PDA

View Full Version : Who should get the BYE?



Pages : [1] 2

PHAT
27-04-2004, 11:49 AM
If a BYE is awarded in a Swiss, to some player who is not wanting it, who should eventually receive it? Currently, it is always the player at the bottom of the ranking/position list. This leads to the players from the bottom quartile to bear itís unfairness [see other BYE thread]. If the unfairness is to be shared. how should it be allocated. Here are some methods:
1. Randomly
2. Randomly among those players who have not had a BYE in a rated tournament in the previous 12 months.
3. Randomly to concession and junior players - after all they are paying less to enter.
4. The highest ranked player in Round 1 second in the second - after all they were going to win anyway. But it also deprives middling players a crack at the elite. Subsequent round BYEs to be awarded by some random method.

There is no justification that I know of that leads to the BYE being the near exclusive burden of the bottom quartile. If none can be found, it is desperately unjust to continue with the current practise of awarding it to the lowest player. Our chess administrators must then rectify this unfair system.

Bill Gletsos
27-04-2004, 12:12 PM
Let me guess you got the BYE.

jenni
27-04-2004, 12:42 PM
Let me guess you got the BYE.

Yes at Doeberl and what was even worse due to a mix up he initially started playing a game and then found he had the bye.....

Sweeney having his game taken away from him was not a pretty sight.......

shaun
27-04-2004, 02:54 PM
Yes at Doeberl and what was even worse due to a mix up he initially started playing a game and then found he had the bye.....

Sweeney having his game taken away from him was not a pretty sight.......

Actually he initially had the bye in Rd1, then due to a mix-up he suddnely had an opponent. It was the unravelling of the mix-up that gave him the bye again.

But to answer the topic heading

A) With an odd number of players, someone must have the bye
B) The bye is a free point, which moves a player up the standings

C) The reasoning that follows from this is: We give a free point to the player least likely to benefit from it. Who is this player? The player at the bottom of the tournament.

Seems perfectly sensible to me. (Caveats about players getting ratings etc non-withstanding)

Bill Gletsos
27-04-2004, 02:58 PM
Seems perfectly sensible to me. (Caveats about players getting ratings etc non-withstanding)
Well there is your problem right there.
This is a Sweeney thread.
You are not allowed to be sensible because that puts him at a disadvantage. ;)

PHAT
27-04-2004, 04:55 PM
Let me guess you got the BYE.

And your point is what?

PHAT
27-04-2004, 05:00 PM
Sweeney having his game taken away from him was not a pretty sight.......

And you know this by rumor or by first hand observation? Lest anyone think there was a scene, I doubt that anyone would have noticed anything untoward at all, because I kept cool :cool:

jenni
27-04-2004, 05:11 PM
And you know this by rumor or by first hand observation? Lest anyone think there was a scene, I doubt that anyone would have noticed anything untoward at all, because I kept cool :cool:

First hand observation - I saw you looking pretty miffed and looking around for the nearest machine gun and I asked the organisers what had happened. To be fair you were pretty laid back and jovial by round 2....

Normally when there is a bye Charles grabs me and bullies me into playing, but I think Doeberl is probably too high profile, besides you were playing in the Major and will horses wouldn't get me to play in that.....

PHAT
27-04-2004, 05:12 PM
A) With an odd number of players, someone must have the bye
B) The bye is a free point, which moves a player up the standings

C) The reasoning that follows from this is: We give a free point to the player least likely to benefit from it. Who is this player? The player at the bottom of the tournament.

Seems perfectly sensible to me. (Caveats about players getting ratings etc non-withstanding)

A) Why "must"? I thought the university environment might have taught you identify and solve problems, not drive you to ignor them.

B) I explained that that is a bad thing.

C) Why a "free" full point, why not a "free" half point.

Shaun, I expect a lot more from you than this feeble restating of process. Either you think BYEs are acceptable and don't give a stuff about their rip-off and disruptive nature, or you agre that BYEs are not acceptable and endevour toeliminate them for Swiss tornaments. There is not much middle ground for you to stand on. So, what is your position.

PHAT
27-04-2004, 05:23 PM
Normally when there is a bye Charles grabs me and bullies me into playing, but I think Doeberl is probably too high profile, besides you were playing in the Major and will horses wouldn't get me to play in that.....

Something worse than wild horses drove me out of playing in the Minors into the maul of the Majors, ACT juniors.

Bill Gletsos
27-04-2004, 05:51 PM
And your point is what?
That your viewpoint is possibly biased.

PHAT
27-04-2004, 05:58 PM
That your viewpoint is possibly biased.

Prove it. Where is your evidence?

Since you have nothing to offer this thread, perhaps you should just stay away.

Bill Gletsos
27-04-2004, 06:22 PM
Prove it. Where is your evidence?
You are a frequent recipient of the BYE.
It is therefore quite reasonable that your viewpoint on it is biased.


Since you have nothing to offer this thread, perhaps you should just stay away.
Tough luck, I wont be going anwhere.
You just sound like someone who cannot argue their viewpoint.
In fact you have already taken to abusing Brain Jones in your other thread on the BYE.

Kevin Bonham
27-04-2004, 06:26 PM
A) With an odd number of players, someone must have the bye
B) The bye is a free point, which moves a player up the standings

C) The reasoning that follows from this is: We give a free point to the player least likely to benefit from it. Who is this player? The player at the bottom of the tournament.

Another rationale is: imagine if there was an extremely weak player in the event, so bad that they lost to everyone. Such players do sometimes enter tournaments and create an effective bye. So why not just pair the bye as if it was such a player? (And treat it as starting on less than 0 since you already know it is "weaker" than everyone.) And that justifies the full point. (Again we have the problem of a weak player being 1/1 undeservedly, but see other thread for my solution.)

