PDA

View Full Version : tournament withdrawals



firegoat7
12-09-2004, 02:31 PM
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I have never withdrawn from a tournament because of poor form, even though I have often felt like it.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
12-09-2004, 03:01 PM
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
12-09-2004, 03:21 PM
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
12-09-2004, 03:49 PM
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
12-09-2004, 06:31 PM
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
12-09-2004, 06:36 PM
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
12-09-2004, 06:39 PM
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... :rolleyes:

Bill Gletsos
12-09-2004, 06:56 PM
Thanks Bill, I'm sure that gave you tremendous satisfaction... :rolleyes:
Nope. If it had I would have ended it with a :owned:

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

shaun
12-09-2004, 07:03 PM
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
12-09-2004, 07:07 PM
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
12-09-2004, 07:41 PM
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
12-09-2004, 07:51 PM
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
12-09-2004, 09:11 PM
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
12-09-2004, 10:42 PM
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 :eek:

bobby1972
12-09-2004, 11:32 PM
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 .

Bill Gletsos
12-09-2004, 11:58 PM
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.
It's quite valid.
Barry's calculator assumes an RD of around 205 for a player with a ? rating.
This is equivalent to a player who had an extremely very reliable rating when they last played but who has not played a single game for about 7.5 years.
In other words their 1800 rating is not in the least reliable.

bobby1972
13-09-2004, 12:01 AM
thanks bill.

Trent Parker
13-09-2004, 12:10 AM
well, IMHO i think the way that the NSWCA handles the Unauthorised withdrawals is satisfactory.

The organisers and players in a tourney dont want Unauthorised withdrawals due to reasons given above. However there is another aspect that i think alot of authorised or unauthorised withdrawers dont realise...... It stuffs up the people at the bottom of the draw. If a tournament has an even number of players and one withdraws you now have a bye. Now, that can be pretty annoying if someone decides not to turn up the next day of a tournament and a player on the lower end of the draw rocks up to find they have a bye in the next round. Or if there is an odd amount of players and one withdraws making an even amount of players there could be opportunities for players on the lowest score to get a game rather than having a bye. (thank goodness i'm not normally down that end any more :D )

Kevin Bonham
13-09-2004, 03:01 AM
There are very few tournaments in which an UWD cannot affect someone else. In many Swiss events a UWD will interfere with the Buchholz scores of opponents tied for ratings prizes, for instance.

Can't remember when we last had this thread but I am a fan of firm crackdowns on repeat offenders, even if they are driven away from chess in the process.

bobby1972
13-09-2004, 09:47 AM
driving people away from the game is not good ,i along with quite a number of my friends has withdrawn from turnys ,yes we have all been repeat offenders ,yet because there were no FIRM rules we are all playing know,else all 5 of us would not be able to play,i ask you is it not better for chess to have players playing and not walking away from the game because of a firm crackdown .that chess is only for people who meet a certain category of completion cannot be the way chess is for everyone including the ones who have on ocation withdrawn.

Garvinator
13-09-2004, 12:25 PM
driving people away from the game is not good ,i along with quite a number of my friends has withdrawn from turnys ,yes we have all been repeat offenders ,yet because there were no FIRM rules we are all playing know,else all 5 of us would not be able to play,i ask you is it not better for chess to have players playing and not walking away from the game because of a firm crackdown .that chess is only for people who meet a certain category of completion cannot be the way chess is for everyone including the ones who have on ocation withdrawn.
i am sure the tournament organisers are going to be more concerned about the wishes of the players who intend to play the whole tournament each time they enter, rather than someone who only will finish the tournament if they are doing well.

What you risk by being a serial withdrawer is not being invited to any invitation style tournaments and refused entry to other tournaments.

Bill Gletsos
13-09-2004, 12:57 PM
It seems that the perennial withdrawers are usual above 1900.
I cant recall off the top of my head a repeat offender who is down the bottom end of the draw.
Now given that players who U1200 are far more likely to lose more games than they win in most tournaments they compete in this obviously says something about the committment those players have to chess as opposed to the much higher rated perennial offenders.

The majority of lower rateds obviously play for the love of the game.

Trent Parker
13-09-2004, 01:06 PM
It seems that the perennial withdrawers are usual above 1900.
I cant recall off the top of my head a repeat offender who is down the bottom end of the draw.
Now given that players who U1200 are far more likely to lose more games than they win in most tournaments they compete in this obviously says something about the committment those players have to chess as opposed to the much higher rated perennial offenders.

The majority of lower rateds obviously play for the love of the game.

:clap:

The only person i can think of would be Socheat Soth who from my knowledge was an unauthorised withdrawal from 2 tournaments in succession.

One way could be for everyone to put in a $100 bond at the beginning of a tourney. Once you withdraw without Authorisation you loose the money. But I dont know if people would do that.


Another problem with taking ratings points off people is that it may make them eligible for ratings prizes below their proper rating.

Recherché
13-09-2004, 01:33 PM
One way could be for everyone to put in a $100 bond at the beginning of a tourney. Once you withdraw without Authorisation you loose the money. But I dont know if people would do that.

Tournament entry is expensive enough as it is. I don't think this is such a widespread problem as to require such drastic measures.

Trent Parker
13-09-2004, 01:41 PM
Tournament entry is expensive enough as it is. I don't think this is such a widespread problem as to require such drastic measures.
Hence



One way could be for everyone to put in a $100 bond at the beginning of a tourney. Once you withdraw without Authorisation you loose the money. But I dont know if people would do that.

Garvinator
13-09-2004, 04:49 PM
Another problem with taking ratings points off people is that it may make them eligible for ratings prizes below their proper rating.
devils advocate alert :uhoh: - but it could be argued that had that player finished the tournament, they might have lost the rating points anyways. By saying that they lost the games after their unauthorised withdrawal, the player might stay to try and prevent losing these points.

Bill Gletsos
13-09-2004, 05:06 PM
devils advocate alert :uhoh: - but it could be argued that had that player finished the tournament, they might have lost the rating points anyways.
Highly unlikely if the event is a swiss, as their bad results would mean they are very likely to be meeting players weaker than themselves.

PHAT
13-09-2004, 05:22 PM
The majority of lower rateds obviously play for the love of the game.

I have played about 30 tournaments now - I've never withdrawn. And I have only been late to the table twice in 200 games - both times by just a few minutes, but still felt embarrassed at dissing my opponent in such a way.

(I'm starting another thread on chess etiquette.)

arosar
13-09-2004, 05:26 PM
(I'm starting another thread on chess etiquette.)

What for? So you and your mate Bill can have another week of your schit-fight?

AR

PHAT
13-09-2004, 05:27 PM
What for? So you and your mate Bill can have another week of your schit-fight?

AR :snooty:

peanbrain
13-09-2004, 05:28 PM
(I'm starting another thread on chess etiquette.)

Great, should we resume our debate on whether you should wash your hands after going to toilet on that thread?! :uhoh:

Bill Gletsos
13-09-2004, 06:09 PM
What for? So you and your mate Bill can have another week of your schit-fight?

AR
Matt just likes to see his name up as the thread starter. :hand:

bobby1972
14-09-2004, 09:51 AM
last night was turny night at my club and we were all talking about withdrawls
every one seems to not like them i was very suprised .

shaun
24-10-2004, 02:20 AM
Leafing through the revisions to the FIDE handbook I came acroos the section of chess ethics. One of the breaches is withdrawing from an event without sufficient reason.

Denis_Jessop
24-10-2004, 11:31 AM
Leafing through the revisions to the FIDE handbook I came acroos the section of chess ethics. One of the breaches is withdrawing from an event without sufficient reason.

The ACF beat them to it, assuming that FIDE's provision is new - see ACF Code of Ethics para 3.5:

"3.5 Withdrawing from an event without valid reason."

Denis J

WBA
09-12-2004, 05:10 AM
People play chess becuase they enjoy it.
Ratings should come secondary to the enjoyment, but they are a way of indicating to a person how they are progressing and people seem to hold some merit in them. If someone is no longer enjoying their tournament why should they still have to play the tournament. They have paid there money, they will be rated on their merits and if they have informed the organiser before the next draw is paired, I cannot see the problem. To say that a bye may now be created and they should be punished for that is of course an invalid argument, because to argue that implies they should be rewarded for withdrawing from a tournament that starts with a bye and by there withdrawal this has been eliminated. I do not think that a person needs to explain themselves to the Organiser other than to give sufficient notice of their plans to withdraw.
The only issue I have is with the person who does not call the club or organiser to advise that they are withdrawaling, but merely does not turn up on the night, leaving their opponent to sit out the 60 minutes before they can claim a win and these people should be punished in some form. I personally favour a levy of some sort over a period of time or tournaments, similar to a good-behaviour bond. This levy is to be returned the player at the end of tournaments if they complete them or withdraw in an acceptable manner (as oppossed to for an acceptable reason). This levy should be a set penalties approach and all chess bodies running affiliated tournaments should be distributed with a list of players and their current penalties by the state bodies. The club that has the withdrawal should receive the lions share of the levy as they are the ones having to accomodate and placate the other individuals in the tournament.

