PDA

View Full Version : Zonal manual pairings



Bill Gletsos
12-05-2007, 01:57 PM
In round 5 of the Oceania Open Zonal boards 4 & 6 appear to have been manually paired.

The pairings as played were:

Lukey V Smith
Lane V Guo-Yuthok
Nakauchi V Morris

Lukey was on 3 points and floated down. The 5 others were all on 2.5.

Lukey has a white colour preference.
Lane has a white colour preference.
Smith has a black colour preference and was an upfloat in round 4.
Morris has a black colour preference.
Guo-Yuthok has a black colour preference and was an downfloat in round 4.
Nakauchi has a white colour preference and was a downfloat in round 3.

Now Lukey has floated down so he is in S1 and the remaining five in the order I listed are in S2.
Therefore p = 1, w = 3, b = 3, q = 3 and x = 0.

This means you need to get a pairing that is also a colour match.

Trying Lukey V Lane is no good so try Lukey V Smith.
This is ok for colour but violates B5.
Hence try Lukey V Morris. This is a colour match and does not violate B% or anything else.

Hence Lukey V Morris is the valid pairing.

Therefore with the remaining homogenous group we retart the calulctions.
Lane and Smith are in S1 and Guo-Yuthok and Nakauchi are in S2.

Therefore p =2, w = 2 , b = 2, q =2 and x = 0.

S1 V S2 gives

Lane Guo-Yuthok
Nakauchi Smith
These pairings meet x = 0 and are therefore valid.

As such the correct pairings for Round 5 are:

Lukey Morris
Lane Guo-Yuthok
Nakauchi Smith
These were the pairings that Swiss Perfect had in fact generated.

As such the manual pairing should not have been done as the Swiss Perfect pairings were correct.

Garvinator
12-05-2007, 02:16 PM
Looks like another example of where manual arbiter intervention was incorrect.

Oepty
12-05-2007, 02:50 PM
It looks like Smith's upfloat was overlooked or disregarded. This kind of thing is especially bad in this tournament because of the titles on offer to players finishing in the middle of the tournament.
Scott

Bill Gletsos
12-05-2007, 07:34 PM
In round 7 of the Oceania Open Zonal boards 13 & 14 appear to have been manually paired.

The pairings as played on boards 13-15 were:

Goundar V Sharma
Arora V Sikivou
Ong V Chand

The pairings as generated by Swiss Perfect were:
Sikivou V Sharma
Arora V Goundar
Ong V Chand

Sharma is on 2.5 and has an absolute black colour preference.
Gounder & Chand are on 2 with Arora and Sikivou on 1.5 and Ong on 0.
Ong has played all except Chand and Sharma.
Gounder has a black colour preference and has downfloated in round 6.
Chand has a white colour preference.

So Sharma is in S1 with Gounder & Chand in S2.

p = 1, w = 1, b =2, q = 2 amd x = 0.

This mean sthat Goundar V Sharma violates x = 0 so try Chand V Sharma.

This is ok even though it causes Goundar to again be a downfloat.

However now we are left with Gounder to match against the 1.5 players but no matter how you do it no opponent can be found for Ong.

this leads to unpairing going back to Chand & Sharma.

This means Gounder V Sharma is paired and you move on to pairing Chand.
It works out that since Chand must play Ong.

Therefore the pairings are:

Goundar Sharma
Arora Sikivou
Ong Chand
It is clear that the Swiss Perfect pairings are incorrect.

Therefore the arbiters were correct in manually overwriting the pairings on boards 13 & 14 however they still had the board order incorrect.

The board order in line with F1 of the rules should be:

Goundar Sharma
Ong Chand
Arora Sikivou

Bill Gletsos
12-05-2007, 08:19 PM
Round 8.

The published pairings were:

1. Bjelobrk [5] V Zhao [5.5]
2. Wang [5.5] V Smerdon [4.5]
3. Goldenberg [5] V Feldman [4.5]
4. Lane [4] V Smith [5]
5. Chernih [4] V Lukey [4]
6. Morris [4] V Steadman [4]
7. Nakauchi [3.5] V Fitzpatrick [3.5]
8. Kumar [3.5] V Mendes da Costa [3.5]
9. Illingworth [3.5] v Igada-Osir [3.5]
10. Spiller [3] V Guatam [3]
11. Chand [3] V Sharma [3]
12. Guo-Yuthok [3] V Goundar [2.5]
13. Sikivou [2.5] v Fancy [2.5]
14. Ilic [2.5] v Arora [1.5]
15. Ong [0] v Prasad [2.5]

The SP generated pairings were:

1. Wang [5.5] V Bjelobrk [5]
2. Chernih [4] V Zhao [5.5]
3. Feldman [4.5] V Goldenberg [5]
4. Smerdon [4.5] V Smith [5]
5. Lane [4] V Steadman [4]
6. Morris [4] V Lukey [4]
7. Nakauchi [3.5] V Fitzpatrick [3.5]
8. Kumar [3.5] V Mendes da Costa [3.5]
9. Illingworth [3.5] v Igada-Osir [3.5]
10. Spiller [3] V Guatam [3]
11. Chand [3] V Sharma [3]
12. Guo-Yuthok [3] V Goundar [2.5]
13. Sikivou [2.5] v Fancy [2.5]
14. Ilic [2.5] v Arora [1.5]
15. Ong [0] v Prasad [2.5]

I believe the correct pairings are:

1. Wang [5.5] V Bjelobrk [5]
2. Chernih [4] V Zhao [5.5]
3. Feldman [4.5] V Goldenberg [5]
4. Smerdon [4.5] V Smith [5]
5. Lane [4] V Steadman [4]
6. Morris [4] V Lukey [4]
7. Nakauchi [3.5] V Fitzpatrick [3.5]
8. Kumar [3.5] V Mendes da Costa [3.5]
9. Illingworth [3.5] v Igada-Osir [3.5]
10. Spiller [3] V Guatam [3]
11. Chand [3] V Sharma [3]
12. Guo-Yuthok [3] V Prasad [2.5]
13. Sikivou [2.5] v Goundar [2.5]
14. Ilic [2.5] v Arora [1.5]
15. Ong [0] v Fancy [2.5]

The arbiters & SP agree on boards 7-15. Unforunately they both get it wrong on boards 12, 13 and 15.