It is unfair for the same player in a region to get round-1 byes over and over (especially if pairing them on 1/1 in rd 2, which greatly reduces their chances of getting a shot at someone they might beat). One solution to this is to randomly assign byes in the bottom (say) 1/8th of the field in the early rounds.

Assigning byes high up the field is undesirable because it can interfere with the fairness of outright placings. Not only in terms of evading chances of upsets but also in terms of the player getting the bye saving energy.

PHAT
27-04-2004, 06:35 PM
Tough luck, I wont be going anwhere.
You just sound like someone who cannot argue their viewpoint.
In fact you have already taken to abusing Brain Jones in your other thread on the BYE.

I did not abuse Brian Jones. Where is your proof. What I posted was a joke. Unless you want to discuss the future of the BYE, just go away.

Trent Parker
27-04-2004, 06:39 PM
I mean, I can see Matts viewpoint. If i went to somewhere like Doberl and received a first round bye I would be pi**ed off as well. But that probably wouldn't happen to me because i'd play in the minor.

In the Newcastle open the DOP tried as much as possible to get non-local participants out of having a bye. As it turned out, i think it was only the last round where there was a problem, then a player (who was not in the running for any prises) volunteered to take the bye.

Of course, Doberl is different though.

Bill Gletsos
27-04-2004, 07:15 PM
I did not abuse Brian Jones. Where is your proof. What I posted was a joke. Unless you want to discuss the future of the BYE, just go away.
As it was posted it certainly did not appear to be a joke.
If it was a joke you should not have used the :evil: symbol at the end of it.

I note it has been deleted from the thread.
As were my and Jeos responses.
It would appear a moderator did not think you were joking either.

PHAT
27-04-2004, 07:18 PM
One solution to this is to randomly assign byes in the bottom (say) 1/8th of the field in the early rounds.


Why the bottom 1/8.

Why should these people, who pay their entry fees be discriminated against because they belong to the low end cohort?

Why should any particular group be singled out for the bye. I agree that some arguments suggest that some players be quarenteened from the BYE. However, these arguements presume that that player's rights as a player are more important than another player's rights as a player.

We bend over backwards to be fair and equilable in rules for "distractions", rules for "selection", rules for B/W ratio et cetera. Why are we so dismisive of fairnes to the low end players? If you accept the fairness principle, the only way to allocate the BYE is randomly.

Since the random option would be highly unpopular, and the current allocation method is fully unfair, the only alternative is to not have BYEs in the first place. This thread - that I started - is in my own opinion a debate we should not even need to have. There should be no BYEs. I started this thread to take some of the NIMBY whiners somwhere to cast to say who should get BYE-shafted and that it shouldn't be them.

Garvinator
27-04-2004, 07:21 PM
what do you propose should be done if an odd number of players is received and nothing can be done to alter this situation?

Bill Gletsos
27-04-2004, 07:31 PM
what do you propose should be done if an odd number of players is received and nothing can be done to alter this situation?
Pay attention gray.
There will be NO BYES.
The mighty Matt has decreeded as such.
Guess you will just have to toss some poor ba.tard out.
Of course after some player withdraws during the tournament then you will just have to toss out another one.

Trent Parker
27-04-2004, 08:38 PM
I guess you could not accept the last entry that makes it odd?

shaun
27-04-2004, 08:44 PM
A) Why "must"? I thought the university environment might have taught you identify and solve problems, not drive you to ignor them.

B) I explained that that is a bad thing.

C) Why a "free" full point, why not a "free" half point.

Shaun, I expect a lot more from you than this feeble restating of process. Either you think BYEs are acceptable and don't give a stuff about their rip-off and disruptive nature, or you agre that BYEs are not acceptable and endevour toeliminate them for Swiss tornaments. There is not much middle ground for you to stand on. So, what is your position.

But my sole intention was to simply restate the process and what I thought was reasoning behind it. My only opinion was on the reasoning (which I think is sensible), not on the problem itself.
What university has taught me in relation to this case is to A) assess the evidence and B) decide if there is a problem to be solved.
But as you clearly want me to take a position here are some thoughts.
Having a bye in a tournament is unfortunate, and if it can be avoided the better the tournament will be. Last year Bob Keast moved from the Minor to the Major and onto the Premier as we tried to even up the fields. But having either someone as generous as Bob, or having a handy "house player" as recommended by the USCF as far back as the 1970's is not always possible.
If a bye cannot be avoided then I feel an objective system for allocating the bye is required. I have no problem with current FIDE rules in this area. If I do have a concern, it is along the same lines as Kevin Bonham, where the effects of awarding the bye can influence the tournaments final standings. But I will defer to Kevin's greater interest in this area, and leave him to come up with some solutions.
But wait, theres more ...
As to the specific circumstances of the Doeberl Cup, let me have a few things to say on that. The reason there was a bye in the Major was there was an odd number of players. It would have been a better tournament if there was no bye, but I guess everyone who entered didn't want to change tournaments, even if it helped the tournament overall. However as the lowest seed, you found yourself in what you feel is an unfair position in regards recieveing the bye. If however you had decided to play in the minor you would have almost certainly not received a bye, and no one in the Major would have had to recieve it either (later withdrawals non-withstanding). So in this instance you are asking others to solve a problem which you yourself created, and consequently I have little sympathy for your case.

jenni
27-04-2004, 08:53 PM
I guess you could not accept the last entry that makes it odd?
But the problem is people come and go so a tournament might start off even and then someone takes a bye to go to their Aunt's funeral. It then goes back to even for round 3, and then odd when someone misses the evening round due to a dinner engagement.

Having a friendly by-stander who is prepared to play intermittent games is probably the best way to handle it.

Kevin Bonham
27-04-2004, 09:23 PM
Why the bottom 1/8.