Rincewind
09-12-2004, 08:09 AM
The only issue I have is with the person who does not call the club or organiser to advise that they are withdrawaling, but merely does not turn up on the night, leaving their opponent to sit out the 60 minutes before they can claim a win and these people should be punished in some form. I personally favour a levy of some sort over a period of time or tournaments, similar to a good-behaviour bond.

What we have introduced in the last couple of years is a "random" prize. This is like a lucky door prize and is only payed to a player who has not won some other prize and has not had any unapproved forfeits or withdrawn from the tournament. The other advantage is it give some encouragement to the players who are rarely in prize contention. (As our tournaments are all on fairly small fields it is difficult to have copious rating divisions.)

The random prizes haven't been 100% effective it reducing withdrawers and no-shows but I think it does have a +ve effect and would probably be less headache frmo an admin pov than a bond which has to be returned to every player.

PHAT
09-12-2004, 09:19 AM
As our tournaments are all on fairly small fields it is difficult to have copious rating divisions.

But you are still our 2004 Champ. Congrats

ursogr8
09-12-2004, 09:30 AM
But you are still our 2004 Champ. Congrats

Yes well done from me too Baz.

Matt, do these results get posted somewhere.
Who are the past 20 champs at the GONG?

starter

Rincewind
09-12-2004, 10:14 AM
Who are the past 20 champs at the GONG?

Online records only go back to 1996, club archives might need to be investigated for earlier results.

1996 Michael Didriksson
1997 Hossien Ghodosi
1998 Mirko Kreznovic (on tiebreak from Robert Raposio)
1999 Wolfgang Brodesser (on tiebreak from Mirko Kreznovic)
2000 Mirko Kreznovic (on tiebreak from Mustafa Erkan)
2001 Zeljko Kanostrevac (on tiebreak from Mustafa Erkan)
2002 Barry Cox (on tiebreak from Michael Gross)
2003 Ian Jenssen
2004 Barry Cox

B grades were run some years

2001 Greg Roach
2003 Brendan Serelak (on tiebreak from Rade Mijakovski)

PHAT
09-12-2004, 10:31 AM
Yes well done from me too Baz.

Matt, do these results get posted somewhere.
Who are the past 20 champs at the GONG?

starter

http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~mazzieri/chess/wgong.htm

Is this the best chess club Web site in Australia? I think so! Good work John Mazzieri. :clap:

ursogr8
09-12-2004, 10:33 AM
Online records only go back to 1996, club archives might need to be investigated for earlier results.

1996 Michael Didriksson
1997 Hossien Ghodosi
1998 Mirko Kreznovic (on tiebreak from Robert Raposio)
1999 Wolfgang Brodesser (on tiebreak from Mirko Kreznovic)
2000 Mirko Kreznovic (on tiebreak from Mustafa Erkan)
2001 Zeljko Kanostrevac (on tiebreak from Mustafa Erkan)
2002 Barry Cox (on tiebreak from Michael Gross)
2003 Ian Jenssen
2004 Barry Cox

B grades were run some years

2001 Greg Roach
2003 Brendan Serelak (on tiebreak from Rade Mijakovski)

Thanks Baz
Well done again from me.

At least the names are getting easier to say, as time progresses. ;)

starter

ursogr8
09-12-2004, 10:51 AM
http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~mazzieri/chess/wgong.htm

Is this the best chess club Web site in Australia? I think so! Good work John Mazzieri. :clap:

OOO AAAHH

First time I have been there...and it is a picture.
Well done.

Why don't you (Matt) draw attention to it more often?

starter

arosar
09-12-2004, 11:11 AM
That's our Barry??

FMD!! I thought I knew him from before, just couldn't remember the face. I never met that bloke.

AR

Rincewind
09-12-2004, 11:34 AM
FMD!! I thought I knew him from before, just couldn't remember the face. I never met that bloke.

My nickname is Ned Kelly. ;)

WBA
09-12-2004, 12:41 PM
but I think it does have a +ve effect and would probably be less headache frmo an admin pov than a bond which has to be returned to every player.

Barry it would appear from your post you are unsure what I am proposing. I am not suggestnig every player should have a levy imposed, indeed it should be individualised. Consider the following


Player A

Withdrawals from tournament without given previously agreed prior indication he would not be continuing to play the tournament to completion. (NOTE - They should NEVER be expected to reveal the reason they do not want to continue to play and indeed should be able to remain and watch the games) There "crime" is the fact they have failed to provide the necessary notice. This is player A first offence.

Penalty

Player A is informed by the state organisation that for his next 3 tournaments he will be expected to pay a bond of 50% of the entry fee to tournament organisers, which will be fully funded if he follows the correct guidelines for withdrawing from tournaments (ie 3 hours notice for a weekender, 6 days notice for a weekday tournament, of course these guidelines are ocer ruled if a participant provides a medical certificate)

Follow on

Player A plays in 3 tournaments without incident and the bond is no longer required for tournament play. If player A goes 12 months without incident, there details are struck from the register and they are treated as a 1st offender. If they offend omce more they are stepped up to a castegory 2 offender with appropriate penalties


People should be able to withdraw without the need to provide the reasoning behind the withdrawal as long as it is done to guidelines.

Medical problems take preference over underfined personal reasons and require noprior notice if the person can provide a medical certificate within 7 days of their withdrawal

Penalties should be set and readily available to all, they should not be draconian but seen as fair and reasonable. They should nto be open to interpretation. Ie no member of a committee should be able to sit in judgement and decide that players reason for withdrawing was not adequate.

All terms should be made public by the state/national organisations and followed by all tournaments rated by these bodies.

All tournament organisers need to be required as a pre-requisite of running a tournament to organise for an update list of players currently serving penalties and are obliged to abide by the said penalties.

There is a lot of fine detail and I am looking at this from a broader sense at the moment, however that is all tuning and I do not imagine the difficulties would be anything like insurmountable. I also things the system would be extremely effective in limiting tournamnet withdrawals.

Rincewind
09-12-2004, 02:20 PM
I can't see too much wrong with what you say in principle. However, I believe it probably requires a degree of communication and organisation beyond the present capabilities of Australian chess administration.

In small local communities like the smaller states and regional areas it is probably doable on a local level. However, getting consistency between origanisers within NSW and Victoria, let alone between the two, would seem impractical.

Perhaps if the ACF existed as the sole governing body and had a portofolio to commission such a system. Then, after a several years, something approaching you suggestion would be feasible.

Part of the problem, which has also been discussed in another thread is that chess administration can have very little influence over event organisation - especially non-title weekenders and club events. As these events make up a good proportion of the chess being played it makes consistency of bans and special conditions on players difficult to enforce.

WBA
09-12-2004, 02:33 PM
You are right in that I doubt with the current setup the plan is feasiable, however it is decided it is a goal then it can be achieved. Although all coubs have the rights to schedule weekend and club events to their preference and this is absolutely a requirement of running a chess event, these clubs still have to follow the laws of the ACF if they choose to have their event rated and published in the ACF rating lists. As such there should be a level of control. A faiirly simple database could easily be developed to store information pertaining to offenders and as part of the submission of events for ratings organisers should be obliged to provide details of those members withdrawing from tournaments and the results of those that are serving penalties. These lists should be mailed monthly to the clubs via electronic medium.

As discussed there are a number of issues which require addressing and club/state/national levels for processes such as those mentioned to become workable options, but this should not prevent efforts being made to have a more controlled environment which has standardised practices across Australia.

Garvinator
12-01-2007, 05:11 PM
Comes from the incorrect clock setting thread.

Something that hasnt been raised is that after receiving an arbiters decision and then appealing the decision to an appeals committee and having the decision gone against him, the player decided to withdraw without at least notifying the arbiter as to what he was going to do.

Is this the type of example we are supposed to be setting- dont like the decision, storm out and dont tell anyone.

Surely this is an unauthorised withdrawal and should be referred to the appropriate body (maybe cv) for further action.

Show me another sport where this type of behaviour would be tolerated.

Desmond
12-01-2007, 05:35 PM
Show me another sport where this type of behaviour would be tolerated.Show me a sport where the ref has one call to make and gets it wrong.

Bill Gletsos
12-01-2007, 05:37 PM
Show me a sport where the ref has one call to make and gets it wrong.Some calls are more important than others.
Therefore in answer to your query it was when Australia was robbed by the ref in the World Cup game against Italy ;)

Kevin Bonham
12-01-2007, 06:13 PM
Generally I have sympathy with the idea that a player who withdraws from a Swiss in protest at a genuinely controversial arbiting decision should not be disciplined. It provides a useful measure by which a player can register a strong protest and protects the tournament from them doing something even more inappropriate, like deliberately losing.

However the player should clearly indicate this decision to the arbiters to reduce the impact on other participants. If they don't do this, leaving their opponent hanging around for an hour to claim forfeit, they should be treated like any other unauthorised withdrawer.

However I don't know for a fact whether the forfeit was notified in any way to the organisers in this case or not.

Garvinator
12-01-2007, 06:16 PM
Information just provided to me states that that notification was given, to whom I am not aware. Also not aware that if notification was given, why was the player still included in the last round draw?

Kevin Bonham
12-01-2007, 08:13 PM
If the draw was already published before the appeals committee decision was reached then there would not have been an option of altering it.

