based on the three kinds of errors listed, provided that the game has not yet started.

I'm a bit puzzled by this. The first paragraph of F7 is fine. It relates to games already played with the wrong colours or the need to correct a player's rating. It isn't inconsistent with F6. (I can find only two kinds of error mentioned, not three.)

The second paragraph of F7 is rather a mess.

The "it" cannot refer to a pairing with wrong colours as the first para of F7 only applies in that regard to games already played. It would be absurd to read it as allowing the arbiter to order a game to be re-played. Moreover, Art. 7 of the Laws of Chess relating to Irregularities applies only to irregularities found during a game.

So "it" must only refer to the wrong rating aspect and only in this respect is it an exception to F6.

DJ

Kevin Bonham
10-11-2006, 03:52 PM
The contradiction referred to is that F6 states that a pairing officially made public shall not be changed unless it violates the absolute criteria (which suggests this is the only reason it can be changed), but F7 then makes it possible for a pairing made public to be changed at the arbiter's discretion under certain other circumstances. It would be better if F6 referred to F7 or the circumstances listed in it in some way.

The third kind (actually the first kind) of error referred to in F7 is "result was written down incorrectly".


The "it" cannot refer to a pairing with wrong colours as the first para of F7 only applies in that regard to games already played. It would be absurd to read it as allowing the arbiter to order a game to be re-played. Moreover, Art. 7 of the Laws of Chess relating to Irregularities applies only to irregularities found during a game.

So "it" must only refer to the wrong rating aspect and only in this respect is it an exception to F6.

F7 is referring to a case in which it is belatedly found that a previous game has been played with wrong colours. Example: Player A gets black in the draw for round 5 and immediately complains "but I've had three blacks in a row". The DOPs say "no you were white against C last round". A says "but we got the colours wrong and I actually played black against C". F7 allows the arbiters to then withdraw the published round 5 pairing, manually correct round 4 so that A is shown as having had black against C in round 4, and then re-pair round 5.

Bill Gletsos
10-11-2006, 04:07 PM
F7 is referring to a case in which it is belatedly found that a previous game has been played with wrong colours. Example: Player A gets black in the draw for round 5 and immediately complains "but I've had three blacks in a row". The DOPs say "no you were white against C last round". A says "but we got the colours wrong and I actually played black against C". F7 allows the arbiters to then withdraw the published round 5 pairing, manually correct round 4 so that A is shown as having had black against C in round 4, and then re-pair round 5.I think it could go further even if the situation you described did not vioalte B2 and allow the arbiter to change as the player(s) in question may because of the colour change really should have been paired against different players.

e.g. a player A floats down from a score group and in the lower score group should play player B but cannot because it isnt a colour match, so he is paired against player C who is. The left over group is then paired.

However after the arbiter makes his colour chnage for a previous round it now is the case that player A can play player B because it is now a colour match. This results in A, B and C all getting different oppoents because of the colour change even though B2 wasnt violated.

The arbiter could in accordance with F7 make this change to the published draw.

Oepty
10-11-2006, 05:26 PM
Another case of sloppy wording, alas; not only does F7 technically contradict F6, but it also technically contradicts itself.

F7 creates an exception to F6 and allows a draw that has been published to be altered if that draw is based on the three kinds of errors listed, provided that the game has not yet started.

As far as the sloppy wording goes, I have wondered for a while what language the rules such as the Laws of Chess and the Swiss rules were originally written in. If it was not english then some of the sloppy language could be because of sloppy translation. I also wonder what languages FIDE provide their rules in. I think I am changing the topic again, sorry
Scott

Denis_Jessop
10-11-2006, 10:07 PM
The contradiction referred to is that F6 states that a pairing officially made public shall not be changed unless it violates the absolute criteria (which suggests this is the only reason it can be changed), but F7 then makes it possible for a pairing made public to be changed at the arbiter's discretion under certain other circumstances. It would be better if F6 referred to F7 or the circumstances listed in it in some way.

The third kind (actually the first kind) of error referred to in F7 is "result was written down incorrectly".



F7 is referring to a case in which it is belatedly found that a previous game has been played with wrong colours. Example: Player A gets black in the draw for round 5 and immediately complains "but I've had three blacks in a row". The DOPs say "no you were white against C last round". A says "but we got the colours wrong and I actually played black against C". F7 allows the arbiters to then withdraw the published round 5 pairing, manually correct round 4 so that A is shown as having had black against C in round 4, and then re-pair round 5.

This matter is worse than I thought. I see that the FIDE Handbook has F7 with 3 dot points, the first of which is the result one. But I was relying on Stewart Reuben's book for the text. His first edition has it as now appears in the handbook but his second and third editions both have a different text in which, among other things, the first dot point is omitted. I wonder what the correct version is and why Reuben's is different. It is significantly different so it must have some basis.

DJ

Kevin Bonham
10-11-2006, 10:12 PM
This matter is worse than I thought. I see that the FIDE Handbook has F7 with 3 dot points, the first of which is the result one. But I was relying on Stewart Reuben's book for the text. His first edition has it as now appears in the handbook but his second and third editions both have a different text in which, among other things, the first dot point is omitted. I wonder what the correct version is and why Reuben's is different. It is significantly different so it must have some basis.

There was some controversy about the second edition of Reuben's book containing some items which were recommendations or proposals rather than the current official rules. Gijssen criticised this heavily in his review of it. It may be to do with this or it could just be an error. I only have edition 1 of Reuben's book so cannot comment for sure.

I'm assuming the FIDE website version with three dot points is correct. I cannot see any reason why the first dot point would have been dropped.

Denis_Jessop
10-11-2006, 10:26 PM
There was some controversy about the second edition of Reuben's book containing some items which were recommendations or proposals rather than the current official rules. Gijssen criticised this heavily in his review of it. It may be to do with this or it could just be an error. I only have edition 1 of Reuben's book so cannot comment for sure.

I'm assuming the FIDE website version with three dot points is correct. I cannot see any reason why the first dot point would have been dropped.

Maybe, but the FIDE Handbook is not flawless. See for example the note following B6 and the provision in Para 21 of D Miscellaneous which both deal with the same matter in a different way. What is the status of the latter provision? Also, if Reuben' second edition was wrong why didn't he correct it in his third - contrast his renumbering of the paras in B in the second edition that was dropped in the third. Certainly, the drafting of F7 in the current handbook is more than sloppy. It seems to have been drafted by someone for whom English was a third language.

DJ

Kevin Bonham
11-11-2006, 11:22 AM
Maybe, but the FIDE Handbook is not flawless. See for example the note following B6 and the provision in Para 21 of D Miscellaneous which both deal with the same matter in a different way. What is the status of the latter provision?

Interesting.

I'm not sure.

I'm aware the handbook is riddled with apparent contradictions; all I was saying above is I suspect that the handbook text of B6 is the approved one.

Garvinator
13-11-2006, 11:52 PM
I'm aware the handbook is riddled with apparent contradictions; Do you know why this is the case?

Kevin Bonham
13-11-2006, 11:56 PM
Do you know why this is the case?

Because it is written by FIDE.

MichaelBaron
14-11-2006, 12:27 AM
A lot of problems can be avoided if the arbiter checks the draw before posting.:hmm:

Once the draw is published, players assume they know who their next opponent is. Draw change 2 mins prior to the start of the round does not help. Whether it is legitimate to change the draw so late or not - it certainly has a strong negative impact on some of the players involved.