Tournament Instructions

[Trizza]

You will find that many players even those that having been playing for many years, dont really know the rules.
Of course that wont stop them from arguing.

Of course!

After looking through the FIDE rules on their website earlier this year and reading some of Gijssen's columns I realised how many rules I didn't fully understand.

[antichrist]

When doing the Swiss round robin draw by hand (computers?) the DOP can insert a high-ranking late comer in maybe giving 1.5 points out of two.

For the integrity of the draw I assume that the late-comer be pared as if he had two points, otherwise if pared at 1.5 he is receiving a weaker player then what he has been given the 1.5 points for, i.e., for being a 2 point calibre player?

[Bill Gletsos]

When doing the Swiss round robin draw by hand (computers?) the DOP can insert a high-ranking late comer in maybe giving 1.5 points out of two.

Firstly there is no such thing as a Swiss round robin draw. A draw may be a swiss or a round robin. It isnt both.

For the integrity of the draw I assume that the late-comer be pared as if he had two points, otherwise if pared at 1.5 he is receiving a weaker player then what he has been given the 1.5 points for, i.e., for being a 2 point calibre player?

There is no problem with the integrity of the draw. The Swiss rules state players should play other players on the same score if at all possible. Therefore if a particular arbiter in a non NSWCA event chose to give a player 1.5/2 then that player should be paired with other players on 1.5 if possible, not players on 2. If the player were to be paired with players on 2 points then the arbiter should have given him 2/2, not 1.5/2 in the first place.

Note in NSWCA events a player can only receive half point byes and no more than 2 of them. Hence if he came in late after two rounds he would receive 1.0/2 and be paired with other players on 1 point in the third round if possible.

[antichrist]

Firstly there is no such thing as a Swiss round robin draw. A draw may be a swiss or a round robin. It isnt both.
There is no problem with the integrity of the draw. The Swiss rules state players should play other players on the same score if at all possible. Therefore if a particular arbiter in a non NSWCA event chose to give a player 1.5/2 then that player should be paired with other players on 1.5 if possible, not players on 2. If the player were to be paired with players on 2 points then the arbiter should have given him 2/2, not 1.5/2 in the first place.

Note in NSWCA events a player can only receive half point byes and no more than 2 of them. Hence if he came in late after two rounds he would receive 1.0/2 and be paired with other players on 1 point in the third round if possible.

thanks, I consider two out of two as being too generous for a latecomer, and one out of two as being too poor for a top end high calibre player. A/C's comp - A/C's rules, have done a few times and no complaints from anyone.

"I mean, if our largest poster can't have his own personalised BUMP thread then what is the value of the title of largest poster?"

[pax]

When doing the Swiss round robin draw by hand (computers?) the DOP can insert a high-ranking late comer in maybe giving 1.5 points out of two.

For the integrity of the draw I assume that the late-comer be pared as if he had two points, otherwise if pared at 1.5 he is receiving a weaker player then what he has been given the 1.5 points for, i.e., for being a 2 point calibre player?

In the 1994 Australian Open, the Vietnamese player Dinh Duc Trong missed the first three rounds due to visa problems. He was awarded three half point byes for the missed rounds, and accelerated by a further point (for how many rounds I can't recall).

He went on to win the tournament (totally on his merits, remaining undefeated, and beating his main rival Alex Wohl).

[antichrist]

In the 1994 Australian Open, the Vietnamese player Dinh Duc Trong missed the first three rounds due to visa problems. He was awarded three half point byes for the missed rounds, and accelerated by a further point (for how many rounds I can't recall).

He went on to win the tournament (totally on his merits, remaining undefeated, and beating his main rival Alex Wohl).

I am not sure what is meant by "accelerated". Are you hinting that you are agreeing with me on this one.

According to Bill's post a person only given one out of two is "almost" knocked out of the comp. sort of "why bother entering then"? And then is unfair for other players as a two out of two calibre player is only playing a 1/2 calibre player. Is especially unfair for his/her opponent in round three.

I think my rules are fairer to all concerned.

[Bill Gletsos]

I am not sure what is meant by "accelerated". Are you hinting that you are agreeing with me on this one.

According to Bill's post a person only given one out of two is "almost" knocked out of the comp. sort of "why bother entering then"?

They should have entered on time along with all the other players. If they enter late thats the penalty they pay. In pax's example the player's problem was due to issues with his visa and immigration.

And then is unfair for other players as a two out of two calibre player is only playing a 1/2 calibre player. Is especially unfair for his/her opponent in round three.

there is no guarantee that a so called 2 point caliber player will be on 2 points are two rounds.

I think my rules are fairer to all concerned.

You would but that doesnt mean you are correct.

[antichrist]

They should have entered on time along with all the other players. If they enter late thats the penalty they pay. In pax's example the player's problem was due to issues with his visa and immigration.
there is no guarantee that a so called 2 point caliber player will be on 2 points are two rounds.

A/C
Of course but only rarely. In the great majority of cases the player receiving the late player (in my comp 1.5/2) is badly done by, and in your comp 1.0/2 is grossly badly done by. Has this point being considered before?

Originally Posted by antichrist
I think my rules are fairer to all concerned.
BG
You would but that doesnt mean you are correct.

A/C
Nor that you are disagreeing.

[pax]

I am not sure what is meant by "accelerated". Are you hinting that you are agreeing with me on this one.

According to Bill's post a person only given one out of two is "almost" knocked out of the comp. sort of "why bother entering then"? And then is unfair for other players as a two out of two calibre player is only playing a 1/2 calibre player. Is especially unfair for his/her opponent in round three.

I think my rules are fairer to all concerned.

I mean he had an actual score of 1.5/3, but was paired as if on 2.5/3. The extra point for pairing purposes was removed over (I think) the next two rounds. The "acceleration" was mainly to prevent bad mismatches in rounds 4 and 5. I don't think everybody was totally happy with the arrangement, but it was a pretty reasonable compromise.

[antichrist]

I mean he had an actual score of 1.5/3, but was paired as if on 2.5/3. The extra point for pairing purposes was removed over (I think) the next two rounds. The "acceleration" was mainly to prevent bad mismatches in rounds 4 and 5. I don't think everybody was totally happy with the arrangement, but it was a pretty reasonable compromise.

Thanks very much, that is the exact point I was making. If it is good enough for such an important comp then it is good enough for every comp.