SP got it right on boards 1-11 and 14 and wrong on boards 12, 13 & 15.

The arbiters got it right on boards 7-11 and 14 and wrong on boards 1-6 and 12, 13 & 15.

That means SP got 3 boards wrong and the arbiters got 9 boards wrong.

The arbiters should not have manually adjusted boards 1-6 and should have manually adjusted boards 12, 13 & 15.

Overall this round appears to be a major stuff-up.

Garvinator
12-05-2007, 08:25 PM
I am going through using Swiss Manager to see what it has to say on the matter.

Round 5 by SM:


Bo. SNo. Name Pts Res. Pts Name SNo.

1 6 Wang 3½ 3½ Goldenberg 4
2 1 Zhao 3 3 Feldman 7
3 5 Bjelobrk 3 3 Smerdon 2
4 9 Lukey 3 2½ Morris 20
5 3 Lane 2½ 2½ Guo-Yuthok 22
6 27 Nakauchi 2½ 2½ Smith 8
7 10 Steadman 2 2 Chernih 14
8 17 Mendes Da Costa 1½ 2 Illingworth 18
9 21 Arora 1½ 1½ Fancy 11
10 26 Sharma 1½ 1½ Ilic 12
11 28 Chand 1½ 1½ Spiller 15
12 29 Sikivou 1½ 1½ Kumar 16
13 19 Gautum 1½ 1½ Prasad 23
14 13 Fitzpatrick 1 1 Goundar 24
15 25 Ogada-Osir 1 0 Ong 30

Garvinator
12-05-2007, 08:34 PM
Round 7 by SM:


Bo. SNo. Name Pts Res. Pts Name SNo.
1 1 Zhao 5 4 Smerdon 2
2 8 Smith 4 5 Goldenberg 4
3 5 Bjelobrk 4 4 Wang 6
4 10 Steadman 4 3 Illingworth 18
5 9 Lukey 3 3 Lane 3
6 27 Nakauchi 3 3 Feldman 7
7 20 Morris 3 3 Kumar 16
8 19 Gautum 3 3 Chernih 14
9 11 Fancy 2 2 Mendes Da Costa 17
10 25 Ogada-Osir 2 2 Ilic 12
11 13 Fitzpatrick 2 2 Prasad 23
12 22 Guo-Yuthok 2 2 Spiller 15
13 24 Goundar 2 2 Sharma 26
14 30 Ong 0 2 Chand 28
15 21 Arora 1 1 Sikivou 29
Swiss Manager agrees with the manual pairings and Bill G's but has boards 14 and 15 swapped.

Garvinator
12-05-2007, 08:44 PM
If I have inputted results correctly, SM gets for round 8:


Bo. SNo. Name Pts Res. Pts Name SNo.

1 6 Wang 5½ 5 Bjelobrk 5
2 14 Chernih 4 5½ Zhao 1
3 7 Feldman 4½ 5 Goldenberg 4
4 2 Smerdon 4½ 5 Smith 8
5 3 Lane 4 4 Steadman 10
6 20 Morris 4 4 Lukey 9
7 27 Nakauchi 3½ 3½ Fitzpatrick 13
8 16 Kumar 3½ 3½ Mendes Da Costa 17
9 18 Illingworth 3½ 3½ Ogada-Osir 25
10 15 Spiller 3 3 Gautum 19
11 28 Chand 3 3 Sharma 26
12 22 Guo-Yuthok 3 2½ Prasad 23
13 29 Sikivou 2½ 2½ Fancy 11
14 21 Arora 1½ 2½ Goundar 24
15 12 Ilic 2½ 0 Ong 30

Denis_Jessop
12-05-2007, 09:18 PM
Apart from the relevance to this event there is the wider question:

"Why did SP get it wrong when it did?" Is it the known bug or some new one? From Bill's explanation it seems it may not be the known one.

DJ

Garvinator
12-05-2007, 09:41 PM
Apart from the relevance to this event there is the wider question:

"Why did SP get it wrong when it did?" Is it the known bug or some new one? From Bill's explanation it seems it may not be the known one.

DJ
Have there been any pairing rule changes since sp was written? If so, what have they been?

Bill Gletsos
12-05-2007, 09:48 PM
Apart from the relevance to this event there is the wider question:

"Why did SP get it wrong when it did?" Is it the known bug or some new one? From Bill's explanation it seems it may not be the known one.

DJIf you are referring to the problem with the pairings in Round 7 (post #4) then I have seen it before. It seems to happen when SP gets to a point and cannot pair the remaining players so has to unpair the previous group. it then seems to mess it up.

Bill Gletsos
12-05-2007, 10:06 PM
If I have inputted results correctly, SM gets for round 8:


Bo. SNo. Name Pts Res. Pts Name SNo.

1 6 Wang 5 5 Bjelobrk 5
2 14 Chernih 4 5 Zhao 1
3 7 Feldman 4 5 Goldenberg 4
4 2 Smerdon 4 5 Smith 8
5 3 Lane 4 4 Steadman 10
6 20 Morris 4 4 Lukey 9
7 27 Nakauchi 3 3 Fitzpatrick 13
8 16 Kumar 3 3 Mendes Da Costa 17
9 18 Illingworth 3 3 Ogada-Osir 25
10 15 Spiller 3 3 Gautum 19
11 28 Chand 3 3 Sharma 26
12 22 Guo-Yuthok 3 2 Prasad 23
13 29 Sikivou 2 2 Fancy 11
14 21 Arora 1 2 Goundar 24
15 12 Ilic 2 0 Ong 30
That is clearly wrong.
The Goundar downfloat violates B6.
Arora V Goudar isnt a colour match and neither is Ilic V Ong.

Sikivuo V Gounder violates nothing and is a colour match.
Ilic V Arora is also a colour match as is Ong V Fancy.

Garvinator
12-05-2007, 10:22 PM
That is clearly wrong.
The Goundar downfloat violates B6.
Arora V Goudar isnt a colour match and neither is Ilic V Ong.