Minimise potential impact on outright placings. It might not be exactly 1/8, it might be 1/10 or 1/6 or whatever.


Why should any particular group be singled out for the bye. I agree that some arguments suggest that some players be quarenteened from the BYE. However, these arguements presume that that player's rights as a player are more important than another player's rights as a player.

Incorrect. They assume that the tournament determining placings as fairly as possible, especially at the pointy end, is important. Find a system that delivers byes evenly through the field but minimises impacts on this and I will be very impressed.


We bend over backwards to be fair and equilable in rules for "distractions", rules for "selection", rules for B/W ratio et cetera. Why are we so dismisive of fairnes to the low end players? If you accept the fairness principle, the only way to allocate the BYE is randomly.

Why not redesign the whole Swiss while you're at it? Is it "fair" that player [n/2] plays player n in round 1 while player [n/2+1] plays the top seed?

PHAT
27-04-2004, 10:50 PM
I guess you could not accept the last entry that makes it odd?

Another good idea, Trent. :clap: The pressure is then on the latest of late entries to rope in a player at short notice to fill any BYE, or he gets it.

Boy that would be an incentive to turn up well before the close of entries.

Ian Rout
27-04-2004, 11:00 PM
I think the issue of the FIDE Swiss pairing rules is a bit of a red herring. Things like en passant and the Knight's move are universal, conditions like who gets the bye in a relatively unimportant event are of no interest to FIDE (and what is the penalty?). If the British Championship can be paired on different rules I think we can get away with what suits us.

Having said that, some of Matthew's cures are worse than the disease as usual, but I think it would be reasonable to allow arbiters a bit of discretion to quarantine frequent bye-getters or beginners at least in early rounds. However I wouldn't apply that to the Doeberl Major, which is a moderately serious event, and one where U/1600 players know the risks in playing up.

PHAT
27-04-2004, 11:14 PM
But having either someone as generous as Bob, or having a handy "house player" as recommended by the USCF as far back as the 1970's is not always possible.


Not possible or Not done. It is always possible - or should I say, it is no less possible than ensuring that there is a DOP. You are looking for excuses do do nothing in reguard to eliminating the BYE. If The ACF decreed that there shall be no BYEs, and refusing to rate games in an event that had BYEs, DOPs would not have BYEs in their events. A case of "house player or bust".




As to the specific circumstances of the Doeberl Cup, ... If however you had decided to play in the minor you would have almost certainly not received a bye, and no one in the Major would have had to recieve it either (later withdrawals non-withstanding). So in this instance you are asking others to solve a problem which you yourself created, and consequently I have little sympathy for your case.

I am have not and am not using myself as an example. If you want to make it personal that is your prerogative, but I am not going there. Suffice to say, the argument that, by merely entering an event, a person who creates a problem BYE has created the problem is abserd. By that logic, every second player to enter is causing a problem for which you [i]"have little sympathy". Again, you are simply attempting to deflect responsibility for eliminating the BYE to someone other thatn the DOP.

PHAT
27-04-2004, 11:19 PM
Having said that, some of Matthew's cures are worse than the disease as usual, ...

The "cures" wI suggested were/are ideas, not my prefered option. I only started this thread for the discussion of how to eliminate the BYE.

shaun
27-04-2004, 11:22 PM
I am have not and am not using myself as an example. If you want to make it personal that is your prerogative, but I am not going there. Suffice to say, the argument that, by merely entering an event, a person who creates a problem BYE has created the problem is abserd. By that logic, every second player to enter is causing a problem for which you "have little sympathy". Again, you are simply attempting to deflect responsibility for eliminating the BYE to someone other thatn the DOP.

Not quite. I have little sympathy for your complaints in these circumstances. If someone else complained to me in Rd 2 or later about having to have the bye I would be more sympathetic, as they were less likely to have created the problem in the first place.
But here's a practical tip Matthew. For every tournament you enter, bring along a friend. If there is an odd number of players get your friend to enter, if there is an even number, send your friend shopping. Then at least the problem won't occur in tournaments you play in.
:D

Bill Gletsos
27-04-2004, 11:28 PM
If The ACF decreed that there shall be no BYEs, and refusing to rate games in an event that had BYEs, [i]DOPs would not have BYEs in their events.
That is just as stupid an idea as your call last year for the ACF to ban the use of the new DGT clocks.

PHAT
27-04-2004, 11:38 PM
That is just as stupid an idea as your call last year for the ACF to ban the use of the new DGT clocks.

This is my thread and you are not welcome here since you are contributing nothing a value. Go away.

skip to my lou
27-04-2004, 11:41 PM
This is my thread and you are not welcome here since you are contributing nothing a value. Go away.

Is this the standard of free speech you will maintain on your chess bb?

PHAT
27-04-2004, 11:42 PM
But here's a practical tip Matthew. For every tournament you enter, bring along a friend. If there is an odd number of players get your friend to enter, if there is an even number, send your friend shopping. Then at least the problem won't occur in tournaments you play in.
:D

An here's a pratical tip for you: Get a house player, or, continue to demonstrate how inconciderate you can be to interstate full fee paying players.

Bill Gletsos
27-04-2004, 11:42 PM
This is my thread and you are not welcome here since you are contributing nothing a value. Go away.
Ha ha thats rich coming from someone who has the habit of destroying other peoples threads.

As for contributing nothing, you do that the majority of the time in virtually all your posts.
If you continue to make stupid suggestions then I'll continue to point out they are stupid.
I'm here to stay.
Get used to it.

I see where you discovered the option to be invisible.
Why I wouldnt know.
Given the regularity with which you post, its easy to known when you are here.