Mischa
12-01-2007, 09:18 PM
It was published
and then changed...
not unheard of with this club

Phil Bourke
13-01-2007, 12:19 AM
All DOP's note, in future put the disclaimer that the any draw, published or not, is unofficial until 15 mins before the scheduled start of the round, and may be altered at the DOP's discretion.
I am sure that DOP's do not like altering a draw any more than players like seeing a draw altered, but some circumstances may make it unavoidable.
In this latest case it appears that an approved withdrawal was not noted or given to the DOP, or even forgotten in the excitement of moment, and an incorrect draw was then published. This has to be corrected.

Kevin Bonham
13-01-2007, 02:14 AM
Information just provided to me states that that notification was given, to whom I am not aware.

If it isn't the arbiter, then it doesn't count.


All DOP's note, in future put the disclaimer that the any draw, published or not, is unofficial until 15 mins before the scheduled start of the round, and may be altered at the DOP's discretion.

:clap: :clap:

This is always an excellent move, to get around the very inflexible FIDE rules on this matter.

At TCA level we resolved it by simply passing a blanket rule that in all TCA tournaments all published draws are provisional and may be changed until 10 minutes before the round starts.


I am sure that DOP's do not like altering a draw any more than players like seeing a draw altered, but some circumstances may make it unavoidable.
In this latest case it appears that an approved withdrawal was not noted or given to the DOP, or even forgotten in the excitement of moment, and an incorrect draw was then published. This has to be corrected.

What actually happened was that a change in the draw was made that was not relevant to the Hacche incident, because a version of the draw that briefly appeared omitted to apply last-round pairing rules. This was promptly corrected. Hacche's forfeit situation developed later.

I am not sure whether an already published draw should be much amended in the case of even an approved late withdrawal in general. Does the impact on one game justify upsetting the preparation of the other players?

Bill Gletsos
13-01-2007, 12:07 PM
I am not sure whether an already published draw should be much amended in the case of even an approved late withdrawal in general. Does the impact on one game justify upsetting the preparation of the other players?Quite possibly if by leaving the withdrawn player in the draw this hands a win on forfeit to the current tournament leader or another player vying for one of the available prizes.

Kevin Bonham
13-01-2007, 04:11 PM
Quite possibly if by leaving the withdrawn player in the draw this hands a win on forfeit to the current tournament leader or another player vying for one of the available prizes.

Agreed. At least if preparation is upset this most likely affects all relevant players equally.

eclectic
13-01-2007, 04:35 PM
Why can't swiss events be made to do a draw shortly before a round starts using only the players present in exchange for putting an end to the "I'll hang around for one hour after the opponent's clock starts to get my hollow forfeit win" rule?

Kevin Bonham
13-01-2007, 04:46 PM
Why can't swiss events be made to do a draw shortly before a round starts using only the players present in exchange for putting an end to the "I'll hang around for one hour after the opponent's clock starts to get my hollow forfeit win" rule?

Then players would have to all turn up at the start of a round. Naaaah, far too organised!

SHump
28-07-2009, 10:53 AM
So what is the 'procedure' for identifying unapproved withdrawers? Do they get named and shamed (in the tournament report)?!? Is there any penalty or ruling at the next tournament they play?!

I can see the ACF code of ethics identifies (3.5) 'withdrawing from an event without valid reason' as breaching the code of ethics. This relates to articles 12 and 13 of the FIDE rules of chess - but the worst the arbiter could do (FIDE 13.4 g) is expel the person from the event - something the person concerned has already voluntarily done!

At a recent event, with an odd number of players, 1 play did not turn up, so this affected 2 people - his drawn opponent and the player that was the odd man out. If the withdrawer had been notified, then everyone could have had a game.

Kevin Bonham
28-07-2009, 11:26 AM
So what is the 'procedure' for identifying unapproved withdrawers? Do they get named and shamed (in the tournament report)?!? Is there any penalty or ruling at the next tournament they play?!

That depends on whether any sanction is taken out against them by a club, state or national body. Different state bodies have different rules for handling this (and some probably don't have any rule at all). Naming and shaming is also an option for tournament reporters though I'm not sure it has much impact. Compulsive withdrawers always believe their reasons for withdrawing are legitimate.


I can see the ACF code of ethics identifies (3.5) 'withdrawing from an event without valid reason' as breaching the code of ethics. This relates to articles 12 and 13 of the FIDE rules of chess - but the worst the arbiter could do (FIDE 13.4 g) is expel the person from the event - something the person concerned has already voluntarily done!

Yes; that is why it is sometimes necessary for disciplinary action beyond the level of arbiter to be taken against such offenders.

SHump
28-07-2009, 11:44 AM
Thanks Kevin. I could see almost another use for Grand Prix points here - and it is equally possible/available to tally them. Anyone with a UW (unapproved withdrawer) alongside their name when the results are submitted for the GP, gets a 'black sheep' (dummy spit) tally posted. The non-GP events could try something else.

A bit like the anti-oscar awards (which name escapes me for now). Quiet please --- for this year's worst performance by a chess player, the envelope please ---- shuffle shuffle -- the award goes to ... :D

Garvinator
28-07-2009, 01:33 PM
From the CAQ Code of Conduct:

Withdrawals.


Any player who has completed the first round of any tournament shall not withdraw from that tournament without approval from the organiser or DOP.

A player whose withdrawal has not been approved by the organiser or DOP will be regarded as an unapproved withdrawer.

In such cases one or more of the following penalties may be applied:-
- listing as an unapproved withdrawer in CAQ newsletters and/or web site
- and/or suspension from the CAQ
The secretary may request a verbal or written explanation in determining the appropriate course of action

Denis_Jessop
28-07-2009, 03:46 PM
One system that can be effective with habitual offenders is to require them to pay a bond on entering an event which is forfeited if they withdraw without permission. We used it in the ACT in the past with some success.

DJ

Kevin Bonham
28-07-2009, 03:54 PM
Current TCA policy - this applies to any withdrawal that is ruled to be either unnotified or unauthorised. (Unnotified = failure to tell organisers in advance without a valid reason for not doing so; unauthorised = reason for withdrawal is inadequate)

First offence - warning, usually written
Second offence - $50 deposit required on all entries for two years
Third offence - playing ban of up to two years

This policy has been quite effective; since we brought it in several years ago there has been the odd offender but there have been no repeat offenders.

SHump
30-07-2009, 08:55 AM
Well it looks like Tas/QLD/ACT have it covered, to various degrees.

I wait with baited breath as to how the other states have, or propose to have, something in place...

Thunderspirit
18-04-2010, 09:47 AM
To be honest I think the issue of withdrawing from events isn't as anywhere as big a deal as some make it out to be. But I do wish to distinguish between Unapproved and Approved withdrawals.

To define an 'Unapproved withdrawal' this is a player who just bolts from the tournament without letting the arbiter know. Most if not all of us agree on this. On the rare occasion this happens I agree the punishment should be swift and harsh. I like the forfeit bond option; it gives the offender the opportunity to redeem themselves and also gives the organiser more money if they don't. The other options presents here are also good.

My issue with withdrawing are 'approved withdrawals'. I've never had a problem approving someone withdrawing from an event, if their reason is, "I'm playing like a rabbit and I don't want to lose any more rating points". My rationale is based on the following:

While chess at club level should be played for fun, some chess players are incredibly sensitive about their ratings. It is not for the arbiter/organiser to dictate how a player should enjoy the way they play the game. I have always seen it better to let a player go, who no longer wants to play, then to make them finish an event they don't want to.

Different events require the players to agree to different levels of responsibility. An open Swiss where a player has not been paid an appearance fee is the lowest, where there is no problem if a player withdraws for the purposes of completing the pairings. Where a player is playing in a RR, I wouldn't approve a withdrawal because other players are disadvantaged where in a Swiss no-one is. (Also, I don't believe in the Sweeney gripe that all players should get a game. If you are on zero and you get the bye, it's part of chess).

Another part of my rationale is that I don't see it as a part of an arbiter's role to be educating ettiquitte to adults. If an adult chooses to have poor chess etiquette as long as it doesn't affect others (and in a Swiss it doesn't) then they can of course leave. Also, I think it is lost that not all who play chess in Australia have always played here. My point is that some players have grown up with different cultural standards where withdrawing is ok. Withdrawals in European and US events are common, but no-one minds there, but in Australia most arbiters are incredibly strict for no really good reason.

The key word in my last sentence is the word 'adults', for juniors I have a different view. I do believe that all adults have a responsibility to teach Australia's juniors the best etiquette possible. Only once have I had a parent try and withdraw a child on their behalf. Amusingly it was the Australian Junior Rapid when the Aus Juniors was in Canberra at the Hellenic Club. The junior was on 0/4 and daddy tried to withdraw them. I said no and that the player had to continue. The junior scored 5/9 and won the U8 prize for the event.

I don't really run many events anymore, so it doesn't really worry me but I think some arbiter’s in Australia are far too strict. While there are quite a few administrators who post, none of Australia's top arbiters regularly post here. I disagree with most of them, but I just want to get my view out there.

A post script: I was having a chat with one of Australia's IM once about withdrawals and asked him his opinion. He grew up outside Australia, in Europe where I have said it is ok to withdraw. He did comment that while he didn't have a problem with it, those players who regularly withdrew from events while he was growing up, no longer played. I agree with this player that players who don't finish events are less likely to stay in the long run...

