Open letter from Eddy Levi

[pax]

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

Well he only beat one person (Wallis), and there aren't any rating prizes...

[WhiteElephant]

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.

Why do the arbiters have to question him at length? This isn't an interrogation. If he had reason to withdraw then obviously the reasons are important enough to him.

What track record does Eddy have? He has withdrawn once that I know of a couple of years ago. Have there been other instances?

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

This is just speculation. The players he beat may have lost to someone else anyway and now get an easier draw as a result of it.

2) Those who received a bye, therefore getting one less game than they paid for and would have reasonably expected

If the withdrawing player had not entered the tournament to begin with, there would have been a bye anyway. It is only one game and a free point- many people love having the bye.

[Garvinator]

If the withdrawing player had not entered the tournament to begin with, there would have been a bye anyway.

For the Australian Championship another player would have been added to make up the even numbers.

It is only one game and a free point- many people love having the bye.

I doubt this very much. I reckon most ppl hate having a bye, especially when it costs them an extra nights accommodation and food, drink etc in the middle of a tournament. Not much fun shelling out for all that and then not even getting a game.

[pax]

If the withdrawing player had not entered the tournament to begin with, there would have been a bye anyway. It is only one game and a free point- many people love having the bye.

This is not correct. If he had not entered, another player would have been invited to play the Championship. So from that point of view there is at least one person who might be very upset with the withdrawer! Secondly, I don't think players at the bottom of an elite event appreciate having a bye. They are there to play chess, not sit on their arses.

[Garvinator]

Why do the arbiters have to question him at length?

to find out whether in their opinion the withdrawal is an approved withdrawal or unapproved withdrawal for their report to the acf council after the tournament. If the arbiting team determine it is an approved withdrawal, then there is no further action and so the few extra minutes taken to DISCUSS the situation with the arbiting team is well worth it if your withdrawal is legitimate.

[WhiteElephant]

to find out whether in their opinion the withdrawal is an approved withdrawal or unapproved withdrawal for their report to the acf council after the tournament. If the arbiting team determine it is an approved withdrawal, then there is no further action and so the few extra minutes taken to DISCUSS the situation with the arbiting team is well worth it if your withdrawal is legitimate.

What are the criteria for the withdrawal to be approved? I mean, how can an arbiter be in a better position than the player to determine whether the reason is valid? If a player says he or she is sick, can the arbiter say: 'sorry mate, you are not sick enough, I'll have to ban you for a few years'?

[WhiteElephant]

This is not correct. If he had not entered, another player would have been invited to play the Championship. So from that point of view there is at least one person who might be very upset with the withdrawer! Secondly, I don't think players at the bottom of an elite event appreciate having a bye. They are there to play chess, not sit on their arses.

Oh, ok fair enough about another player being invited instead.

I don't necessarily agree that all players are averse to having a bye. Some see it as a chance to rest/ get a free point/ observe other games, etc. Also, I don't think that players enter a tournament to get an X number of games for their dollar. Of course, there will be some who do not want a bye, but I don't believe it is just a blanket negative thing as some arbiters suggest.

[Garvinator]

What are the criteria for the withdrawal to be approved? I mean, how can an arbiter be in a better position than the player to determine whether the reason is valid? If a player says he or she is sick, can the arbiter say: 'sorry mate, you are not sick enough, I'll have to ban you for a few years'?

well in the past my understanding is that arbiters at the Aus champs or Aus open have asked for a medical certificate. Considering these can be dodgied up rather easily i have been told, this isnt an unreasonable request for our number 1 event in Australia.

[eclectic]

ggrayggray,

is it deemed an unapproved withdrawal if proven to wreak sufficient havoc on someone's competitive .... calculations?

well you know ...

[insert wink here]

[bobby1972]

i am sure he had good reason to withdraw,its not a capital crime its just a chess turney.bans and rating deductions are just crazy talk.

[frogmogdog]

i struggle to understand how some people can be so earnest a withdrawal.

eddy levi had probably been looking forward to and planning this trip and tournament for months.

then he starts playing and discovers he isn't enjoying it -- whether that's due to back pain, anxiety, depression, poor play or whatever is only relevant to him.

the result is he'd rather stop playing and the main victim of his actions is himself. it's sadder for HIM than for any other player or organiser.

i've been involved in another individual sport where the response to national championship withdrawals was to check everything was ok and that nothing could be done to help.

in comparison, chess players expect ritual spankings and gonadal extraction.

no wonder i limit myself to junior development and haven't played in a serious adult tournament for 30-odd years. anyone would think people attracted to chess were naturally argumentative (yeah ok, insert smilie here).