Bill Gletsos
27-04-2004, 11:45 PM
Is this the standard of free speech you will maintain on your chess bb?
Yes, Matt's cannot actually handle a debate.
Just look at his resonses to Kevin.
In fact one only had to look at the old ACF BB to see how often he would resort to swearing and telling people who he disagreed with to F off.

PHAT
27-04-2004, 11:46 PM
Is this the standard of free speech you will maintain on your chess bb?

Yes. I would only use words. Only a powderpuffs edit to the extent that this BB is moderated.

skip to my lou
27-04-2004, 11:47 PM
Yes. I would only use words. Only a powderpuffs edit to the extent that this BB is moderated.
So as an admin of a forum, you will tell people to "go away"?

Garvinator
27-04-2004, 11:53 PM
Pay attention gray.
There will be NO BYES.
The mighty Matt has decreeded as such.
Guess you will just have to toss some poor ba.tard out.
Of course after some player withdraws during the tournament then you will just have to toss out another one.
any chance of some type of emoticon for this quote :hmm: :uhoh:

Gandalf
27-04-2004, 11:54 PM
Who would he tell to go away? There wouldn't be any members!

skip to my lou
27-04-2004, 11:57 PM
Who would he tell to go away? There wouldn't be any members!

http://e.deviantart.com/emoticons/r/rofl.gif http://www.whooshfriends.homestead.com/files/emoticons/biglaugh.gif http://www.boredofstudies.org/community/images/smilies/rotfl.gif

Bill Gletsos
28-04-2004, 12:03 AM
any chance of some type of emoticon for this quote :hmm: :uhoh:
Sorry, I thought my sarcasm was obvious.

Garvinator
28-04-2004, 12:05 AM
Sorry, I thought my sarcasm was obvious.
that is how i took it, but you can never be too sure sometimes :whistle: :lol:

shaun
28-04-2004, 07:52 AM
An here's a pratical tip for you: Get a house player, or, continue to demonstrate how inconciderate you can be to interstate full fee paying players.
So you are unwilling (there is no unable) to solve this problem, even thoguh you have the power to do so. :hmm:

arosar
28-04-2004, 12:43 PM
Here's a bit of me coupla cents worth. Byes, it seems to me, are unavoidable. You always get them tourneys when you only get odd number players. Just accept it. But of course, make the situation as fair and correct as possible (read Bonham's recommendations). This whole idea of asking some bystander to participate is plain ridiculous. For one thing, you get a half-hearted player. And that means that the player playing the fill-in prolly won't get as much value out of it anyways. Having this fill-in just wastes the fill-in's and the 'wouldabeenbeenbyed' player's time. Then you may get into this situation where the fill-in is completely outrated. What's the bloody use in that?

Just accept 'em byes for God's sake. If you get them too often then that's really your problem since you play so poorly.

AR

ursogr8
28-04-2004, 01:49 PM
Here's a bit of me coupla cents worth. Byes, it seems to me, are unavoidable. You always get them tourneys when you only get odd number players. Just accept it. But of course, make the situation as fair and correct as possible (read Bonham's recommendations). This whole idea of asking some bystander to participate is plain ridiculous. For one thing, you get a half-hearted player. And that means that the player playing the fill-in prolly won't get as much value out of it anyways. Having this fill-in just wastes the fill-in's and the 'wouldabeenbeenbyed' player's time. Then you may get into this situation where the fill-in is completely outrated. What's the bloody use in that?

Just accept 'em byes for God's sake. If you get them too often then that's really your problem since you play so poorly.

AR

hi AR

Nah. I re'kon Matt was prolly on the right track, mate.

I filtered out his hype and heard him say "organisers can do things to make the BYE not happen". And I agree with him.

Now in the week-enders you are talking about it is a bit of a captive audience, and if that audience is ODD, then a BYE is hard to manage to avoid.

But in the case of a large weekly Club there are often up to 10 parents just sitting on the side-lines waiting for their kid to finish (and they will, early you bet). It is usually not hard to talk one of these parents into a 'free entry' and help avoid the BYE, for that evening. Then I approach the local Chess ASSOCIATION and say to them "you have a faulty algorithm for charging for ratings. You should charge by-game not by-event". This usually puts the local CA on the back foot and they don't charge us for the casual entrant.

So you see AR, mate, organisers can do a few things to help avoid the BYE. And Matt was just encouraging us to try harder.

starter

Bill Gletsos
28-04-2004, 02:18 PM
hi AR

Nah. I re'kon Matt was prolly on the right track, mate.

I filtered out his hype and heard him say "organisers can do things to make the BYE not happen". And I agree with him.

Now in the week-enders you are talking about it is a bit of a captive audience, and if that audience is ODD, then a BYE is hard to manage to avoid.

But in the case of a large weekly Club there are often up to 10 parents just sitting on the side-lines waiting for their kid to finish (and they will, early you bet). It is usually not hard to talk one of these parents into a 'free entry' and help avoid the BYE, for that evening. Then I approach the local Chess ASSOCIATION and say to them "you have a faulty algorithm for charging for ratings. You should charge by-game not by-event". This usually puts the local CA on the back foot and they don't charge us for the casual entrant.

So you see AR, mate, organisers can do a few things to help avoid the BYE. And Matt was just encouraging us to try harder.

starter
I disagree.
I dont think he was particularly focused on club events.
I think Matt was pretty much referring to weeknders and major tournaments like state championships.
I agree with AR.
There is not much you can do if you end up with an odd number of players.

Bill Gletsos
28-04-2004, 02:27 PM
Then I approach the local Chess ASSOCIATION and say to them "you have a faulty algorithm for charging for ratings. You should charge by-game not by-event". This usually puts the local CA on the back foot and they don't charge us for the casual entrant.
That is just because you mexicans have this weird membership structure.
If you had individual memberships it would not occur. ;)

ursogr8
28-04-2004, 03:56 PM
That is just because you mexicans have this weird membership structure.
If you had individual memberships it would not occur. ;)

Just so I understand you right Bill
> If a by-stander was roped into playing 1 game in a NSW weekender, would you alter your ACF or NSWCA rating charge for that tournament?