Sikivuo V Gounder violates nothing and is a colour match.
Ilic V Arora is also a colour match as is Ong V Fancy.
Ok, will look into the results I inputted further to see if the mistake is at my end.

Bill Gletsos
12-05-2007, 10:24 PM
Ok, will look into the results I inputted further to see if the mistake is at my end.I suspect the problem is with Swiss Manager and not your input.

Garvinator
12-05-2007, 10:41 PM
That is clearly wrong.
The Goundar downfloat violates B6.
Arora V Goudar isnt a colour match and neither is Ilic V Ong.

Sikivuo V Gounder violates nothing and is a colour match.
Ilic V Arora is also a colour match as is Ong V Fancy.
When joining three score groups together in the bottom group, as is the case here (2.5, 1.5 and 0), is the group of players treated as a homogenous or heterogenous score group?

If it is homogenous, would float status matter? ie Goundar can be floated if required.

Garvinator
12-05-2007, 10:42 PM
I suspect the problem is with Swiss Manager and not your input.
At least I am now confident that my result input is correct.

Bill Gletsos
12-05-2007, 10:57 PM
When joining three score groups together in the bottom group, as is the case here (2.5, 1.5 and 0), is the group of players treated as a homogenous or heterogenous score group?

If it is homogenous, would float status matter? ie Goundar can be floated if required.If the player and his opponent have different scores then it is a float.

Bill Gletsos
12-05-2007, 11:01 PM
I just finished testing with Swiss Master.

It gets the same results as SP in round 5.
It gets the same results as the arbiters in round 7.
It gets the same results as I do in round 8.

Garvinator
12-05-2007, 11:13 PM
Ok part of the issue is who floats up to play Guo-Yuthok, who is on 3.

Guo-Yuthok is -1 and wants white

Fancy upfloated in round six, so cant go up again.
Ilic is also -1 and wants white, so that is a bad colour match.
Now both Prasad and Goundar +1, with Goundar having an absolute black preference. Goundar upfloated in round seven.

Guo-Yuthok has played neither of Prasad or Goundar.

So that means that the pairing should be:

Guo-Yuthok v Prasad.

It seems that both sp and the arbiter pairings missed that Goundar upfloated in round seven and Prasad hasn't upfloated in either round six or seven.

I think what has happened is that the pairing program has upfloated Goundar because he has the absolute colour preference.

As for what has happened with swiss manager, I have no idea :eek:

Garvinator
12-05-2007, 11:15 PM
I just finished testing with Swiss Master.

It gets the same results as SP in round 5.
It gets the same results as the arbiters in round 7.
It gets the same results as I do in round 8.
This result doesnt help :doh: :lol:

road runner
12-05-2007, 11:18 PM
In round 5 of the Oceania Open Zonal boards 4 & 6 appear to have been manually paired.When used in this context, is "manually paired" a euphamism for "incorrectly paired"?

Garvinator
12-05-2007, 11:21 PM
When used in this context, is "manually paired" a euphamism for "incorrectly paired"?
It means paired by the arbiters, as opposed to paired by one of the programs.

Bill Gletsos
12-05-2007, 11:22 PM
This result doesnt help :doh: :lol:Actually it does because it matches what I believe to be the correct pairings for rounds 5, 7 and 8.

Garvinator
12-05-2007, 11:27 PM
Actually it does because it matches what I believe to be the correct pairings for rounds 5, 7 and 8.
My apologies, should have gone back and re read the round 5 results.

Garvinator
12-05-2007, 11:30 PM
So it is still a mystery as to why Swiss manager has gotten round eight bottom three boards so wrong.

Bill Gletsos
12-05-2007, 11:47 PM
Round 7 by SM:


Bo. SNo. Name Pts Res. Pts Name SNo.
1 1 Zhao 5 4 Smerdon 2
2 8 Smith 4 5 Goldenberg 4
3 5 Bjelobrk 4 4½ Wang 6
4 10 Steadman 4 3½ Illingworth 18
5 9 Lukey 3½ 3½ Lane 3
6 27 Nakauchi 3½ 3½ Feldman 7
7 20 Morris 3½ 3 Kumar 16
8 19 Gautum 3 3 Chernih 14
9 11 Fancy 2½ 2½ Mendes Da Costa 17
10 25 Ogada-Osir 2½ 2½ Ilic 12
11 13 Fitzpatrick 2½ 2½ Prasad 23
12 22 Guo-Yuthok 2½ 2½ Spiller 15
13 24 Goundar 2 2½ Sharma 26
14 30 Ong 0 2 Chand 28
15 21 Arora 1½ 1½ Sikivou 29
Swiss Manager agrees with the manual pairings and Bill G's but has boards 14 and 15 swapped.Actually I only listed the correct pairings in that post and I didnt list the boards in the correct order.
The correct order is Ong V Chand then Arora V Sikivuo in line with F1 or the rules.

I'll rectify it in my post.

Denis_Jessop
13-05-2007, 09:14 PM
Have there been any pairing rule changes since sp was written? If so, what have they been?

There were a couple of minor changes made at the Turin Congress last year. The first concerns the order of titled players; the second requires an unplayed win to be considered as a downfloat. I don't think they affect the situation we are looking at here. They are the only changes.

DJ

Denis_Jessop
13-05-2007, 09:17 PM
If you are referring to the problem with the pairings in Round 7 (post #4) then I have seen it before. It seems to happen when SP gets to a point and cannot pair the remaining players so has to unpair the previous group. it then seems to mess it up.

Is this then a different problem from the one of downfloating a player across a score group - it seems to be. It also seems to be a rather serious flaw. Perhaps we can take this up separately as the general issue would complicate the thread rather.

DJ

Brian_Jones
14-05-2007, 09:44 AM
It is clear to me that for reasons of fairness to all players we should:

1. Stop using SwissPerfect as it is unapproved and unsupported.

2. Insist our arbiters stop making manual pairings.

3. Use a FIDE approved program (with no manual changes allowed).

Does anybody else agree with this philosophy?