But that's a different story.

Garrett
18-04-2010, 10:24 AM
I've never had a problem approving someone withdrawing from an event
:clap:



I have always seen it better to let a player go, who no longer wants to play, then to make them finish an event they don't want to.

:clap:



An open Swiss where a player has not been paid an appearance fee is the lowest, where there is no problem if a player withdraws for the purposes of completing the pairings.

:clap:



Withdrawals in European and US events are common, but no-one minds there

:clap:




in Australia most arbiters are incredibly strict for no really good reason.

:wall: :wall: :wall:

Basil
18-04-2010, 11:13 AM
Hippies! Cringers!

I mean "they don't do it in big boy countries, so why should we do it here!" Der. For God's sake sake, let's not lead by example. Der. Like chess OS is in excellent shape. Der.

Love ya Garrett. Love ya Lee. Hippies!

Carry on!

Thunderspirit
18-04-2010, 11:19 AM
Hippies! Cringers!

I mean "they don't do it in big boy countries, so why should we do it here!" Der. For God's sake sake, let's not lead by example. Der. Like chess OS is in excellent shape. Der.

Love ya Garrett. Love ya Lee. Hippies!

Carry on!

LMAO... That's a classic. Me a hippy??

Chess may not be perfect OS, but Australia can learn a bit from them too...

Back to work, Gunner... Don't you have Bananas to bend...

P.S Canberra is getting cold, can you spare some of that Queensland warmth?

P.P.S Thanks Garrett

ER
18-04-2010, 11:41 AM
lol in Howie's dialectics hippy is the base in the scale that leads to b) a lefty and c) a Rudd fan! :P
(Give or take a few funny expletives in between!) :P:lol:

Desmond
18-04-2010, 12:40 PM
To define an 'Unapproved withdrawal' this is a player who just bolts from the tournament without letting the arbiter know. Most if not all of us agree on this. No. That would be unnotified withdrawer. Approval is more that notification. The arbiter will ask for a reason, the player then stands at the mercy of whether the arbiter thinks that reason is "good enough". It's like kindergarten.

Basil
18-04-2010, 12:45 PM
No. That would be unnotified withdrawer. Approval is more that notification. The arbiter will ask for a reason, the player then stands at the mercy of whether the arbiter thinks that reason is "good enough". It's like kindergarten.
What? Like the Lions saying they're not coming back after half time and waiting to see if it's approved. Is that also like kindy? The central issue is whether or not people can leave a tournament before its natural conclusion (extenuating circumstances notwithstanding). Clearly nazis like me think no and free willy soft-cocks thinks yes. That's the whole issue right there.

Garrett
18-04-2010, 01:57 PM
It's strange how when the top seed in a tournament resigns a game when down two pawns without compensation gets pats on the back saying "you knew when to resign" whereas if that player gets to 0/4 and wants to resign the tournament the very same people start yelling "witch, witch, Rudd-lover".

You can draw comparisons with other sports but I don't think it will get you anywhere. They don't make boxers fight after they've lost in the
Olympics, not even for the bronze medal. They also have a 'Cut' in major golf tournaments that allow the also-rans to exit gracefully.

Also, I'll let you in on a secret. If the Lions are down by 50 at half time then most of the crowd have gone home. The only one's left are those propping up the bar. And Gunner.

The only ones upset if the match was called off would be the media who'd have to dig out the M.A.S.H re-runs. And Gunner.

What's the big problem anyway ? You used to meeting good players in the 1/5 pool and trying to weasel some rating points out of a demoralised opponent ?

cheers
Garrett.

PS - please leave my dick out of this.

Desmond
18-04-2010, 02:13 PM
What? Like the Lions saying they're not coming back after half time and waiting to see if it's approved. Your analogy compares leaving a game in progress with notifying in a timely fashion that a party will not be present for the game. What that is attempting to illuminate, I wouldn't have the foggiest.

CameronD
18-04-2010, 02:31 PM
i played in a swiss event and was refused permission to withdraw in a low level event. I was performing ok, I was just sick of being stuck indoors and was feeling miserable and wanted to go outside and ring a few friends to arrange dinner instead of play chess.

Im very hesitant to play under this arbiter as hes extreme on all measures and kills the chess environment.

I find anything more than 2 games a day as torture and end up hating the events most of the time.

Kevin Bonham
18-04-2010, 03:20 PM
No. That would be unnotified withdrawer. Approval is more that notification.

I think of authorisation and notification as even being two completely separate things. A player might withdraw for a valid reason but fail to give adequate notice = unnotified withdrawal. A player might withdraw with adequate notice but an invalid reason = unauthorised withdrawal. Or a player might withdraw for a lame reason and without telling anyone = unnotified and unauthorised withdrawal.


They don't make boxers fight after they've lost in the
Olympics, not even for the bronze medal.

This is probably because it would not be medically wise to force boxers who have lost to fight another fight soon after; some may not be in a condition to do so. Furthermore since the boxing events are knockout tournaments no purpose is gained by having them continue (except perhaps by reducing the number of bronze medals needed.


They also have a 'Cut' in major golf tournaments that allow the also-rans to exit gracefully.

I don't think this is a case of being nice to the losers, otherwise the losers would have the option of continuing if they wanted to. Reducing numbers at the half-way mark makes the tournament easier to run and increases the prestige of the final rounds.

As I noted in #19, withdrawals from a Swiss will often affect someone. They can interfere unfairly with the tiebreak scores of players tied for ratings prizes, for example. (As for why ratings prizes should sometimes be subject to tiebreak, if you do not do this you can sometimes end up paying several players a fraction of their entry fare each, which is pointless and verging on an insult.)

Basil
18-04-2010, 03:32 PM
It's strange how when the top seed in a tournament resigns a game when down two pawns without compensation gets pats on the back saying "you knew when to resign" whereas if that player gets to 0/4 and wants to resign the tournament the very same people start yelling "witch, witch, Rudd-lover".
Resigning a game when you believe you're lost (and losing!) is different from leaving a tournament for self-protection of points (and/ or whatever other motivation exists) and inducing penalty on others.


You can draw comparisons with other sports but I don't think it will get you anywhere.
I'll stop drawing analogies.


They don't make boxers fight after they've lost in the Olympics, not even for the bronze medal.
That's because losing is the pre-determined exit point of the tournament.


They also have a 'Cut' in major golf tournaments.
Ditto

Basil
18-04-2010, 03:35 PM
What? Like the Lions saying they're not coming back after half time and waiting to see if it's approved.

Your analogy compares leaving a game in progress with notifying in a timely fashion that a party will not be present for the game. What that is attempting to illuminate, I wouldn't have the foggiest.
Yes you do - it's obvious, if not exact. But if you're trying to act dumb because the chess withdrawal during a tournament is oh so different from withdrawing midway through a football game (and I accept there are differences but the point is still at play - viz failure to complete and thereby requiring an arbiter's approval), then how about the analogy of The Lions not completing the season because they have no chance of finishing anywhere respectable? Is that a close enough analogy for you?

Garrett
18-04-2010, 03:54 PM
then how about the analogy of The Lions not completing the season because they have no chance of finishing anywhere respectable? Is that a close enough analogy for you?

No - the draw has already been done.

Round robins were specifically mentioned in Lee's post.

Cheers
Garrett.

Desmond
18-04-2010, 04:14 PM
Yes you do - it's obvious, if not exact. But if you're trying to act dumb because the chess withdrawal during a tournament is oh so different from withdrawing midway through a football game (and I accept there are differences but the point is still at play - viz failure to complete and thereby requiring an arbiter's approval),
No it is completely different. Notifying the arbiter in time to keep that player out of the draw does not leave a player sitting at the board without an opponent. Calling it quits halfway through a football game does. A football game is a game of two teams where the removal of one team means the other can't play. Not the case in a swiss tournament.

then how about the analogy of The Lions not completing the season because they have no chance of finishing anywhere respectable? Is that a close enough analogy for you?If any footy team can show up on the first day of the season and enter, it might be reasonable to withdraw with the same sort of notice.

Basil
18-04-2010, 04:24 PM
It seems you (Brian George) are going to reject any analogy on its differences, regardless of the similarities that exist (as is often the case with analogies).

So, arguing directly on the merits, I and others still maintain that leaving a tournament (without extenuating circumstances) is wrong. It has direct impacts on other players. What do you (Brian and George) say to that?

Desmond
18-04-2010, 04:42 PM
It seems you (Brian George) are going to reject any analogy on its differences, regardless of the similarities that exist (as is often the case with analogies).I reject that. ;)


So, arguing directly on the merits, I and others still maintain that leaving a tournament (without extenuating circumstances) is wrong. It has direct impacts on other players. What do you (Brian and George) say to that?I'm not sure of what direct impacts you refer to. If the notification is timely, all players will be paired and no one will miss a game. It can be the case in Swiss tourmanents that players meet stronger fields than others, but really this is the doing of the swiss format, not the player. Maybe player x has met player y but y has not me player z and if y withdraws then that might give z an "easier" run that x, but maybe instead of y z meets j, who's having a blinder and goes on to defeat z and z is sitting there wishing he'd got to play y when before the game x was wishing y onto him. Then again maybe they could just play chess.