>> If a by-stander was roped into playing all games in a NSW weekender, would you alter your ACF or NSWCA rating charge for that tournament?

starter

Bill Gletsos
28-04-2004, 04:02 PM
Just so I understand you right Bill
> If a by-stander was roped into playing 1 game in a NSW weekender, would you alter your ACF of NSWCA rating charge for that tournament?

>> If a by-stander was roped into playing all games in a NSW weekender, would you alter your ACF of NSWCA rating charge for that tournament?

starter
Well NSWCA only allows its members to play in its tournaments. So non member bystanders are not allowed.
The NSWCA just pays the ACF admin fee for its own tournaments from the entry fees.
Since the ACF will charge for all games played then the NSWCA would pay the fee from the entry fees.

Ian Rout
28-04-2004, 04:37 PM
Assuming an extra 0.5 games per round (50% chance of their being an odd number) multiplied by 6 or 7 rounds at 25c per game ACF fee I would think this is a non-issue.

ursogr8
28-04-2004, 05:35 PM
Well NSWCA only allows its members to play in its tournaments. So non member bystanders are not allowed.


Bill

Just concentrating on this sentence (for the moment).
Are you saying that if there were an odd number of tournament entries, and if there was a non-member but very willing appropriately-skilled by-stander avalable in the Hall, that you would let a BYE occur instead of roping in the by-stander? (And by roping-in I mean, copt him to play, but not require tourney entry-fee nor NSWCA membership fee).

starter

ursogr8
28-04-2004, 05:40 PM
Assuming an extra 0.5 games per round (50% chance of their being an odd number) multiplied by 6 or 7 rounds at 25c per game ACF fee I would think this is a non-issue.

hi Ian

Whoa; slow down. We are gathering data....don't rush to a solution just yet.

Potentially, a casual pays i) rating fee = $5, ii) State levy/membership/affiliation =$x, iii) Club membership =$y.

It may cost a bit to bring in a casual to circumvent the BYE.

starter

Kevin Bonham
28-04-2004, 05:53 PM
However I wouldn't apply that to the Doeberl Major, which is a moderately serious event, and one where U/1600 players know the risks in playing up.

Agreed. A player who chooses to play up a division knowing they will be one of the lowest rated players in the division has no leg to stand on if they get a bye.

1min_grandmaster
28-04-2004, 06:17 PM
I think if possible, the DOP should try their best to avoid byes. E.g. get someone who fill in during rounds when byes occur, but give them free entry. Even if they play half-heartedly, this would be better than having a player who pays entry getting one less game.

But at the same time, I think blaming DOPs when a bye occurs is going too far. All of the systems suggested have one problem or another which may well be worse than having the bye in the first place.

I like one possible solution which is a variant to what has been proposed. Have the latest 'n' entrants (i.e. who have entered the latest) take the byes throughout the tournament, with the latest entrant getting the first bye, the second latest the second bye, and so on. Of course, there is the possibility of having players deliberately come late to get free points, so then we should get around this by giving 0 point byes in this case.

It could be argued that this is too harsh, but problem about tournaments is that they are always running late (a new thread could be started on this topic). It is unfair for players who arrive on time, have pre-registered, and have to sit around waiting for other people who have been inconsiderate. And sometimes, these people come late to round 1 and still get a free point.

1min_grandmaster
28-04-2004, 06:19 PM
It has been pointed out that FIDE have regulations for the swiss system and the allocation of byes. But do they have to be followed in non-FIDE rated events? If not, then I would like some action to take place to avoid byes, or allocate them more fairly. I don't think I have ever been awarded a bye, so I am not saying this for my own good. It is rather unfair to those players at the bottom end of the tournament to be consistently receiving a bye.

arosar
28-04-2004, 06:36 PM
It is unfair for players who arrive on time, have pre-registered, and have to sit around waiting for other people who have been inconsiderate. And sometimes, these people come late to round 1 and still get a free point.

I sympathise with your frustration over tardiness. It's worse than the bloody Philippines Airlines mate. Know what PAL stands for? It's not Philippine Airlines, it's Plane Always Late. See, it's important for tourns to start on time so that we poor buggers can have a bit of lunch after the first round.

AR

arosar
28-04-2004, 06:39 PM
It has been pointed out that FIDE have regulations for the swiss system and the allocation of byes. But do they have to be followed in non-FIDE rated events? If not, then I would like some action to take place to avoid byes, or allocate them more fairly. I don't think I have ever been awarded a bye, so I am not saying this for my own good. It is rather unfair to those players at the bottom end of the tournament to be consistently receiving a bye.

That a tourn is non-FIDE rated is immaterial. We play by FIDE rules - not Sweeney Rules, not Hyde Park rules, not USCF Rules.

AR

Bill Gletsos
28-04-2004, 06:42 PM
Bill

Just concentrating on this sentence (for the moment).
Are you saying that if there were an odd number of tournament entries, and if there was a non-member but very willing appropriately-skilled by-stander avalable in the Hall, that you would let a BYE occur instead of roping in the by-stander? (And by roping-in I mean, copt him to play, but not require tourney entry-fee nor NSWCA membership fee).

starter
I wouldnt personally have a problem with it provided the same bystander was not used in subsequent rounds, since in that case he is then a competitor.

1min_grandmaster
28-04-2004, 06:44 PM
But why is it so important to follow the FIDE rules of bye allocation in a non-FIDE rated event? We are not changing the rules of chess, we are only changing the bye-allocation system.