Denis_Jessop
14-05-2007, 11:16 AM
It is clear to me that for reasons of fairness to all players we should:

1. Stop using SwissPerfect as it is unapproved and unsupported.

2. Insist our arbiters stop making manual pairings.

3. Use a FIDE approved program (with no manual changes allowed).

Does anybody else agree with this philosophy?

Yes - I think so. Not only that but the most recent FIDE edict forbids manual pairing changes so to make them in a Zonal seems rather wrong, especially on the occasion when the program, despite its faults, was right. I had been meaning to see, on behalf of the ACF, whether the owner of Swiss Manager would give any special deal to National Federations as Robert does with SP but, like several other important things, I just haven't yet got around to it.

DJ

Garvinator
14-05-2007, 11:19 AM
Yes - I think so. Not only that but the most recent FIDE edict forbids manual pairing changes so to make them in a Zonal seems rather wrong, especially on the occasion when the program, despite its faults, was right. I had been meaning to see, on behalf of the ACF, whether the owner of Swiss Manager would give any special deal to National Federations as Robert does with SP but, like several other important things, I just haven't yet got around to it.

DJ
As has been shown on here by Bill and my manual calculations, Swiss Manager hasn't been perfect and in round eight of the Open Zonal has made a simple blunder with the bottom boards.

To go with Swiss Manager would be a mistake.

I think Bill's analysis has shown that Swiss Master got it right on all three occasions here, but has been shown to be incorrect previously on here.

This is the main issue, that no current program will implement the pairings correctly.

Garvinator
14-05-2007, 11:21 AM
What I am surprised about is how wrong the arbiters were and this is not the first time as has been shown on this board.

Is there a problem with how arbiters are trained with the issue of pairings?

Brian_Jones
14-05-2007, 12:53 PM
As has been shown on here by Bill and my manual calculations, Swiss Manager hasn't been perfect ......

I personally do not care whether you, Bill, Charles and a gaggle of Australian arbiters can find faults with individual pairing programs. Arbiting is much more than just the maths of making swiss pairings.

Others around the world choose an approved pairing program and then just use it (without manual intervention). This makes the arbiters job easier and reduces the possibility of personal bias.

We should follow FIDE and the rest of the world.

Time for aussies to stop being amateur mathematicians (we seem to think we know better than everyone else).

Oceania (and ACF) should use a FIDE-approved program (any) and give the players a fair go!

Brian_Jones
14-05-2007, 12:56 PM
This is the main issue, that no current program will implement the pairings correctly.

Welcome to the world of computer software. Show me a piece of error-free code. It is not a perfect world Garvin.

Brian_Jones
14-05-2007, 12:58 PM
What I am surprised about is how wrong the arbiters were and this is not the first time as has been shown on this board.

Is there a problem with how arbiters are trained with the issue of pairings?

Arbiters are used to being the star attraction and this has to stop! ;)

pax
14-05-2007, 03:53 PM
Oceania (and ACF) should use a FIDE-approved program (any) and give the players a fair go!

It's not that simple - PROTOS is an approved program, and it has been demonstrated to produce some truly terrible round pairings. If we start using a program that has more serious flaws than SP then we are right back to square one.

If the choice is between Swiss Master and Swiss Manager, and one produces correct pairings and one does not why would you choose the incorrect one (which incidentally costs twice as much)?

Brian_Jones
14-05-2007, 04:47 PM
It's not that simple - PROTOS is an approved program, and it has been demonstrated to produce some truly terrible round pairings. If we start using a program that has more serious flaws than SP then we are right back to square one.

If the choice is between Swiss Master and Swiss Manager, and one produces correct pairings and one does not why would you choose the incorrect one (which incidentally costs twice as much)?

I don't agree. I would rather we use a flawed program than an erratic (and sometimes biased) human.

Again, look at what is happening at other tournaments around the world.
They are definitely not pairing manually! Are we so right and they all so wrong?

Basil
14-05-2007, 04:50 PM
Brian, I am posting so that you know your comments aren't in vain, and are being noted and digested from this end. As you know, my knowledge is not great in matters of ratings, pairings.

That said, your proposition appears a good one and I would be interested to hear a rationale against it.

Igor_Goldenberg
14-05-2007, 04:52 PM
If I have inputted results correctly, SM gets for round 8:


Bo. SNo. Name Pts Res. Pts Name SNo.

1 6 Wang 5 5 Bjelobrk 5
2 14 Chernih 4 5 Zhao 1
3 7 Feldman 4 5 Goldenberg 4
4 2 Smerdon 4 5 Smith 8
5 3 Lane 4 4 Steadman 10
6 20 Morris 4 4 Lukey 9
7 27 Nakauchi 3 3 Fitzpatrick 13
8 16 Kumar 3 3 Mendes Da Costa 17
9 18 Illingworth 3 3 Ogada-Osir 25
10 15 Spiller 3 3 Gautum 19
11 28 Chand 3 3 Sharma 26
12 22 Guo-Yuthok 3 2 Prasad 23
13 29 Sikivou 2 2 Fancy 11
14 21 Arora 1 2 Goundar 24
15 12 Ilic 2 0 Ong 30


Why Feldman-Goldenberg and not Goldenberg-Feldman? (both played 4 black and 3 white and both are due white)
Why Zhao floated 3 levels down to Chernih? If he is floated 1 level down to Bjelobrk, Wang has to float down only two levels to Smerdon.

Igor_Goldenberg
14-05-2007, 04:56 PM
It is clear to me that for reasons of fairness to all players we should:

1. Stop using SwissPerfect as it is unapproved and unsupported.

2. Insist our arbiters stop making manual pairings.

3. Use a FIDE approved program (with no manual changes allowed).

Does anybody else agree with this philosophy?
1. What are FIDE approved programs?
2. What program was used at SIO?

Garvinator
14-05-2007, 05:11 PM
Why Feldman-Goldenberg and not Goldenberg-Feldman? (both played 4 black and 3 white and both are due white)
Hello Igor-

Colour histories of both players:


Goldenberg (5) - bwbwbwb
Feldman (4.5) - wbwbbwb

As you point out, both players have had 3 whites, 4 blacks, making them both -1.

From the fide pairing rules section:


E. COLOUR ALLOCATION RULES

For each pairing apply (with descending priority):

E.1 Grant both colour preferences.