Garrett
18-04-2010, 04:56 PM
It seems you (Brian George) are going to reject any analogy on its differences, regardless of the similarities that exist (as is often the case with analogies).

So, arguing directly on the merits, I and others still maintain that leaving a tournament (without extenuating circumstances) is wrong. It has direct impacts on other players. What do you (Brian and George) say to that?

Hi Captain

If there is an adverse impact on players then I'd certainly ave a rethink.

There have been the odd tournament withdrawer, perhaps you could point me to some specific instances of where players have been adversely affected.

Keep in mind that there must also be an adverse impact when a player is just "going through the motions" making quick draws, or playing quickly (risking a loss in a game they might otherwise not have) so they can leave the playing hall.

Basil
18-04-2010, 05:26 PM
The first 50 posts of this thread are worth a read. It seems to me that those with organising experience are generally against or have grave reservations. Kevin's post seems a reasonable summation of the reasons against.

Kevin Bonham
"There are very few tournaments in which an UWD cannot affect someone else. In many Swiss events a UWD will interfere with the Buchholz scores of opponents tied for ratings prizes, for instance.

Can't remember when we last had this thread but I am a fan of firm crackdowns on repeat offenders, even if they are driven away from chess in the process."

If you want a populist POV, check
bobby1972 who is in favour of a free willy walk when you want

"last night was turny night at my club and we were all talking about withdrawals every one seems to not like them i was very suprised."

shaun

"Leafing through the revisions to the FIDE handbook I came across the section of chess ethics. One of the breaches is withdrawing from an event without sufficient reason."

Basil
18-04-2010, 05:28 PM
I'd reckon there'd be a broad correlation between walk-when-you-want and wear-what-you-want. Any takers?

Vlad
18-04-2010, 06:01 PM
My personal opinion is that unauthorised withdrawal from a tournament should be discouraged. On the other hand, I can understand why people are withdrawing, especially when they are the top seeds by miles. So I would not be as harsh on them as the Captain.

However, two things I think should be mentioned. Firstly, it is incredibly rude to withdraw from an oz championship where entry was restricted, or any other tournament with restricted entry for that matter; for example Brisbane 2006. Secondly, it is inappropriate to withdraw for chessplayers who are planning on respresenting the country in the Olimpiad, World Championships, etc; for example Gold Coast 2009.

Basil
18-04-2010, 06:09 PM
So I would not be as harsh on them as the Captain.
But in this discussion I am yet to stipulate how harsh I would be!

Thunderspirit
18-04-2010, 08:34 PM
No. That would be unnotified withdrawer. Approval is more that notification. The arbiter will ask for a reason, the player then stands at the mercy of whether the arbiter thinks that reason is "good enough". It's like kindergarten.


I suppose the difference of opinion here is that, I don't need any reason why a player can withdraw, just notification that by their choice they no longer wish to play. That is an approved withdrawal.

Desmond
19-04-2010, 11:06 AM
I'd reckon there'd be a broad correlation between walk-when-you-want and wear-what-you-want. Any takers?
Dunno about a broad correlation but I would fall into the stricter side on dress codes.

Kevin Bonham
19-04-2010, 12:40 PM
I'd reckon there'd be a broad correlation between walk-when-you-want and wear-what-you-want. Any takers?

I'm close to the latter but nowhere near the former.

ER
19-04-2010, 03:22 PM
Duggan is not a walker, as he stated (to Eclectic and myself - Adelaide 2008) he hates walking! However, he dresses nicely but I strongly believe that is SWAMBO's work and not his!

MichaelBaron
19-04-2010, 08:10 PM
First of all, I would like to agree with the Thunderspirit - approved and unapproved withdrawals are two different stories.... approved ones are Ok (even though they too can stuff up the tournament). As for unapproved ones - some penalty should be applied!

Garvinator
19-04-2010, 11:07 PM
There seems to be some confusion about the differences between some of the classifications.

1) Unnotified withdrawer- a player who leaves the tournament without informing the arbiter or organisers, usually causing the next round to be paired and for their opponent, and maybe the person who received the bye, to miss out on a game.

2) Approved withdrawer- person who informs the arbiter and/or organiser that they can not continue in the tournament and their reason is accepted.

3) Unapproved withdrawer- person who informs the arbiter and/or organiser that they can not continue and their reason IS NOT accepted.

I do not think there is anyone arguing that person number 1 is acceptable, or should get off 'scot free'.

Also, person number 2 is perfectly accepted and is usually written into most states by laws/code of conducts.

It is person number 3 that is up for debate. Most arbiters/organisers will accept a lot of reasons for a withdrawal, but some that do not past muster are:

1) I don't feel like playing the last round.
2) I am having a poor tournament and am going to play someone rated way below me and do not want to lose rating points.
3) I am no longer in the running for a prize, so would like to leave early to make it home early.

On some occasions, whether a reason is accepted or not can come down to what is in the best interests of the tournament, not what is in the best interest of the person attempting to withdraw. By this I mean whether removing the withdrawer creates or eliminates the bye (is one example).

Kevin Bonham
20-04-2010, 12:23 AM
I think there are rare circumstances under which an unnotified withdrawal can reasonably be approved retrospectively. If something happens that makes it genuinely difficult for a player to notify the arbiters that they will be absent then they should be cut some slack while at the same time advising them strongly that if at all possible they need to let people know.

That applies not only in fairness to other players but also because there are duty of care type issues for tournament organisers, especially where juniors are concerned. If a player who played in the tournament doesn't turn up and doesn't tell anyone, it is possible (however unlikely) that that player has had an accident or met with foul play and that the organisers might be among the last people to have seen that person before that happened. That places the organisers in a difficult situation, because they really don't want to have to needlessly spend time verifying that someone who went missing from an event is OK.

Desmond
20-04-2010, 12:53 PM
Most arbiters/organisers will accept a lot of reasons for a withdrawal, but some that do not past muster are:

1) I don't feel like playing the last round.
2) I am having a poor tournament and am going to play someone rated way below me and do not want to lose rating points.
3) I am no longer in the running for a prize, so would like to leave early to make it home early.What a load of tosh. It's up to the player to decide if they want to play or not. Not the whim of the arbiter whether the explanation is good enough.

Basil
20-04-2010, 02:08 PM
What a load of tosh. It's up to the player to decide if they want to play or not. Not the whim of the arbiter whether the explanation is good enough.
This has nothing to do with civil liberties.

The issue is not whether the player wants to play or not (although that is an issue for the player for sure, because free will certainly exists), but rather whether we should have a system which sanctions people dropping out of a tournament in which they have agreed to enter.

Desmond
20-04-2010, 02:32 PM
The issue is ... whether we should have a system which sanctions people dropping out of a tournament in which they have agreed to enter.I agree with that statement. My opinion is that we should not, assuming due notice is given yadda yadda yadda.

Thunderspirit
21-04-2010, 10:50 PM
What a load of tosh. It's up to the player to decide if they want to play or not. Not the whim of the arbiter whether the explanation is good enough.

Boris, my good man you deserve a gold star.

Arbiters aren't police mandating who should play and when.

Basil
21-04-2010, 11:14 PM
Boris, my good man you deserve a gold star.

Arbiters aren't police mandating who should play and when.
Say you guys. Luckily, the majority-think among the 'managers' of events and associations believe otherwise (see clarification 4th para). And to take the push/ shove out of the debate, the bodies have styled a situation approximating

- Here, play a tournament
- Be advised dropping out for reasons akin to emotional masturbation doesn't wash.
- OK you're dropping out. Good on you. What if three other people got a soft-on and really buggered things up?
- You wanna keep doing it? Newsflash, we don't want you - you're a pain.

Frankly, Boris' statement that a football team could drop out of the comp after a couple of rounds (without extenuating circumstances) is staggering to me. You have given no weight or adequate acknowledgment of the effects on others. You've simply declined to respond to the question of negative impact and the proceed to assert a moral/ ethical right to walk-at-will. The civil libertarian right is not in dispute - this is a matter of obligation to the whole and part of the tacit contact upon entering.

I think the root rationale on both sides is quite a deep one that goes to the heart of issues much deeper than simply whether one should remain within a chess tournament. There's an undercurrent here (from the quote above) that people in power are impinging on personal space. Stop misdirecting your argument to the referee/ arbiter of the day. The arbiter (and the governing bodies) is there to enforce the rules whatever they are - this issue is not about a personal crusade of a player's free will versus a gaoler in the form of an arbiter.

Boris I remember having a public discussion with you (on this board) about employment and the rights and obligations of employers vs employees.

I was staggered (then, and still am) when you asserted then that an employee should have the right to leave on all but a moment's notice whereas as employer should be 'bound to employ for life' unless gross misconduct circumstances existed. I find your weighting of respective obligations (and displayed understanding of ramifications) stunning, and it is clear there is no rationale that can be offered to reverse your perspective on either issue - so I've stopped trying ;)

Thunder, Boris and others who support the walk-whenever approach, what is your opinion of a tournament that advertised a 'no walkers without acceptable excuse' policy? Forget the specific wording for a minute, as you get what I'm driving at. Do you accept, and even defend, the right of organisations and bodies to run such a styled tournament, or do you demand that tournaments are run on the free-willy terms you embrace (notwithstanding that such free-wily terms are unlikely to be found or sanctioned in any other organised activity of which I am aware)?