Bill Gletsos
28-04-2004, 06:46 PM
I like one possible solution which is a variant to what has been proposed. Have the latest 'n' entrants (i.e. who have entered the latest) take the byes throughout the tournament, with the latest entrant getting the first bye, the second latest the second bye, and so on. Of course, there is the possibility of having players deliberately come late to get free points, so then we should get around this by giving 0 point byes in this case.
I think this is ill conceivved.
How do you determine if someone is deliberately late.
Also what if a contender for 1st prize is a legitimnate late starter.
One could imagine the other contenders not being to happy if he gets a free point.

Bill Gletsos
28-04-2004, 06:49 PM
But why is it so important to follow the FIDE rules of bye allocation in a non-FIDE rated event? We are not changing the rules of chess, we are only changing the bye-allocation system.
Because the FIDE rules on how to do a swiss draw explicitly state how they are allocated.
If you start deciding to ignore the FIDE rules on byes then why not ignore them with regards to floaters or color allocation.

1min_grandmaster
28-04-2004, 06:56 PM
Like I said, it may sound harsh, but does it really matter if they are legitimately late or not? There are 'late veterans' who will always come late to a tournament but will always have a 'legitimate' excuse. At least this will probably have an influence on helping tournaments to run on time, or closer to schedule.

A potential candidate for tournament winner doesn't get points by coming late, as I have suggested the possibility of giving 0 point byes.

The reasoning behind changing the bye-allocation system was so that byes are allocated more fairly. The other rules in the swiss system don't have to be changed in my opinion, as they don't have any real problems.

Bill Gletsos
28-04-2004, 07:00 PM
Like I said, it may sound harsh, but does it really matter if they are legitimately late or not? There are 'late veterans' who will always come late to a tournament but will always have a 'legitimate' excuse. At least this will probably have an influence on helping tournaments to run on time, or closer to schedule.

A potential candidate for tournament winner doesn't get points by coming late, as I have suggested the possibility of giving 0 point byes.

The reasoning behind changing the bye-allocation system was so that byes are allocated more fairly. The other rules in the swiss system don't have to be changed in my opinion, as they don't have any real problems.
Yes but what do you consider late.
If everyone enters before the official close of entries and you have an odd number of players then what do you do.

jenni
28-04-2004, 07:33 PM
I wouldnt personally have a problem with it provided the same bystander was not used in subsequent rounds, since in that case he is then a competitor.

Can't see the problem - typically when Charles talks me into playing I play 3 rounds of the 6/7. At the Vikings Weekender I played rounds 1, 2 and 4. I was competitive in my first game and definitely winning the other 2, but blew them. So the people who played me got decent games, but I didn't distort any results.

shaun
28-04-2004, 08:04 PM
I think this is ill conceivved.
How do you determine if someone is deliberately late.
Also what if a contender for 1st prize is a legitimnate late starter.
One could imagine the other contenders not being to happy if he gets a free point.
A not-quite-off-topic story.
When I was on my honeymoon in England, I played a couple of tournaments (as you do when newly married). One event I played in was the Kings Head Rapidplay. Now the BCF have a convention that players who do not have an opponent (usually due to a vanishing trick by the other player) are re-paired with other players in the same boat. The re-pairings take place 10 or 15 minutes after the start of the round.
In this particular event a number of strongish players entered (IM's if my memory still holds). However, GM David Norwood turned up after the start of the first round and took a half point bye. As it was a large field it wasn't until the second last round (6 or 7) that he had managed to hit the lead. To celebrate this he nipped down to the pub with a couple of mates (including Richard Farleigh). In the last round he was paired with Miroslav Houska, who was half a point behind. When the round started Norwood was nowhere to be seen. Houska waited at the board until the arbiter began to announce "Players without an ....". Before the sentence was even completed Houska was standing in front of the arbiter awaiting a re-pairing. Much to his delight he recieved an opponent who had scored about 3 points less than he, and began to carve him up. A minute after the re-pairing Norwood returns, and ask's what is going on. The arbiter explains it to him.
Now here is the strange part. If this was Australia a massive shouting match would have erupted. Threats would have been made, chests poked, and in some locales, chairs thrown. But in genteel England not so. Norwood just shrugged his shoulders and accepted the decision, as did all the other leading players in the tournament. Houska duly won and pocketed what I thought was quite a meagre first prize (300 pounds I think, from a field of 170 players paying a minimum of 20 pounds each).

Thunderspirit
03-01-2005, 11:25 AM
I'm a little surpised there has been so much discussion on what is a very simple topic. Byes are a part of chess, they are undersable, but they happen. Organisers should not be burden by being forced to make the numbers even. As Jenni has mentioned (she, other chess parents) have helped out events by playing the odd game, and though this helps it shouldn't be a requirement.

Now for a story.... A few years back at the 1997 Greater Sydney Chess Festival on the Saturday night there was a lightning tournament. I entered, looked at the pairings and noticed I was the lowest rated player, hence in the first round I was to have the bye. My reply was... "Ahh not the bye..." of which the two friendly arbiters (Shuan Press and Brian Jones) then said that I knew the pairings were correct. (Which of course was true!) :P

Shuan (being the friendly coach he was...) then said I should use this at motavation to become a better player, and try to avoid this in future. It's not picking on weaker players, it the logical method to determine who gets the bye.

Players complain too much, you can only get one bye each tournament...

Recherchť
06-01-2005, 08:54 PM
For what it's worth, generally one of the first-class local admin people steps in for a game at Box Hill to avoid byes in our club tournaments. I think it works very well. The practise of pairing up players who have both been left without an opponent has also been (in my opinion) a success at BHCC.

Also, I feel the quality and fairness of the recent (very closely contested) Mt Buller Minor Championship was greatly enhanced by the addition of an extra player (thanks Roland!) that avoided the byes we were otherwise destined to have. The extra player was one of the arbiters present - though not, I believe, an arbiter for the Minor.