E.2 Grant the stronger colour preference.

E.3 Alternate the colours to the most recent round in which they played with different colours.(the relevant rule here)

E.4 Grant the colour preference of the higher ranked player.

E.5 In the first round all even numbered players in S1 will receive a colour different from all odd numbered players in S1.

E1 can't be followed as both players want white this round (they are both -1)
E2 also can't be followed as both players want white this round (they are both -1)
E3 This is the rule that applies. Starting from round 7 and working backwards, we find that in round four Goldenberg had white and Feldman black.
So now we alternate the colours as per E3 and get the pairing of Feldman- Goldenberg.


Why Zhao floated 3 levels down to Chernih? If he is floated 1 level down to Bjelobrk, Wang has to float down only two levels to Smerdon. Will answer in next post.

Garvinator
14-05-2007, 05:39 PM
Hello Igor again,

Why Zhao gets Chernih and not Bjelobrk is rather involved.

Players are paired from highest score group to bottom.

So starting from the top Zhao and Wang have played each other, so they are downfloated.

This then leaves:


S1: S2:

Zhao +1 (b) Goldenberg -1 (w)
Wang -1 (w) Bjelobrk +1 (b)
Smith +1 (b)

Zhao and Wang have both played Goldenberg and Smith, so one of them must be paired with Bjelobrk.

Wang is the better colour match, so it is Wang-Bjelobrk.

Garvinator
14-05-2007, 07:10 PM
I don't agree. I would rather we use a flawed program than an erratic (and sometimes biased) human.
The problem with this is when there is a formal pairing challenge. Arbiters need to be able to justify that the 'published' pairings are indeed compliant with the fide dutch pairing rules.

Brian_Jones
15-05-2007, 09:00 AM
The problem with this is when there is a formal pairing challenge. Arbiters need to be able to justify that the 'published' pairings are indeed compliant with the fide dutch pairing rules.

No they don't if they are using an approved computer program!

Brian_Jones
15-05-2007, 09:04 AM
1. What are FIDE approved programs?
2. What program was used at SIO?

1. Protos, Swiss-sys, Swiss-Manager. But this could change. See FIDE website.

2. SIO used SwissPerfect and Swiss-Manager in parallel. But the arbiters and the programs could not always agree. ;)

pax
15-05-2007, 10:35 AM
I don't agree. I would rather we use a flawed program than an erratic (and sometimes biased) human.

Again, look at what is happening at other tournaments around the world.
They are definitely not pairing manually! Are we so right and they all so wrong?

Read my post again.

I actually think a non-intervention policy is a good idea. But if we are going to do it, it has to be on the basis that the program is pairing correctly to begin with. From my understanding, Swiss Master meets this criterion.

I did an analysis of PROTOS on this board some time ago, and the results were utterly abysmal.

Bill Gletsos
15-05-2007, 11:11 AM
No they don't if they are using an approved computer program!That is simply incorrect.
The computer is only a tool, the arbiter is in charge.

Garvinator
15-05-2007, 11:22 AM
2. SIO used SwissPerfect and Swiss-Manager in parallel. But the arbiters and the programs could not always agree. ;)
err ah no sorry Brian. When both pairing programs agreed with each other, the arbiters just used the computer pairings.

When the programs differed, then we had to work out why they were different and use best judgement as to why they differed.

It was of course great relief that in the last round both pairing programs agreed :cool:

Garvinator
15-05-2007, 11:23 AM
That is simply incorrect.
The computer is only a tool, the arbiter is in charge.
I had been trying to find this in the fide laws, but couldn't find it. I know it is in there somewhere.

Brian_Jones
15-05-2007, 12:13 PM
That is simply incorrect.
The computer is only a tool, the arbiter is in charge.

At Turin FIDE ruled that arbiters cannot change pairings (of approved programs).

Bill Gletsos
15-05-2007, 12:22 PM
At Turin FIDE ruled that arbiters cannot change pairings (of approved programs).That is incorrect. They made no such ruling.

chessaustralia
15-05-2007, 12:37 PM
http://www.fide.com/news/download/annexes/ga2006/annex52.pdf

Bill Gletsos
15-05-2007, 01:01 PM
http://www.fide.com/news/download/annexes/ga2006/annex52.pdfI am fully aware of what that says but your interpretation is incorrect.

chessaustralia
15-05-2007, 01:10 PM
what is your interpretation?

Basil
15-05-2007, 01:54 PM
Gentleman, this has the makings of an excellent discussion :clap:

I'd be interested to see who us the first to planet pointy.

OK, everybody carry on - you're all doing very well.

Bill Gletsos
15-05-2007, 02:29 PM
what is your interpretation?My interpretation is not important. What is important is what the Swiss Pairing Committee meant.

To that end, I actually contacted Stewart Reuben who was present at the meeting so I could find out exactly what it meant.

It means that no changes should be made to pairings that are done correctly with regards the actual pairing rules.

e.g. The correct application of the pairing rules results in a husband and wife being paired in the final round where one of them can gain a large prize.

What the ruling was saying was that pairings such as this should stand and not be manually changed.

Brian_Jones
15-05-2007, 03:13 PM
My interpretation is not important. What is important is what the Swiss Pairing Committee meant.

To that end, I actually contacted Stewart Reuben who was present at the meeting so I could find out exactly what it meant.

It means that no changes should be made to pairings that are done correctly with regards the actual pairing rules.

e.g. The correct application of the pairing rules results in a husband and wife being paired in the final round where one of them can gain a large prize.

What the ruling was saying was that pairings such as this should stand and not be manually changed.

The Chairman of this Committe is Christian Krause. He is the author of Protos.
Did you also contact Christian Krause to advise him that his program makes incorrect pairings and has a poor reputation on this board?

MichaelBaron
15-05-2007, 03:24 PM
At Turin FIDE ruled that arbiters cannot change pairings (of approved programs).
I agree with this 100% :clap:

Bill Gletsos
15-05-2007, 03:32 PM
I agree with this 100% :clap:Agree all all you like.
As I expalined no such decision was made. :hand:

Bill Gletsos
15-05-2007, 03:35 PM
The Chairman of this Committe is Christian Krause. He is the author of Protos.I am well aware of this.

