tournament withdrawals

[firegoat7]

This subject has been talked about before but I thought I would open it up for investigation again.

The other night at our club Mr X withdrew after 2 rounds with a score of 1/2 because he lost to Mr Y. This is a nine round swiss event and is obviously annoying for both players and organisers.

Here is a brief summary of my position on the matter.There is a difference between approved and unapproved withdrawal. When I am talking about unapproved withdrawal, I am talking about cases where withdrawal is no justified. Of course 'justified' is relative in most cases.

I have never withdrawn from a tournament because of poor form, even though I have often felt like it. I believe that withdrawing causes psychological damage to yourself, creating a weak mind that is unable to stand the rigors of tournament chess. That is my belief but whether that is true is another story.

Furthermore, I believe that tournament withdrawals affect the tournament. Players often get a annoyed when they lose to a forfeiter, but see their opposition rack up free points- (this is especially problematic in round robins.)

So what does the withdrawer get in return. IMO they protect their ratings. They are able to recognise early that they are not going to have a good tournament and aim to protect a (false, IMO rating). While the rest of us dutifully honor our agreement, withdrawers protect their own selfish interests.

A case in point. I have a friend at MCC who is close to obtaining a 2300 fide rating. Something of value when it comes to invites and commercial practises in regards to chess. I will state categorically that I am a stronger player then this person and have proved this numerous times, to the point of which it is basically a non-contest. Yet, this person is able to milk the system to his advantage. Who is to blame if this is possible, certainly not the individual, more likely a system that rewards his sporadic effort. If an individual can play in a Fide rated event then withdraw, allowing for an artificial inflating of his rating then it is systemic.

Most players play through bad form. Withdrawers do not play through bad form. Does this mean other players are suckers?

So how do we stop this behaviour? well most people call for bans and fines but I disagree. A fine prevents people from playing chess, this must be bad for chess. A ban prevents people from playing chess, (see as above.)

I think one way of approaching the subject is to automatically deduct rating points for every round withdrawn. Fear of losing rating points is what I believe drives most people to withdraw. I think that fear should be overcome by simply showing that withdrawal is worse.

Of course this issue has problems with people sandbagging, but I also believe that this particular issue is another important concept that can be dealt with easily. I will not deal with it now, but it to is not a significant criticism.

Another objection is rating accuracy. My defence to this claim is that withdrawals affect ratings. You are damned if you do and you are damned if you don't. So I think that this objection is irrelevent. If you think ratings are accurate when a person withdraws then I think you are kidding yourself. The withdrawer is rigging the numbers.

What do aother people think?

Cheers FG7

[Bill Gletsos]

I think one way of approaching the subject is to automatically deduct rating points for every round withdrawn. Fear of losing rating points is what I believe drives most people to withdraw. I think that fear should be overcome by simply showing that withdrawal is worse.

Sorry to disappoint you but this just isnt really going to happen.

Another objection is rating accuracy. My defence to this claim is that withdrawals affect ratings. You are damned if you do and you are damned if you don't. So I think that this objection is irrelevent. If you think ratings are accurate when a person withdraws then I think you are kidding yourself. The withdrawer is rigging the numbers.

He certainly isnt rigging the numbers for those that remain in the event because their ratings are only being effected by games played.
As for rigging his own rating, thats debatable.
I would argue that it is equally possible that by withdrawing from the event he is costing hismelf the possability of regaining some of the rating points he lost, particularly if the event was a swiss.

As for what to do with unapproved withdrawls.
I note you say

A fine prevents people from playing chess, this must be bad for chess. A ban prevents people from playing chess, (see as above.)

I disagree.
There tends to be a belief by some people that players failing to behave in an acceptable manner should just be accepted as part of the game and that expulsion from an event is sufficient penalty.

Players should be held responsible for their behaviour, whether that includes abusing a DOP, fighting or unapproved withdrawls.

If players cannot act in either an acceptable or responsible manner then especially for repeat offenders their behaviour should not be tolerated.
Do we really need that kind of person playing chess.
Many would say no.

The NSWCA generally acts as follows:
For those for whom it is their first offence, I'd recommend a strong letter advising them that such behaviour is unacceptable and that a future occurrence may lead to harsher penalties.

Future penalties could include fines, a ban or as has been done in the past a bond.
The NSWCA has in the past required perennial withdrawers to pay a bond before their entry into an event will be accepted. This bond has been of the order of $200 which is fully refundable provided the player completes the event.

[firegoat7]

Having been on the receiving end of NSW justice warnings, despite the occurence having nothing to do with them, I can suggest that the problem with the banning and fining approach is that often such things are mere kangaroo courts!

Cheers FG7

[Alan Shore]

A case in point. I have a friend at MCC who is close to obtaining a 2300 fide rating. Something of value when it comes to invites and commercial practises in regards to chess. I will state categorically that I am a stronger player then this person and have proved this numerous times, to the point of which it is basically a non-contest. Yet, this person is able to milk the system to his advantage. Who is to blame if this is possible, certainly not the individual, more likely a system that rewards his sporadic effort. If an individual can play in a Fide rated event then withdraw, allowing for an artificial inflating of his rating then it is systemic.

There are people that do this, I've seen it happen. Who's your 2300 mate? My first guess would be Nick Speck, I know for a fact he has an obsession with keeping rating points.