So, maybe bye pairings are inevitable in the swiss system. Maybe allocating them to the player with the least points and the lowest rating is the best way of distributing them. But that doesn't mean they're not something undesirable that we can and should make every effort to eliminate when we can do so.

People turn up at tournaments and pay their entry fees to play chess. I think we should always do everything we can to ensure that's what they end up doing. Every round.

Mischa
27-01-2005, 01:47 PM
I remember one junior Victorian Championship where the under 8 [?] winner only won because she had received a bye earlier in the tournament. 2nd and 3rd had not recieved a bye.

Garvinator
16-07-2005, 10:23 PM
Time to bring up a bye question:

Player A has received a full point bye (ie someone took a half point bye, creating odd numbers) in one of the early rounds. Then before doing the pairings for a later round, Player A asks for a half point bye.

What to do? Are there any rules on this at all? General advice from other arbiters maybe?

Bill Gletsos
17-07-2005, 12:13 AM
Time to bring up a bye question:

Player A has received a full point bye (ie someone took a half point bye, creating odd numbers) in one of the early rounds. Then before doing the pairings for a later round, Player A asks for a half point bye.

What to do? Are there any rules on this at all? General advice from other arbiters maybe?Dutch pairing rule B1 (b) states A player who has received a point without playing, either through a bye or due to an opponent not appearing in time, shall not receive a bye.

The Dutch rules do not talk about half point byes. Notice from the above that if a player had already received a half point bye he would still be eligible for the full point bye as the above refers to a player receiving a point. As such based on that logic it would seem that having it occur in the opposite order should also be allowed.

However that said I notice that in the second edition of Reubens book in the same section of the pairing rules it says A player who has chosen to recieve a half point bye at some stage of the tournament, shall not receive a bye but I can find no reference to this on the FIDE web site nor do I ever recall seeing it added to the rules via the FIDE Swiss Pairing Committee minutes.

Kevin Bonham
18-07-2005, 11:54 AM
Time to bring up a bye question:

Player A has received a full point bye (ie someone took a half point bye, creating odd numbers) in one of the early rounds. Then before doing the pairings for a later round, Player A asks for a half point bye.

What to do? Are there any rules on this at all? General advice from other arbiters maybe?

General advice: Refuse request unless rules of competition state otherwise.

I would also disallow it around the other way (player who has had halfpoint bye draws full bye) unless this involved selecting a bye recipient from a higher scoregroup.

Kevin Bonham
18-07-2005, 11:58 AM
However that said I notice that in the second edition of Reubens book in the same section of the pairing rules it says A player who has chosen to recieve a half point bye at some stage of the tournament, shall not receive a bye but I can find no reference to this on the FIDE web site nor do I ever recall seeing it added to the rules via the FIDE Swiss Pairing Committee minutes.

Second edition was heavily panned by Gijssen for including a number of changes that had not been approved by FIDE. This may be one of those.

Garvinator
18-07-2005, 12:30 PM
General advice: Refuse request unless rules of competition state otherwise.

I would also disallow it around the other way (player who has had halfpoint bye draws full bye) unless this involved selecting a bye recipient from a higher scoregroup.
Kevin,

Do you take into consideration that the awarding of a half point bye after a full point bye (or other way around) could affect the awarding of rating prizes in the lower divisions, which are usually decided by someone scoring about 3/7?

Thunderspirit
18-07-2005, 12:52 PM
Time to bring up a bye question:

Player A has received a full point bye (ie someone took a half point bye, creating odd numbers) in one of the early rounds. Then before doing the pairings for a later round, Player A asks for a half point bye.

What to do? Are there any rules on this at all? General advice from other arbiters maybe?

Good question: If a player has recieved a full point bye, as a natural occurance of the parings I would not issue a half point bye through non attendance. This would give 1.5/2 for free which could affect prizes especially for players <1600.

I think is essentially, a common sense situation...

antichrist
18-07-2005, 11:11 PM
I wish I could apologise for being off-thread but...

I presume forfeits are not rated as nothing played, so should unplayed draws be unrated for consistency if nothing else.

Kevin Bonham
19-07-2005, 09:38 PM
Kevin,

Do you take into consideration that the awarding of a half point bye after a full point bye (or other way around) could affect the awarding of rating prizes in the lower divisions, which are usually decided by someone scoring about 3/7?

I think the above is another good reason for not doing it. 1.5 points is quite a significant contribution towards a ratings prize. Then again it is still not as bad as what happens when someone who has already had a bye wins a game on forfeit - something that cannot be prevented.

Thunderspirit
20-07-2005, 09:20 AM
Kevin,

Do you take into consideration that the awarding of a half point bye after a full point bye (or other way around) could affect the awarding of rating prizes in the lower divisions, which are usually decided by someone scoring about 3/7?

Garvin, giving 1/5 points for free in a seven round event is too much for any player. Getting a full point bye, though undersiable at times, happens but it bye's shouldn't be encouraged. Allowing 1.5 pts in byes does this...

Arrogant-One
05-07-2006, 04:07 PM
In terms of what would be ideal (rather than what is actually the rule) I agree with 1 but not necessarily 2. Because of the potential impact on ratings prizes I prefer mismatches to be shuffled towards the tail end of the field rather than the middle and pairing top-bottom usually acheives this better.
Hey Kevin,

Here's a question for you. If someone shows up to a tournament after the first round has started and before the second, and they then decide they want to play in that tournament, would you allow that player a first round bye?

Kevin Bonham
05-07-2006, 05:37 PM
Hey Kevin,

Here's a question for you. If someone shows up to a tournament after the first round has started and before the second, and they then decide they want to play in that tournament, would you allow that player a first round bye?