Did you also contact Christian Krause to advise him that his program makes incorrect pairings and has a poor reputation on this board?This is completely irrelevant to the matter being dscussed of the Swiss Pairing Committee's report oregarding the meaning of no manual changing of pairings.

chessaustralia
15-05-2007, 03:47 PM
My interpretation is not important. What is important is what the Swiss Pairing Committee meant.

To that end, I actually contacted Stewart Reuben who was present at the meeting so I could find out exactly what it meant.

It means that no changes should be made to pairings that are done correctly with regards the actual pairing rules.

e.g. The correct application of the pairing rules results in a husband and wife being paired in the final round where one of them can gain a large prize.

What the ruling was saying was that pairings such as this should stand and not be manually changed.

this is very dubious.
i would like to get clarifcation on item 6.
i don't think the explanation above is good enough.

Brian_Jones
15-05-2007, 03:50 PM
This is completely irrelevant to the matter being dscussed of the Swiss Pairing Committee's report oregarding the meaning of no manual changing of pairings.

So Bill, are we to understand that you are personally very interested in the interpretation of FIDE rule changes and various individual's understanding of the minutes of meetings but are not particularly interested in getting FIDE to improve their pairing programs for the benefit of chess players in Australia?

As an ACF/NSWCA official, I would have thought you should be trying to get things improved rather than just playing games (which any chess player can do). ;)

pax
15-05-2007, 03:56 PM
The Chairman of this Committe is Christian Krause. He is the author of Protos.
Did you also contact Christian Krause to advise him that his program makes incorrect pairings and has a poor reputation on this board?

PROTOS was discussed in some detail here:

http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=3641

This after your own suggestion that PROTOS be adopted as the ACF official pairing program. I would imagine players and arbiters would all go out on strike if that happened.

I understand that the FIDE pairings committee have been notified numerous times of the flaws in PROTOS and nothing has ever been done. I will leave you to guess the reasons for that.

Bill Gletsos
15-05-2007, 04:08 PM
So Bill, are we to understand that you are personally very interested in the interpretation of FIDE rule changes and various individual's understanding of the minutes of meetings but are not particularly interested in getting FIDE to improve their pairing programs for the benefit of chess players in Australia?Firstly FIDE have no pairing programs, they only approve programs. I see no point in wasting time on improving a DOS based program such as Protos when there are far better programs available.

As an ACF/NSWCA official, I would have thought you should be trying to get things improved rather than just playing games (which any chess player can do). ;)The only person I see playing games here is you. :hand:

Bill Gletsos
15-05-2007, 04:21 PM
This is very dubious.There is nothing dubious about it at all other than the apparent fact you dont wish to accept Reuben's explanantion.

i would like to get clarifcation on item 6.The explanation above from Stewart Reuben who was there is the clarification.

i don't think the explanation above is good enough.What you think, like what I think on the matter is immaterial.

Stewart Reuben was there and he explained that this was the meaning and intention.
End of story as far as I am concerned.

arosar
15-05-2007, 04:25 PM
OK, when I read the minutes, it doesn't specifically talk about pairing programs.

Anyway Brian why don't you use your magazine to push certain agendas? It's just too tame mostly and here you are on this board talking very stridently over certain matters sometimes. In the current issue, Dr Z makes a great deal of hullaballo about some relatively unimportant detail (i.e. pigs and pyjamas).

Make it more juicy, you know. In the next issue, we want more controversy pouring forth from your pages. More attacking attitude like your attitude here. You gotta use your weapon mate.

AR

Brian_Jones
15-05-2007, 04:25 PM
PROTOS was discussed in some detail here:

http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=3641

This after your own suggestion that PROTOS be adopted as the ACF official pairing program. I would imagine players and arbiters would all go out on strike if that happened.

I understand that the FIDE pairings committee have been notified numerous times of the flaws in PROTOS and nothing has ever been done. I will leave you to guess the reasons for that.

I don't think that I have ever recommended the use of Protos. After all it was me that (with Larry Ermacora and IA Kevin Perrin) used Protos in the 1990 Australian Championships at UTS. Protos refused to pair R2 of the Australian Lightning Championship. It took us two hours to write out manual pairing cards!

In this BB discussion and previously, I am urging Australia to adopt an approved program in the same way that other countries do. We should forget Swissperfect because it is unapproved and unmaintained. We should contribute to FIDE to get faults in programs fixed. We should be positive not negative.

I am also urging a policy of non-intervention.

Brian_Jones
15-05-2007, 04:30 PM
Amiel, the magazine was written a week or so ago. And it is sent to sponsors!

It is only this week that I heard that the arbiters in Fiji changed the pairings manually.

Bill, in this thread I was acting as devil's to get the discussion going.
I was never really serious about using Protos (though one day they may rewrite).
Maybe you are too young to remember UTS 1990!!

Bill Gletsos
15-05-2007, 04:30 PM
I don't think that I have ever recommended the use of Protos.http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=75613&postcount=1

Bill Gletsos
15-05-2007, 04:35 PM
I am also urging a policy of non-intervention.That is not FIDE policy.
As stated before "The computer is only a tool, the arbiter is in charge."
Where the computer clearly has gotten the draw wrong then the arbiter should override it and correct it.

chessaustralia
15-05-2007, 04:55 PM
There is nothing dubious about it at all other than the apparent fact you dont wish to accept Reuben's explanantion.
The explanation above from Stewart Reuben who was there is the clarification.
What you think, like what I think on the matter is immaterial.

Stewart Reuben was there and he explained that this was the meaning and intention.
End of story as far as I am concerned.

there is doubt.
stewart was 1 of 22 people or so at that meeting.
he could have left the meeting with a different interpretation than others.
discussion and communication is needed to clarify the finer points.
were any scenarios given where an arbiter would override a program such as swiss manager?!

your understanding of what stewart said could be in doubt.
did you discuss in depth or did you sum up the conversation as before?!

hence there is some reason for doubt.

also, what others think is not immaterial. fide quite often rethink (and change rules/recommendations). this time is no different. at the next fide meeting i'm sure there would be similar discussions.