[Bill Gletsos]

Having been on the receiving end of NSW justice warnings, despite the occurence having nothing to do with them, I can suggest that the problem with the banning and fining approach is that often such things are mere kangaroo courts!

Cheers FG7

I assume you are referring to the decision by the then NSWCA Council regarding the incident at the Doeberl Cup between Gaft and you.

Gaft a NSWCA member was banned for two years which is the maximum under the NSWCA Constitution.

You werent a member of the NSWCA therefore all the NSWCA could do was not allow you to compete in its events even though you belonged to another State Association. I think this was for a period of 12mths.
Given you were a Victorian and had not played in any NSWCA events at the time the decision had no real impact on your ability to play competitive chess.

[Bill Gletsos]

There are people that do this, I've seen it happen. Who's your 2300 mate? My first guess would be Nick Speck, I know for a fact he has an obsession with keeping rating points.

Your guess is wrong.
Speck has had a FIDE rating over 2300 since at least July 2000.

[Alan Shore]

Your guess is wrong.
Speck has had a FIDE rating over 2300 since at least July 2000.

Thanks Bill, I'm sure that gave you tremendous satisfaction...

[Bill Gletsos]

Thanks Bill, I'm sure that gave you tremendous satisfaction...

Nope. If it had I would have ended it with a

All I was trying to do was to refute mere speculation based on little to no research.

[shaun]

In my time as a tournament organiser there seems to be two positions on this issue.

A) When you enter a tournament you make a commitment to complete the tournament. Therefore there should be no reason to withdraw except in the most exceptional circumstances. Players who withdraw from tournaments upset the balance of the event and possibly distort the "correct" outcome of the tournament.

B) Organisers shouldn't force players to play if they don't won't to. If a player doesn't wish to complete the event he should be entitled to remove himself from the draw, as long as he informs the organisers before the draw for the next round is done. Forcing a player to play when he doesn't want to will distort the results anyway as they won't be playing to the best of their abilities.

Now, while I have always taken position A, I can see the merits of position B. By allowing players to withdraw it at least encourages them to tell the organisers of their decision rather than just disappearing into the night, afraid to face up to the organisers and disrupting the draw.

The solution that the Doeberl Cup organisers are heading towards is that players can take option B, but that their entry into next years event requires the payment of a bond ($100) which will be returned at the succesful completion of the event. Contingent to this however is that players who do just disappear will be subject to sterner punishment.

[Alan Shore]

The solution that the Doeberl Cup organisers are heading towards is that players can take option B, but that their entry into next years event requires the payment of a bond ($100) which will be returned at the succesful completion of the event. Contingent to this however is that players who do just disappear will be subject to sterner punishment.

What are the terms and conditions on such a bond? If a player takes option B one year, pays the bond the following year yet is forced to withdraw that year because of a reasonable excuse is that money forfeited? Or is it only forfeited if the player once again takes the 'B' option? I would hope it is the latter only.

Still, it is an interesting solution that does have some merit.

[bobby1972]

withdrawals are part of tournament chess thank god,imagine if you had to play when you did not feel like it ,some turnys you have to finish no matter how bad your form is as a matter of respect to the importance of some events .others no, you want to withdraw go and do it ,its a free country pal free, yes i have withdrawn from a few turnys in my day the last one after loosing 2 games at the mcc to players over 350 points lower now that cost me a lot of points that i had to make up and did but is that not punishment enough or do you want to take another 33 points of me per the remaining 5 games i did not play .lets not start to make new ways to push chessplayers away from playing chess turnys.as long as all played games are rated who cares.a friend of mine withdrew after 2 rounds one win one loss now when this turny gets rated according to barry cox glicko calculator he will loose 164.6 points is that not sufficient.

[shaun]

What are the terms and conditions on such a bond? If a player takes option B one year, pays the bond the following year yet is forced to withdraw that year because of a reasonable excuse is that money forfeited? Or is it only forfeited if the player once again takes the 'B' option? I would hope it is the latter only.

Still, it is an interesting solution that does have some merit.

While we are making it up as we go along, in this case we would probably return the money to the player, but still insist on a bond for the following year. Basically I feel the bond requirment is only lifted upon completing the tournament succesfully. Of course at this stage we aren't dealing with the situation where a player withdraws one year, completes the next, withdraws to following, completes after that etc etc

[Recherché]

a friend of mine withdrew after 2 rounds one win one loss now when this turny gets rated according to barry cox glicko calculator he will loose 164.6 points is that not sufficient.

Dropping 164.6 points from a single lost game isn't possible, surely? I think there may be something wrong with either the calculator or the way you used it. I'm not particularly familiar with the workings of the ratings system at present, but I would have expected a figure about one-tenth of that.

[Garvinator]

Dropping 164.6 points from a single lost game isn't possible, surely? I think there may be something wrong with either the calculator or the way you used it. I'm not particularly familiar with the workings of the ratings system at present, but I would have expected a figure about one-tenth of that.

without having a clue of pecori's opponents, my thoughts would be that it should be 16.46. need more information though

[bobby1972]

of course its possible say your rating is 1800 your rd is ? then you loose to a player rated 1538 his rd is !! and yes presto a cool -164.1 down baby .