Desmond
22-04-2010, 10:55 AM
Howard, whether you a deliberately misrepresenting things or really just don't get it is not clear to me. Either way, I know you won't be swayed by anyone's comments and I really couldn't be arsed.

Basil
22-04-2010, 11:13 AM
Howard, whether you a deliberately misrepresenting things or really just don't get it is not clear to me. Either way, I know you won't be swayed by anyone's comments and I really couldn't be arsed.
Right. But could you just answer this question? It's the second one you've dodged.


Thunder, Boris and others who support the walk-whenever approach, what is your opinion of a tournament that advertised a 'no walkers without acceptable excuse' policy? Forget the specific wording for a minute, as you get what I'm driving at. Do you accept, and even defend, the right of organisations and bodies to run such a styled tournament, or do you demand that tournaments are run on the free-willy terms you embrace (notwithstanding that such free-wily terms are unlikely to be found or sanctioned in any other organised activity of which I am aware)?

Desmond
22-04-2010, 11:33 AM
Right. But could you just answer this question? It's the second one you've dodged.Dodge? Actually I didn't get that far. The eyes started to glaze over reading through the misrepresentation.

Now that I have, and against my better judgement giving you a fair response whilst letting the rest stand, my answer is this: of course organisers can do that. To quote you, durrr.

Basil
22-04-2010, 05:58 PM
Now that I have, and against my better judgement giving you a fair response whilst letting the rest stand, my answer is this: of course organisers can do that. To quote you, durrr.
I don't think it's such a no-brainer, although it should be. I reckon know they'd be many (among the free-willies) who squeal when organisations mete out said advertised repercussions. Luckily still the significant minority (speaking from first-hand experience).

Garvinator
22-04-2010, 08:43 PM
I don't think it's such a no-brainer, although it should be. I reckon know they'd be many (among the free-willies) who squeal when organisations mete out said advertised repercussions. Luckily still the significant minority (speaking from first-hand experience).
I would imagine there would even be some squealing if there was a no-shirt, no shoes no service policy, except at venues that require that to get in the door ie Services clubs.

Kevin Bonham
23-04-2011, 08:08 PM
Interesting comment by Shaun Press on chessexpress about Doeberl Cup withdrawal policies:


The policy of the Doeberl Cup organisers is to make no distinction between approved or non-approved withdrawer's [sic]. Instead we treat all players that pull out the same, regardless of the reasons. The next time they wish to enter the event they will be required to pay a 'forfeit' bond. If they then complete the event the bond is refunded, otherwise the organisers keep it (and increase any future bonds/penalties).

In effect they have no such thing as an authorised withdrawal - which has its advantages because some of the reasons offered by players for authorised withdrawals may not be completely true, but organisers may be unable to investigate them. However, I wonder whether or not the policy provides any incentive for a withdrawal (even for valid reason) to be notified. I've asked Shaun a question about this over there.

Denis_Jessop
23-04-2011, 08:18 PM
Interesting comment by Shaun Press on chessexpress about Doeberl Cup withdrawal policies:



In effect they have no such thing as an authorised withdrawal - which has its advantages because some of the reasons offered by players for authorised withdrawals may not be completely true, but organisers may be unable to investigate them. However, I wonder whether or not the policy provides any incentive for a withdrawal (even for valid reason) to be notified. I've asked Shaun a question about this over there.

The odd thing is that these "policies" only ever seem to be announced after the event. :hmm: To put it another way, they are unwritten things that the "organisers", i.e. Shaun Press, trot out when it suits them/him.

DJ

ER
23-04-2011, 08:47 PM
The odd thing is that these "policies" only ever seem to be announced after the event. :hmm: To put it another way, they are unwritten things that the "organisers", i.e. Shaun Press, trot out when it suits them/him.

DJ

Denis, I think that Shaun has made it clear that whatever measures could be taken they might be taken "next time"!
On the other hand, and that's irrelevant to the present discussion, I think that some comments about Erik in this Forum, although jocular in nature, were not exactly necessary.
He is an intelligent and sensitive person and I am sure that he wouldn't withdraw with no valid reason(s).
I believe that his participation in this tournament wasn't under ideal conditions and certain circumstances added to the pressure on his performance.
I better leave it here!

Kevin Bonham
23-04-2011, 08:54 PM
Denis, I think that Shaun has made it clear that whatever measures could be taken they might be taken "next time"!

Actually he seems to be saying those players will definitely be subject to a bond next time they enter - thus a measure has already been taken, even if it is only to impose a bond requirement.

ER
23-04-2011, 09:25 PM
Actually he seems to be saying those players will definitely be subject to a bond next time they enter - thus a measure has already been taken, even if it is only to impose a bond requirement.

I mean it is not being an official rule yet! Let's wait and see Doeberl 2012!

Kevin Bonham
23-04-2011, 09:30 PM
I mean it is not being an official rule yet! Let's wait and see Doeberl 2012!

So if it's not an official rule, what is it then - a semi-sanctioned thought bubble?

Shaun says it is "The policy of the Doeberl Cup organisers". Shaun is the Director of Play although he is not the Chief Organiser.

ER
23-04-2011, 10:12 PM
So if it's not an official rule, what is it then - a semi-sanctioned thought bubble?
A strongly worded proposal / warning?

Shaun says it is "The policy of the Doeberl Cup organisers". Shaun is the Director of Play although he is not the Chief Organiser.
Well it wasn't announced in the beginning of the tournament. Shaun doesn't mince words when it comes to putting the record straight and I am sure when it comes to the morning-after-the-night-before meeting he will push for this rule to be implemented and he will push hard.
On the other hand Shaun is a paid Director of Play and (I presume) acts under Charle's direct management. Charles is the Chief Organiser and he will have the final say on what's good for the tournament!

Kevin Bonham
23-04-2011, 11:15 PM
A strongly worded proposal / warning?

It doesn't read like one. It reads as a statement of definite policy rather than anything tentative.

As far as I can tell, there are two and only two possibilities here.

1. It is a policy approved and implemented by the organisers despite not being explicitly included in the pre-event rules, as a consequence of which the three players who withdrew will be subject to bonds when next they enter, unless this is changed.

2. It is not such a policy (though it may become one in the future) and Shaun was incorrect to announce it in a manner that implies that it is.

MichaelBaron
24-04-2011, 09:12 AM
Surely if a player produces a medical certificate his withdrawal will/should be accepted by the organisers. You can adopt a tougher/softer stand towards the withdrawals and I welcome a tough one - but sometimes people withdraw for reasons other than bad play/bad mood!

ChessGuru
24-04-2011, 12:10 PM
I have the opinion that tournament organisers and arbiters should develop more of a 'Customer Culture'. Focus on what the players want...after all they're paying the entry fees...

There is too much 'rule enforcement' and not enough focus on a personalised, exceptional client experience for each and every player. Customer service needs to be a much higher priority... I'm sure everyone can think of a situation where someone blindly folowing 'policy' has given you a bad customer experience in the 'real world'.

If the best experience for a player is to pay an entry fee and leave after round 1 then arbiters and organisers should be bending over backwards to allow that player do that with no repercussions.

There is an exception when a player is being 'paid' (eg. titled players with free entry) to play... in that case there should be a set of expectations that the organisers can place on the player in exchange for the free entry. Those sponsored players must live up to their expectations.

Rules should exist to prevent players impacting in a negative way other player. A player who storms off and doesn't show for the next round, so their opponent has to sit bored for 30min until they win on forfiet (which is a negative experience because they've paid to play chess) might suffer some repercussions appropriate for the crime. (Maybe they must forfiet their first game in the next event).

Libby2
24-04-2011, 05:11 PM
What is the big drama here?

The policy?

The issue of players' withdrawing from a tournament?

The person (or persons) stating the policy?

No player is experiencing a negative impact on their current playing experience as they are being allowed to withdraw from the 2011 tournament without penalty.

Assuming they wish to play next time, it may be an inconvenience to pay a bond but if the usual whinging about no-shows, sooking drop-outs, dodgy claims of the sniffles and unauthorised withdrawals from events is any indication (including that featured front and centre of the CAQ newsletter), people think it's bad form and a pain-in-the-neck to leave an event part-way. And my child has, in the past, sat waiting for an opponent who just decided not to turn up for the last round and I think that's pretty pitiful behaviour by an adult.

If you have withdrawn because of illness, or a dramatic personal emergency, this is pretty unlikely to occur again 12 months later. So you may pay a bond but you personally have a 100% expectation of getting it back. And if someone dropped dead, or you had an obvious serious illness, I'd be stunned if a lack of sympathy and flexibility was not exhibited by organisers.

From a customer service perspective, I think this allows anyone to withdraw who really wishes to, but encourages them to think twice about withdrawing for a frivolous (sulking) reason - hence a better customer service experience for the 99.9% of players who turn up to play for the whole event - whether their personal efforts have been good bad or ugly :rolleyes:

Kevin Bonham
24-04-2011, 05:11 PM
Surely if a player produces a medical certificate his withdrawal will/should be accepted by the organisers. You can adopt a tougher/softer stand towards the withdrawals and I welcome a tough one - but sometimes people withdraw for reasons other than bad play/bad mood!