Brian_Jones
15-05-2007, 05:02 PM
That is not FIDE policy.
As stated before "The computer is only a tool, the arbiter is in charge."
Where the computer clearly has gotten the draw wrong then the arbiter should override it and correct it.

I agree that the arbiter is in charge.

But it is also sensible for the arbiter not to intervene unless they are absolutely sure.

Very few arbiters get the time to check the draw properly.

So most good IAs trust the program they use regularly eg Swiss-Manager.
Then they have no need to intervene.

Do you plan to be an IA one day?

Bill Gletsos
15-05-2007, 05:05 PM
there is doubt.
stewart was 1 of 22 people or so at that meeting.
he could have left the meeting with a different interpretation than others.Now you are clutching at straws.

discussion and communication is needed to clarify the finer points.
were any scenarios given where an arbiter would override a program such as swiss manager?!

your understanding of what stewart said could be in doubt.
did you discuss in depth or did you sum up the conversation as before?!

hence there is some reason for doubt.

also, what others think is not immaterial. fide quite often rethink (and change rules/recommendations). this time is no different. at the next fide meeting i'm sure there would be similar discussions.My post #56 answers the questions.

I'm not going to waste any more time on it.

Brian_Jones
15-05-2007, 05:07 PM
Stewart Reuben was there and he explained that this was the meaning and intention. End of story as far as I am concerned.

IA Hamid Majid from Malaysia was there also.

He told me last year in KL (in conversation with FIDE Secretary IA Ignatious Leong) that they never ever change the Swiss-manager pairings.

Bill Gletsos
15-05-2007, 05:10 PM
I agree that the arbiter is in charge. :clap:


But it is also sensible for the arbiter not to intervene unless they are absolutely sure.I have not suggested otherwise.

Very few arbiters get the time to check the draw properly.

So most good IAs trust the program they use regularly eg Swiss-Manager.
Then they have no need to intervene.This does not follow.
In fact implicit trust of the program is sheer folly.
If the arbiter determines that the computer generated draw is incorrect they should intervene and change it.

Do you plan to be an IA one day?Irrelevant to this discussion.

Bill Gletsos
15-05-2007, 05:15 PM
IA Hamid Majid from Malaysia was there also.

He told me last year in KL (in conversation with FIDE Secretary IA Ignatious Leong) that they never ever change the Swiss-manager pairings.That could mean a number of things.

1. They always trust Swiss Manager to be correct and therefore never check it for accuracy.
2. They do check it but have never found it to be wrong.
3. They do check, have found it to be wrong but stlll dont change it.

Brian_Jones
15-05-2007, 05:20 PM
That could mean a number of things.

1. They always trust Swiss Manager to be correct and therefore never check it for accuracy.
2. They do check it but have never found it to be wrong.
3. They do check, have found it to be wrong but stlll dont change it.

Yes, and from the player perspective, I don't care which it is.

They are all good reasons not to intervene.

pax
15-05-2007, 05:22 PM
http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=75613&postcount=1

;)

Basil
15-05-2007, 05:30 PM
;)
Fair enough. Brian did raise it, then. It wasn't an out an out recommendation, and could be interpreted both ways. I'd hate to see this excellent discussion go off track.

NB: Well sourced, Jon!

Bill Gletsos
15-05-2007, 05:39 PM
Yes, and from the player perspective, I don't care which it is.You may well not care. In the case where the program has got the pairings incorrect then other players may well have an opposing view.


They are all good reasons not to intervene.Clearly in 3. above if the arbiter has determined the pairings are incorrect then he should intervene.

Brian_Jones
16-05-2007, 08:54 AM
Clearly in 3. above if the arbiter has determined the pairings are incorrect then he should intervene.

And if he is not 100% sure (which he rarely will be) then he should not intervene.

Bill, you are a idealist with no practical experience of arbiting at international tournaments.

Real arbiters have to post the draw at a prescribed time else the players will be unhappy. So it is very hard for a human to determine that pairings are correct or not.

I remain a supporter of non-intervention.;)

pax
16-05-2007, 09:22 AM
And if he is not 100% sure (which he rarely will be) then he should not intervene.


I agree with you up to a point. Many arbiters do not have sufficient experience or expertise to correctly verify the pairing - they should not intervene. Those arbiters that do have the expertise may not have enough time to correctly verify the draw (especially in multiple rounds per day events) - they should not intervene. If, however, the arbiter has the expertise and the time to verify the draw then it seems to me that he should, and if the draw is incorrect it should be changed.

Brian_Jones
16-05-2007, 09:41 AM
:)
I agree with you up to a point. Many arbiters do not have sufficient experience or expertise to correctly verify the pairing - they should not intervene. Those arbiters that do have the expertise may not have enough time to correctly verify the draw (especially in multiple rounds per day events) - they should not intervene. If, however, the arbiter has the expertise and the time to verify the draw then it seems to me that he should, and if the draw is incorrect it should be changed.

I agree with you up to a point. :)

But what if the arbiter has the expertise and time but then gets it wrong.
Do we just put that down to human error? And why is it that the Australian arbiters appear more inclined to change?

Bill Gletsos
16-05-2007, 10:47 AM
And if he is not 100% sure (which he rarely will be) then he should not intervene.Agree.

Bill, you are a idealist with no practical experience of arbiting at international tournaments.No I'm not being an idealist. however if the arbiter is certain that a computer generated pairing is incorrect then they should intervene and change it.
Btw what experience do you have of arbiing at international tournaments?

Real arbiters have to post the draw at a prescribed time else the players will be unhappy.Posting an incorrect computer generated draw also will make them unhappy.

So it is very hard for a human to determine that pairings are correct or not.For extremely large events I would agree. However for smaller events such as the recent Oceania Zonal it should be possible check the 15 board pairings between the rounds.

I remain a supporter of non-intervention.;)
And if an arbiter is sure the computer generated paring is incorrect then they should. To not do so is sheer negligence.

