Open letter from Eddy Levi

[Gattaca]

Eddy Levi has asked me to publish the following letter to the Australian chess community. (He doesn't currently have internet access.) He said his motivation was to provoke discussion about the whole issue of withdrawals from chess events.

Open letter from Eddy Levi

Having withdrawn from the 2005/06 Australian Championship, my letter to Gary Bekker cited the main reasons as

(1) Back Pain - evidence of seeking chiropractic treatment through a concierge at the hotel between rounds 2 & 3 (after a win!) was provided.

(2) A "Business" concern - a missing bin at my investment property was reported to me (2nd hand) as a missing beam! This was disconcerting to say the least.

(3) My bad play, which was largely affected by (1) and (2).

My point is, the problems were not so bad that I could physically not continue, so I did not seek or expect an official approval.

I have long felt that the bar is too high for approvals for early exits in Swiss tournaments (as distinct from Round Robins). Players bouncing along the bottom rarely cause pairing inequities for the top players. Whilst there is the creation (and sometimes the elimination of) a bye, isn't this overshadowed by the freedom to enter tournaments with the knowledge of not needing to be critically ill before a withdrawal is approved? Wouldn't this encourage more players? (especially in big Opens)

Many will disagree, but I suspect the positives would outweigh the negatives if we had a more flexible system.

Eddy Levi

PS. I am just posting this for Eddy and won't be entering the discussion or passing on questions or opinions to Eddy.

Cheers, Gattaca.

[frogmogdog]

i agree with eddy levi that withdrawers from swisses are often needlessly demonised.

i think the main problem is if opponents are left waiting for a no-show (one way to reduce this issue might be to decree chess games forfeited on time after say 15 minutes -- in most sports you can't turn up late and expect to play).

but it's bizarre that you can potentially withdraw from say a university degree with less hassle and penalty than from a chess tournament.

and if it's an individual event (not a team one) i can't see why it's anyone else's business if someone withdraws. being put into a position where you need to publish your personal medical details to stop going onto some morons' hate list is absurd.

i think the swiss vs round robin distinction is significant though. withdrawals from round robins are potentially more disruptive and it's reasonable "gently encourage" players who've already won some games to continue if possible.

but in a swiss, unless it's a contender as just happened in the junior, it generally makes bugger-all difference if a player vanishes. let's all be nice to each other for a change, it's only a game.

[Trent Parker]

I cannot disagree more!

If a player enters a tournament he or she should play the whole tournament unless there is a compelling reason that that person cannot play the tournament.

Frogmogdog, you are correct! It may leave a person waiting, however it may also cause a bye as it has in the Australian Championships. People who have paid bloody good money to play chess in the Australian championships have to miss out on a game just because some selfish person decides to withdraw from the tournament.

There are some people here in Brisbane who think that Levi should recieve a hefty penalty for withdrawing. I have heard some person say 10 year ban from all ACF events (which may include GP events as the GP is an ACF thing)

[Garvinator]

I have also heard that Mr Levi is a repeat offender for this kind of thing.

[shaun]

A post in 3 parts

Part 1: In defense of Eddy he has been consistent in his position. When he withdrew from the 2000/01 Australian Open (on 3/6 and AFTER a win), he informed the organisers in advance, gave a reason (difficulty sleeping), and made the same case for allowing withdrawls as he has made here. So at least he is up front about his actions, unlike some other repeat offenders (one who withdrew from one of the current events as well), who try and make it out that it is the organisers fault, or challenge any proposed santions on the grounds that no one else gets punished so why should they.

Part 2: On the topic of punishment, Ian Rout came up with a sensible solution when the ACT had a problem with players withdrawing from the ACT Championship. If you are an unaproved withdrawer from an event, you are not eligible to play the next time the event is held. eg Withdraw from the Australian Championship, you cannot enter the next one.
I would extend this further and say if you serve your time but then repeat your actions it is a 4 event ban, then a 9 event ban (ie offence squared as the suspension).
Blanket bans didn't seem to work (eg player banned from all events, enters a small club event, ban gets extended another year etc until the suspension is so long the suspension just gets removed altogether), but selective bans seemed to be more succesful.

Part 3: I have always thought that the organisers could go the other way and just throw out players who had no mathematical chance of winning. eg There is a box on the entry form which states that the player commits to playing all rounds of the event, but a player could leave it unticked and reserve the right to withdraw without punishment. However if it gets to the stage in the tournament where the player cannot possibly win (eg 4 points off the lead with 3 rounds to go), the player is removed from the draw (and is not eligible to win any prize money), thanked for contributing to the tournament finances, and then sent on their way.

[Kaitlin]

..or wat about if they have to pay a withdrawal fee - banning them from the next comp is a bit harsh .....you cant help it if you get sick or your house burns down and you cant stop thinking about it and think about chess.

[frogmogdog]

just read the above, gotta few quick comments.

1. the ian rout approach of banning from the same event for the following year is ok by me. it's talk of blanket bans from chess for years just for withdrawing (as against say cheating or assault) that i think is crazy.

2. charging a withdrawal fee is kinda mean to someone whose house just burnt down! anyway, withdrawers are being financially penalised, they pay for a tournament that they don't complete. although i suppose you could consider charging a deposit for important events eg players in aus champs have to put up say $50 which is refunded if they don't withdraw.