I agree with this, and indeed in most cases I think organisers who penalised a player who withdrew because of genuine illness could well be placing themselves at legal risk. An exception might be if a player knew they were unwell at the start of the event but still chose to enter.


Rules should exist to prevent players impacting in a negative way other player. A player who storms off and doesn't show for the next round, so their opponent has to sit bored for 30min until they win on forfiet (which is a negative experience because they've paid to play chess) might suffer some repercussions appropriate for the crime. (Maybe they must forfiet their first game in the next event).

Even when players withdraw with notice (but for bogus reasons) it can negatively impact other players. For instance if there is a prize or trophy for which countback is relevant, and the countback is based on sum of opponent's scores, then a player whose defeated opponent withdraws can be adversely affected. Especially unfair if the win in question caused the opponent to withdraw.

It is possible to avoid this problem by using different countbacks such as performance rating or progressive scores, or by not using countbacks at all, but sometimes those options don't work too well for various reasons.

In round robins, notified withdrawals almost always cause severe unfairness for other players since you end up either discounting games legitimately won, or else giving some players free points.

ER
24-04-2011, 05:31 PM
It doesn't read like one. It reads as a statement of definite policy rather than anything tentative.

As far as I can tell, there are two and only two possibilities here.

1. It is a policy approved and implemented by the organisers despite not being explicitly included in the pre-event rules, as a consequence of which the three players who withdrew will be subject to bonds when next they enter, unless this is changed.

2. It is not such a policy (though it may become one in the future) and Shaun was incorrect to announce it in a manner that implies that it is.

What's said or implied is irrelevant. Unless I see a concrete rule being made, approved (by ACF or State Authorities) and published, words remain words.
Anger, indignation of the "c'mon, I do have to do the bloody draw allover again now, don't I?" kind and self reproach statements of the "why did I have to get involved into this again"? variety are understandable but not decicive!
I do not believe such a rule would be implemented!

Kevin Bonham
24-04-2011, 05:49 PM
What's said or implied is irrelevant. Unless I see a concrete rule being made, approved (by ACF or State Authorities) and published, words remain words.

But the event is neither an ACF nor State Association event so no such approval is required, nor does it exist for the tournament rules already showing on the Doeberl site. The rule is published (albeit on Shaun's blog rather than the event website), it doesn't need ACF or State approval, so the only question as to its status is whether it is approved by the Doeberl organisers.

The following was the question I asked Shaun:

What about people who fail to show up for the next round without telling anyone, thus causing their opponent to win on forfeit (ie unnotified as well as unauthorised withdrawals)? Do you treat them the same way too, or more harshly?

His response:


So far this isn't an issue, as in the most recent cases the players have normally approached us before the next round to request a withdrawal. When they do so the conversation normally goes something like this
Player: "I would like to withdraw ... " followed by reasons.
Arbiters: "These are the sanctions for withdrawing from the tournament ... " followed by the policy described in the main post.
Arbiters: "Is this clear?"
Player: "Perfectly"
Arbiters: "Do you still wish to withdraw?"
Player: "Yes"

As we are not in a position to force players to play in the event, making them aware of the consequences of their decision *before* they make it is probably the best we can do.

What seems not to happen so much is (a) silent withdrawals or (b) a mass of players withdrawing. Both of these used to happen quite a lot in the past (especially in the Monday round), so maybe the current approach is having a positive effect on the tournament.

Note for Amir's benefit (there will be a test on this for him afterwards): I am not saying I personally support this policy. I would not impose any penalty on a player who withdrew with notice for a reason I considered valid - and I'm generally pretty easy to please on the latter. The main reasons I don't accept are that a player isn't playing well enough or that a player wants to go home early.

Keong Ang
24-04-2011, 06:08 PM
I have the opinion that tournament organisers and arbiters should develop more of a 'Customer Culture'. Focus on what the players want...after all they're paying the entry fees...

There is too much 'rule enforcement' and not enough focus on a personalised, exceptional client experience for each and every player. Customer service needs to be a much higher priority... I'm sure everyone can think of a situation where someone blindly folowing 'policy' has given you a bad customer experience in the 'real world'.
I'm sure tournament organisers are very customer focused. However we have to remember that the customer is not just players. There are sponsors, spectators, etc. who are also customers.

Arbiters have a well defined role, especially when referring to the first 3 clauses of Article13, Laws of Chess. The arbiter's prime duty is to ensure that the Laws of Chess are strictly observed. Strict rule enforcement usually helps make a tournament 'good'.

In chess tournaments, the 'customers' are best served if rules are enforced strictly. The higher level the tournament, the more important this becomes.


If the best experience for a player is to pay an entry fee and leave after round 1 then arbiters and organisers should be bending over backwards to allow that player do that with no repercussions.

There is an exception when a player is being 'paid' (eg. titled players with free entry) to play... in that case there should be a set of expectations that the organisers can place on the player in exchange for the free entry. Those sponsored players must live up to their expectations.

Withdrawals generally ruin the tournament for everyone else. Best time to withdraw is before the draw for round1 is made!! i.e. don't enter if unable to commit to completing the tournament.

Obviously there are genuine and valid reasons to withdraw, and that's why there's discretion to allow it.


Rules should exist to prevent players impacting in a negative way other player. A player who storms off and doesn't show for the next round, so their opponent has to sit bored for 30min until they win on forfiet (which is a negative experience because they've paid to play chess) might suffer some repercussions appropriate for the crime. (Maybe they must forfiet their first game in the next event).

Imagine how negative the impact of withdrawing (notified or not) can be. The other player may not get to earn a norm, or lose out on a prize, how about ratings? A player who withdraws creates a negative experience for everybody else. That's why there is the expectation that once a player enters a tournament, all rounds are to be played.

Kevin Bonham
24-04-2011, 06:14 PM
What is the big drama here?

The policy?

Most of the discussion here since I bumped the thread after a year and a day without posts (post 108) has actually concerned whether the policy stated by Shaun is or is not an official Doeberl Cup policy.

ER
24-04-2011, 06:24 PM
... I'm sure tournament organisers are very customer focused. However we have to remember that the customer is not just players. There are sponsors, spectators, etc. who are also customers.
.. .

Charge the bastards! :P :lol:

Libby2
24-04-2011, 07:00 PM
Most of the discussion here since I bumped the thread after a year and a day without posts (post 108) has actually concerned whether the policy stated by Shaun is or is not an official Doeberl Cup policy.

Since Shaun is more sensible than myself and doesn't bother to post here, questioning him on his blog (as you have done) might serve people better. Or directing the question to Charles.

Or just making a reasoned determination about who is being adversely impacted if this is in fact the policy because I am not yet seeing the concern/consternation being expressed by actual participants. Just a bit of niggle from those who like to :D accompanied by the usual strange perception that chess players shouldn't be subject to any kind of sanction for wussing out of events because somehow they are less able to cope with not being as good as they think they are- unlike those of us who puddle along in other pursuits.

Kevin Bonham
24-04-2011, 08:28 PM
Just a bit of niggle from those who like to :D accompanied by the usual strange perception that chess players shouldn't be subject to any kind of sanction for wussing out of events because somehow they are less able to cope with not being as good as they think they are- unlike those of us who puddle along in other pursuits.

I'm not seeing very much of either of these things actually. Since I revived the thread at post 108 there's been only one post I'd characterise as "niggle" and one post that might be characterised as promoting a soft approach on withdrawals.


Or just making a reasoned determination about who is being adversely impacted if this is in fact the policy because I am not yet seeing the concern/consternation being expressed by actual participants.

Maybe you should make a reasoned determination about who (if anyone) is actually complaining about the "policy" itself.

Garvinator
24-04-2011, 08:44 PM
Most of this has been discussion about individual swisses, what about round robins?

Denis_Jessop
24-04-2011, 10:10 PM
A couple of points

1. I am not sure that the Doeberl Cup is not still an ACTCA event. My understanding was that the ACTCA gave Charles a licence to run it on their behalf for 5 years, though I am open to correction on this.

2. One of the problems about the Doeberl Cup, well pre-dating Charles' involvement with it (I think even going back into the very early years), is the almost complete absence of rules and a reliance on unwritten custom announced by whomever happens to be involved in the organisation or arbiting of it at the time.

DJ

Craig_Hall
25-04-2011, 01:33 AM
I've played a fair amount of tournament TCGs in my time, particularly Magic: the Gathering, and in MtG tourneys, withdrawals are standard practice at all levels except the Pro Tour (highest level). Generally, once players can't make the prizes, they drop and do something else (often play in another tournament, since big tournaments usually have side events as well), and it's all normal and accepted by everyone.

With that experience, it's my belief that it's all purely about personal perspective as to whether or not voluntary withdrawals are bad - they don't harm Magic tournaments at all, and I don't believe they would harm most chess tournaments either (they are annoying in round robins, however).

Charles
25-04-2011, 10:34 AM
Hi all,

The withdrawal forfeit bond is a policy and has been for the 2010 and 2011 tournaments. It appears to be working and we believe balances the rights of the players and the good of the tournament.

Libby2
25-04-2011, 12:58 PM
2. One of the problems about the Doeberl Cup, well pre-dating Charles' involvement with it (I think even going back into the very early years), is the almost complete absence of rules and a reliance on unwritten custom announced by whomever happens to be involved in the organisation or arbiting of it at the time.