Bill Gletsos
16-05-2007, 10:58 AM
:)

I agree with you up to a point. :)

But what if the arbiter has the expertise and time but then gets it wrong.
Do we just put that down to human error?Given the number of times that the arbiters have got it wrong, one could argue they dont have the expertise. ;)

And why is it that the Australian arbiters appear more inclined to change?That is the real question.
Often the arbiter changes a pairing yet it is simple to demonstrate the computer pairng is correct. e.g. See round 5 of the just completed Zonal.

Spiny Norman
16-05-2007, 11:39 AM
I have a suggestion:

Quite a few people here (Bill, et al) seem to be able to fairly readily demonstrate scenarios where particular pairing programs "get it wrong".

Why doesn't "someone" put together a set of scenarios (tournaments, with players, with results, based on real world situations) which could be used as a test suite to determine whether pairings are being done right or not?

The test suite could then be submitted to someone at FIDE who is responsible for the efficacy of pairings and who knows the rules ... it could be tested ... the outcomes could be confirmed (e.g. the correct pairings for each round could be published as the valid set of results which a pairing program ought to produce). That way the software vendors have a controlled situation that they can work to from a testing perspective.

Alternatively, simply publish the level to which various pairing programs are compliant (a percentage) and clearly identify which scenarios they do not properly handle?

Basil
16-05-2007, 12:36 PM
http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=154154&postcount=84

Agree with everything in its entirety except for the call to experience. In this instance, experience as requested is not a pre-requisite for determination of the procedure.

Bill Gletsos
16-05-2007, 01:00 PM
http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=154154&postcount=84

Agree with everything in its entirety except for the call to experience. In this instance, experience as requested is not a pre-requisite for determination of the procedure.I agree, however he raised the experience question first so I just reciprocated it. ;)

Garvinator
16-05-2007, 03:15 PM
Do we just put that down to human error? And why is it that the Australian arbiters appear more inclined to change?
I think a key word here is 'appear'. We do not know for a fact that other arbiters dont change the listed computer pairings, we only suspect they dont.

Anyways, as to why it seems that the top arbiters in Australia do change the computer draws 'frequently'.

I think it comes in two parts:

1) The top IA's I have had experience with all learnt the pairing rules before the dutch pairing rules became standard. Some have dealt with the change better than others.

2) Distrust of swissperfect, which in some cases is valid.

Unfortunately testing on here has shown that Swiss Manager is not perfect either.

I recall that Swiss Master 5 has been shown not to be fully compliant with DPR's, but held up well for the Oceania Zonal (by the way we still haven't done round 9 yet and the womens division either ;)).

pax
16-05-2007, 05:10 PM
I recall that Swiss Master 5 has been shown not to be fully compliant with DPR's
Where was this shown? I don't remember an issue with a Swiss Master pairing being demonstrated.

Garvinator
17-05-2007, 02:08 PM
Where was this shown? I don't remember an issue with a Swiss Master pairing being demonstrated.
Hello pax,

I do recall one on here from a previous Brisbane Chess Club tournament.

Oepty
17-05-2007, 02:28 PM
1) The top IA's I have had experience with all learnt the pairing rules before the dutch pairing rules became standard. Some have dealt with the change better than others.


When an arbiter believes that pairing top half vs bottom half should take precedence over giving players their correct colour and is prepared to disregard a part of the pairing rules then the arbiter is hardly likely to produce pairings in accordance with the rules. It does not mean they don't pair consistently, but it means they have created their own pairng system.
Scott

pax
17-05-2007, 04:41 PM
Hello pax,

I do recall one on here from a previous Brisbane Chess Club tournament.
Do you have a link? A forum search didn't turn up anything that I could see.

Bill Gletsos
17-05-2007, 06:17 PM
Do you have a link? A forum search didn't turn up anything that I could see.http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=127864&postcount=106

Garvinator
18-05-2007, 01:01 AM
Thanks Bill for finding that :clap:

Brian_Jones
18-05-2007, 08:42 AM
So can I take that nobody has found a single problem with Swiss-Manager pairings?

Bill Gletsos
18-05-2007, 12:16 PM
So can I take that nobody has found a single problem with Swiss-Manager pairings?It gets round 8 of the Zonal wrong as shown earlier in this thread.

Brian_Jones
18-05-2007, 12:59 PM
It gets round 8 of the Zonal wrong as shown earlier in this thread.

Then could somebody summarise this into an email and send it to me at info@chessaustralia.com.au

I will then take it up with the author.

pax
18-05-2007, 02:28 PM
Then could somebody summarise this into an email and send it to me at info@chessaustralia.com.au

I will then take it up with the author.

Refer to post 12 in this thread:
http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=6352

Brian_Jones
18-05-2007, 02:36 PM
Refer to post 12 in this thread:
http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=6352

Yeah - thanks for that clear description of the alleged Swiss-Manager problem. :evil:

And I need the files before R8 please Garvin!

Garvinator
18-05-2007, 03:11 PM
And I need the files before R8 please Garvin!
Have sent.

pax
18-05-2007, 03:34 PM
Yeah - thanks for that clear description of the alleged Swiss-Manager problem. :evil:

Don't shoot the messenger, man.

pax
18-05-2007, 03:38 PM
This much is indisputable:

Swiss Manager and Swiss Master 5 (both FIDE approved programs) disagree on the correct draw for round 8. This alone ought to be enough reason for the author to investigate if they are inclined to fix such problems.

Brian_Jones
18-05-2007, 04:05 PM
This much is indisputable:

Swiss Manager and Swiss Master 5 (both FIDE approved programs) disagree on the correct draw for round 8. This alone ought to be enough reason for the author to investigate if they are inclined to fix such problems.

Yes, when the problems are evidenced!:)

pax
18-05-2007, 04:55 PM
Yes, when the problems are evidenced!:)

Surely the fact that they differ is evidence in itself!

Basil
18-05-2007, 05:09 PM
Surely the fact that they differ is evidence in itself!
Brian, that one's a done deal. The argument is simplicity itself and deserves $10 HCDs.

Brian_Jones
18-05-2007, 05:16 PM
Surely the fact that they differ is evidence in itself!

Show me the incorrect and correct pairings.

Then give me the file so that I can reproduce the error at will.

I cannot send heresay to the author! :)

Basil
18-05-2007, 05:25 PM
[/please] [/thank you] [/we're all on the same side] :P