3. creating byes is a non-issue in most tournaments (ok, not this one) because there's just as much chance a withdrawal will remove a bye as create one. plus tailenders are not uncommonly grateful for a rest and free point anyway.

[jay_vee]

Yes, some opens I've played in use a surcharge to the entry fee that is returned during the last round if you have played all rounds. I think that's a good thing; if yo r house burns down during the tournament, the withdrawal fee is certainly not one of you major worries anyway.

[firegoat7]

I cannot disagree more!

If a player enters a tournament he or she should play the whole tournament unless there is a compelling reason that that person cannot play the tournament.

Idealistically yes, practical reality no.

There are some people here in Brisbane who think that Levi should recieve a hefty penalty for withdrawing. I have heard some person say 10 year ban from all ACF events (which may include GP events as the GP is an ACF thing)

Whoever "these people are" they are complete an utter idiots. To suggest that Eddy Levi ought to be banned from ACF events for 10 years is nothing short of lunacy.

I still believe that the reason most people withdraw is because they cannot face losing. Therefore I believe that it would be a much easier decision for them to face, if they already knew that every fofeited game was going to cost them a huge number of rating points, more then if they had actually lost every game by physically playing. Its a status issue with these people not a monetary one. I doubt that somebody like Eddy would even blink if he had to pay a $1,000 fine

cheers Fg7
P.S. For over ten years Eddy Levi has sponsored the Australian Masters, he deserves a little more respect then simply being classified as an "idealistic' policy.

[WhiteElephant]

I believe that players should be able to withdraw from a chess tournament for ANY reason without penalty, unless they are a serial withdrawer.

I would be in favour of penalising once-off withdrawers if there was inconvenience caused to either players or organisers but I don’t see how either of these groups is inconvenienced.

1) Players will be inconvenienced if the tournament is a round robin, and separate withdrawal rules should be drawn up for such tournaments. But since nearly all tournaments in Australia are swisses (or some version thereof), this is hardly relevant – if anything, the players are better off because they have a greater chance of winning a prize.

Also, I do not consider a win on forfeit an inconvenience – the player who wins still gets a point!

2) Organisers will be inconvenienced by having to press a few extra buttons and take the player’s name out of the draw. That is some extra stressful job!

Some anally retentive bureaucratic organisers will also dislike the loss of control, and feel personally affronted when someone withdraws. (How can someone withdraw from MY tournament???) I believe this is the major reason such penalties are imposed.

Many of these organisers/ bureaucrats need to realise that this is only a chess tournament. A hobby for 99% of competitors. Things happen outside chess – work, illness – for example, the reasons Eddy Levi cited. People have lives and those lives take precedence, you shouldn’t have to produce a doctor’s certificate plus a filled out out prescription, plus a chemist’s receipt etc etc to withdraw from a tournament.

Such stern measures are a deterrent to entry and organisers need to consider that rather than their fragile egos. Perhaps there should be a penalty imposed once someone has withdrawn 3 times over a particular period – the specifics need to be discussed. But any sort of ban for Eddy, a top player, who has outlined his reasons for withdrawing and supported Australian chess over many years – what a joke!

[pax]

I tend to agree that withdrawals from large Swisses (if done before pairings for the next round are done) tend not to inconvenience anyone, and so penalties should be limited.

I would, however, regard the Australian Championships (and other small elite Swisses) differently. With only 30 players, the dynamics of the event substantially change with the withdrawal of a player (especially when the withdrawal results in the introduction of a bye). A penalty is approriate for an unapproved withdrawal from this sort of event.

[WhiteElephant]

I did consider this as I was writing my post - yes, you are right, the Aus Championships/ Aus Open does have a different level of prestige to other swisses and a witdrawal should not be something that is done without some thought.

Someone simply not turning up to a game and then the rest of the tournament should be treated more harshly in a national championship.

What are the criteria for a withdrawal to be approved?

Has Eddy Levi's withdrawal been approved? I would have assumed that his reasons would be more than sufficient whether this was an Aus Championshops or not, but some people seem to disagree?

[pax]

I did consider this as I was writing my post - yes, you are right, the Aus Championships/ Aus Open does have a different level of prestige to other swisses and a witdrawal should not be something that is done without some thought.

Actually, I would regard the Championships differently to the Open. The Open is a large Swiss, and the withdrawal probably has a small effect. The Championship is a small field compared to the number of rounds, and a withdrawal has a significant effect.

As to the specifics of this case, I will leave it to the organisers and the ACF to judge.

[Garvinator]

also Eddy gave very little if no opportunity for the arbiters to question him at length regarding his withdrawal to see if his reasons were actually valid. I am not saying that they arent, but since he does have a track record of withdrawing from swisses, it doesnt bode well.

As to who is affected, lets see, in this small field:
1) all the players that he beat and are now battling for a rating prize
2) Those who received a bye, therefore getting one less game than they paid for and would have reasonably expected

I am sure there are many other reasons, but we will start here.

[eclectic]

nevertheless his financial contribution to and hence his free seat at the australian masters will still be welcome ... won't it?