DJ

I would think that this is actually one of the things that is improving, and has been intended to continue to improve as part of the standards Charles has brought to the management of the event. I don't really understand why people can't manage to acknowledge good intent, good management and an event more professionally managed than the one I first toddled along to. Instead, they have so many more helpful assertions to make ...:wall:


The odd thing is that these "policies" only ever seem to be announced after the event. :hmm: To put it another way, they are unwritten things that the "organisers", i.e. Shaun Press, trot out when it suits them/him.

DJ

Denis_Jessop
27-04-2011, 12:48 PM
I would think that this is actually one of the things that is improving, and has been intended to continue to improve as part of the standards Charles has brought to the management of the event. I don't really understand why people can't manage to acknowledge good intent, good management and an event more professionally managed than the one I first toddled along to. Instead, they have so many more helpful assertions to make ...:wall:

Ah, Libby - the piece of Doeberl which passeth all understanding! I'm sorry that you didn't understand my posts either but we'll leave it at that. Nevertheless, you do sell yourself short in asserting that Shaun is more sensible than you :)

DJ

antichrist
13-06-2011, 01:51 PM
on Dark side they are complaining that in Queensland that players are barred for one year if they withdraw from a tourney. Is this correct? Are there other conditions beforehand to satisfy?

Kevin Bonham
13-06-2011, 02:45 PM
on Dark side they are complaining that in Queensland that players are barred for one year if they withdraw from a tourney. Is this correct? Are there other conditions beforehand to satisfy?

They're complaining that a specific player has been banned for one year for unauthorised withdrawal.

The case in question was a round robin, not a Swiss, and withdrawals from round robins tend to be more severe in impact on other players. The withdrawing player had lost two games, one to the top seed and one to a much lower rated player. The top seed (Nakauchi) had had to use up effort beating this guy for nothing, since most of the other players did not play him. Nakauchi ended up losing his last round game to Garrett, who won the tournament. Whether Garrett would have beaten the player who withdrew as well is unknowable. (I personally think he would, but we'll never know.)

They don't automatically ban everyone who withdraws without permission for that long. Their policy allows them to either ban the player (as long or short a ban as they like), or list the player publicly as an unapproved withdrawer.

What I find really bizarre is that Amir reckons they should have given the guy his entry money back. :eek:

Garvinator
13-06-2011, 04:17 PM
The case in question was a round robin, not a Swiss, and withdrawals from round robins tend to be more severe in impact on other players. The withdrawing player had lost two games, one to the top seed and one to a much lower rated player. The top seed (Nakauchi) had had to use up effort beating this guy for nothing, since most of the other players did not play him. Nakauchi ended up losing his last round game to Garrett, who won the tournament. Whether Garrett would have beaten the player who withdrew as well is unknowable. (I personally think he would, but we'll never know.)In this case it falls into the category of unnotified withdrawal, not just unauthorised.

Also, by forfeiting, being a fide rated round robin tournament, this denied all the fide unrateds the opportunity to earn a fide rating direct from this event, which was one of the attractions of going with a round robin after receiving 11 players for 9 rounds.

Furthermore, CAQ wrote and emailed the player and gave him an opportunity to explain why there was no contact and why he unnotified withdrew. From round four onwards (the round he did not show up for), CAQ has not heard from him at all.

We received no correspondence whatsoever. If he wants to appeal our decision, he can appeal within one month and his appeal will be heard by a special general meeting of the clubs.

Kevin Bonham
13-06-2011, 04:58 PM
Thanks Garvin. Everything we have seen so far indicates that this was at the worse end of the scale for unjustified withdrawals.

Basil
13-06-2011, 05:21 PM
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. ...

Berbic needed his arse banned and banned good. Another self-indulgent, inward-looking sap fricking with others and their results. Did I refer to him as a self-indulgent sap? Ah yes, good-o, carry on everybody - you're all doing very well.

Kevin Bonham
13-06-2011, 06:23 PM
Same player also withdrew from a round robin last year, after the initial pairings were announced.

antichrist
13-06-2011, 06:42 PM
Same player also withdrew from a round robin last year, after the initial pairings were announced.

And do I have your express permission to take all your kind remarks over there?

antichrist
13-06-2011, 10:04 PM
What? Like the Lions saying they're not coming back after half time and waiting to see if it's approved. Is that also like kindy? The central issue is whether or not people can leave a tournament before its natural conclusion (extenuating circumstances notwithstanding). Clearly nazis like me think no and free willy soft-cocks thinks yes. That's the whole issue right there.

On dark side they now reakon that a Qld soft c.ck got a $200 fine, that sounds pretty heavy - what were the circumstances? Didn't go towards arbiters' fees did it?

Basil
13-06-2011, 11:01 PM
On dark side they now reak ...
I'm sure they do.

Adamski
13-06-2011, 11:34 PM
I'm sure they do.
LOL

Kevin Bonham
13-06-2011, 11:47 PM
And do I have your express permission to take all your kind remarks over there?

Only if you get yourself elected moderator so you can ban the first idiot who misconstrues my response and posts something stupid. And preferably the second idiot as well.

I suggest you just tell those over here that the matter is being discussed on the tournament withdrawals thread here and that Garvinator has posted about the matter here. Dragging exact comments by anyone is unnecessary.

Bill Gletsos
13-06-2011, 11:58 PM
On dark side they now reakon that a Qld soft c.ck got a $200 fine, that sounds pretty heavy - what were the circumstances? Didn't go towards arbiters' fees did it?As usual Tool-sie has no clue what he is talking about and is just spreading misinformation. The $200 fine was imposed on two juniors who had pre-arranged a game result.

Kevin Bonham
18-06-2011, 01:35 PM
Moderation Notice

antichrist is directed to cease posting off-topic posts about byes of any kind in this thread. Contravention will result in an extremely long period of exclusion from Arbiter's Corner.

Kevin Bonham
30-08-2011, 02:23 AM
antichrist has been extremely foolish on this issue in the other place, attempting to use firegoat substituting for Sarah Anton in the Vic Champs as an example for his stupid obsessive crusade about mid-tournament substitutions.

The facts are that this was not the same kind of mid-tournament substitution as implied in the Berbic case at all. The results on the CV website (http://www.chessvictoria.org.au/reserves_results1.htm) clearly show that Beaumont played all opponents (except one who forfeited) while the replaced player never played any.

In events like the Queensland one Berbic withdrew from, which are played over a few days, a fill-in would not be able to play all games. In events running over several weeks like this it may be possible for a fill-in to catch up (although in this case it was very difficult as firegoat himself notes.)

AC also claimed the situation makes "a mockery of what kB has been saying about decent players not filling in." But my comments about the difficulty of finding decent replacements for a disappearing player referred specifically to the contexts of (i) replacing a 2000+ player in Queensland (or some other area where strong players are thin on the ground) (ii) an event held over a short space of time.

I've made it clear that there are some areas like Melbourne and Sydney where the chance of finding a suitable fill-in is much better. But a genuine fill-in (as opposed to a full tournament replacement of a player like this one) doesn't seem to solve the ratings problem. And in any case the ratings problem still exists for the VC Reserves because of unplayed games, though nearly all the players are FIDE-rated anyhow.

AC tries to justify his usual bogus triumphalism by saying

"Now this makes a mockery of what kB has been saying about decent players not filling in. Bloody hopeless that guy for not admitting a good idea when it shows it head. That is why I dont listen to him and declare myself winner in debates with him. Coz he would never admit it."

First line is clearly false since this was a case of substitution from the start. Second part is clearly false because this is not even an example of AC's idea at all. And yes it must be hard for AC when he loses virtually every debate and has to therefore ignore the facts and make false victory claims to make any at all - but instead he should clean up his act.

Kevin Bonham
06-02-2012, 09:31 PM
CV getting serious on this issue:



g. Motions proposed by Grant Szuveges:
i. That CV reserve the right to fine a player up to $500 for an unapproved withdrawal from a round robin CV run event. If the withdrawn player refuses to pay the fine, they will not be admitted into future CV events for the next 3 years. Passed 3-2 (LS abstaining).
ii. That players who have previously withdrawn from CV events pay a bond of $100 when entering CV events. On completion of the tournament, they are to receive their bond back in full. If they do not complete the tournament, CV reserves the right to keep the bond. Passed 4-1 (LS abstaining)

ER
06-02-2012, 11:42 PM
CV getting serious on this issue:
Nice report by Sobriquet, until MOZ interfered with his editing! :(



e. Victorian Women’s Championship
Box Hill have decided to recreate this event & plan to run it over two weekends in September . Moz edit
9. Follow-up on previous correspondence.
a. KS to send letter to Hobsons Bay club regarding affiliation
10. Set next meeting date and location. 29 March, 7:30pm at Chess Ideas
11. Close meeting. 9:30pm


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by MOZ : Yesterday at 11:28 PM Reason: Dates of Womens Championship later amended after minutes written

Emphasis mine!

Bill Gletsos
07-02-2012, 09:08 AM
Nice report by Sobriquet, until MOZ interfered with his editing! :(
Given one is a hydra of the other does it really matter which account edited the post.