[PHAT]

A withdrawal at anytime can be reasonably needed

A player/team in any sport must asked to show evidence of the "need" to withdraw.

A habit of withdrawing - say ~20% of tournaments played? - should be met with a bond requirement - say 2 X entry fee. If the habit is not broken after a few years, a black ban (assuming their isn't a chronic illness involved.)

Is this not reasonable?

BTW, the "did not show up or ring" player should be expelled from the event, notwithstanding a catastrophy. Mea culpa: I did a no show once (in >300 games) by misreading the next round as being played the following day. I donned a hair shirt and copped a zero point bye for the following round. My expulsion would have been a reasonable penalty for the lack of careful reading - unless my inclussion could prevent a BYE for some other player.

[firegoat7]

A withdrawal at anytime can be reasonably needed

A player/team in any sport must asked to show evidence of the "need" to withdraw.

A habit of withdrawing - say ~20% of tournaments played? - should be met with a bond requirement - say 2 X entry fee. If the habit is not broken after a few years, a black ban (assuming their isn't a chronic illness involved.)

Is this not reasonable?

Nope, it is is not reasonable.

Chess needs chess players, even the flippant ones. That is why banning or forcing players to pay bonds is counter productive to what chess needs. Like I said before, I believe it is a particular psychological mindset that habitually withdraws from tournaments. All that really needs to be addressed is their (that psychological mindsets) fears. All you really need to do is to show that withdrawing is a worse option then finishing the tournament, hence my reasoning in pushing a rating point reduction for habitual tournament withdrawers.

I see little point in pushing a authoritarian line that aims to discourage people from playing chess. The aim should be to encourage people to play chess.

cheers Fg7

[McTaggart]

i am sure he had good reason to withdraw,its not a capital crime its just a chess turney.bans and rating deductions are just crazy talk.

I agree with Bobby1972,there is no need to get our collective knickers twisted over this,Eddy does not have to give a reason for his withdrawal but it is nice if he does. Fron an arbiter's point of view it is sad/undesirable etc but not the end of the world. The ones that the tournament organisers hate are the "no-show" bastards,especially in tournaments were their opponents have travelled a long way to play. These people,in absence of a very good excuse,should not be allowed to play in the next event,ie. simply not invited:

[Ian Rout]

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.

If I can clarify this a little, my proposal was not aimed so much at the event(s) from which the withdrawer should be excluded but the manner in which the process should work.

The context was that one player in particular seemed rather prone to developing mystery illnesses after losing a couple of games in the ACT Championship and falling off the pace, and I think another may also have come up with some dubious reason at one point. What I suggested was that withdrawers should be excluded from entry to the next two years' Championships unless ACTCA determined otherwise.

This might sound like simply banning the player but the subtle difference is that it is not a ban but an entry criterion. The onus of showing cause is shifted; rather than the ACTCA having to make a decision to exclude someone, that player instead has to show cause why they should be admitted, which isn't hard if it's a demonstrable one-off bona fide instance but somewhat harder for a dodgy or repeat instance.

The point is that playing in major events should be a privilege, not a right. Meeting a standard of play may be one criterion, but being capable of finishing the event should reasonably be another. Similarly in the Australian Championship. Most players are admitted on "proficiency". A number of people were rejected on the basis of proficiency or did not apply because they expected that outcome - yet those players are surely of greater proficiency than someone who is not even going to finish the tournament. I'm sure that Lee Jones, for instance, would have scored more than one point.

On the related issue of does it matter - well in a low impact Swiss probably not, so long as arbiters are told. On the other hand organisers can impose what rules they choose and can accept entries from who they want, so the "because I can" argument cuts both ways.

Some people have argued that nobody is hurt by this withdrawal and players who get a bye would/should be grateful. This is nonsense. A couple of the players who got byes have travelled from distant states. Another may be an applicant for the Women's Olympiad team. None of these players benefit from a meaningless unearned point. Moreover from the point of view of Australian chess it looks highly unprofessional for players to simply stomp off because they are losing, and such players are not good role models. Imagine Collingwood refusing to play out the 2005 AFL season because they didn't want to get flogged any more.

Incidentally the ACT Championship is now just run as a Swiss where taking byes (with notice) is accepted and I don't think the rule was ever actually invoked, but it did abruptly end the run of disappearances. Whether this was because of the consequences or because it helped to make the point that it was a serious tournament that should be treated that way I can't say.