I am assuming the player has not entered the tournament and that there is no stated closing time for entries. In these circumstances I would definitely not allow a full-point bye - to do so rewards a player for appearing late and is, in my view, incompetent.

The arbiter could choose any of these options:

(i) Allow a half-point bye
(ii) Player starts round 2 on 0/1
(iii) Player cannot enter.

This is a matter for arbiter discretion. I would be more inclined to apply (i) or (ii) if this eliminated an existing bye. I would be disinclined to apply (ii) for a strong player as this messes with the Swiss system too much.

I recently had the following situation: The tournament had a stated deadline for entries but players were allowed to pay on the day. A player entered verbally and advised he would pay on the day. The player had not appeared at the time I was doing the pairings for round 1, which was immediately after the deadline for entries. I left the player out of the pairings but he appeared a few minutes after they were produced. The player was a strong player who would have been expected to win round 1 easily. My decision was to give him a half-point bye.

Denis_Jessop
05-07-2006, 08:20 PM
I don't know what the practice is elsewhere but in the ACT, for at least the last 10 years, it has been the practice to allow players to enter club tournaments (and the ACT Championship) after Rd1 wth a half-point bye for the round(s) missed. This practice is applied differently in the various clubs. It has become a rule imposed by the organisers and applied by the arbiter rather than just a matter for the arbiter. The object is to encourage more entries though I have no evidence that it actually does so. Similarly, existing entrants are allowed to take half point byes during a tournament (conditions apply :D ).

DJ

antichrist
05-07-2006, 11:19 PM
In my tournaments which were sometimes ages away from players were coming from (or trains cancelled over holidays) I would give a full point to a top player for missing first round. No one else complained about it. That is why people like me and don't make complaints my DOPing - not like some people we know. And I don't read the rules out beforehand either.

Kevin Bonham
05-07-2006, 11:57 PM
Give the repetitive trolling a break AC, it went mouldy long ago.

Arrogant-One
06-07-2006, 12:58 PM
I am assuming the player has not entered the tournament and that there is no stated closing time for entries. In these circumstances I would definitely not allow a full-point bye - to do so rewards a player for appearing late and is, in my view, incompetent.

The arbiter could choose any of these options:

(i) Allow a half-point bye
(ii) Player starts round 2 on 0/1
(iii) Player cannot enter.

This is a matter for arbiter discretion. I would be more inclined to apply (i) or (ii) if this eliminated an existing bye. I would be disinclined to apply (ii) for a strong player as this messes with the Swiss system too much.

I recently had the following situation: The tournament had a stated deadline for entries but players were allowed to pay on the day. A player entered verbally and advised he would pay on the day. The player had not appeared at the time I was doing the pairings for round 1, which was immediately after the deadline for entries. I left the player out of the pairings but he appeared a few minutes after they were produced. The player was a strong player who would have been expected to win round 1 easily. My decision was to give him a half-point bye.
I agree with number one too kevin, but for some reason Arbiters and Directors of Play get up themselves with powertrips, and instead opt for option 2 above (not giving the absent player anything). How is that fair?

Arrogant-One
06-07-2006, 01:02 PM
I don't know what the practice is elsewhere but in the ACT, for at least the last 10 years, it has been the practice to allow players to enter club tournaments (and the ACT Championship) after Rd1 wth a half-point bye for the round(s) missed. This practice is applied differently in the various clubs. It has become a rule imposed by the organisers and applied by the arbiter rather than just a matter for the arbiter. The object is to encourage more entries though I have no evidence that it actually does so. Similarly, existing entrants are allowed to take half point byes during a tournament (conditions apply :D ).

DJ
I would go further than this Dennis and state that the practice differs from state to state. I think an ACF rule on the matter to bring uniformity and would therefore be very helpful.

Also, at the 2006 Qld Open I wanted to take a bye in the last round and the DOP/Arbiter said 'no' for no apparent reason. I think there needs to be an ACF rule allowing a player to take at least one bye per tournament to prevent power tripping arbiters/DOP from disallowing a requested single round bye per tournament.

pax
06-07-2006, 01:49 PM
I agree with number one too kevin, but for some reason Arbiters and Directors of Play get up themselves with powertrips, and instead opt for option 2 above (not giving the absent player anything). How is that fair?

It's fair because around half of the players TURNED UP, played their game and are on 0/1.

In my opinion, a player that enters late (after round 1) should be treated the same as a forfeit (i.e a player that entered but didn't turn up - they will also get zero) - unless doing so substantially harms the subsequent draw in the view of the arbiter.

Kevin Bonham
06-07-2006, 01:52 PM
I agree with number one too kevin, but for some reason Arbiters and Directors of Play get up themselves with powertrips, and instead opt for option 2 above (not giving the absent player anything). How is that fair?

I think all the three options I gave are fair to the absent player. Which one the arbiter chooses should depend upon the likely impact on other players - a player who can't show up on time and hasn't bothered to enter in advance has no rights.

If you want to play you should rock up on time. If you don't you should be glad of anything you can get - including the right to start from round 2 on a score of 0/1. If you're too slack to enter before the day and then some calamity stops you getting to the venue on time, try being more organised next time.


I think an ACF rule on the matter to bring uniformity and would therefore be very helpful.

Uniformity would constrain arbiters from making the best decisions in accord with the circumstances of the tournament.


Also, at the 2006 Qld Open I wanted to take a bye in the last round and the DOP/Arbiter said 'no' for no apparent reason.

When did you make this request and what sort of reason (if any) did you give?

Bye requests for the final round are very often refused because of their high potential to impact on prizes. (Even if yours doesn't, some DOPs prefer to ban all last round byes rather than pick which ones do or do not matter.)


I think there needs to be an ACF rule allowing a player to take at least one bye per tournament to prevent power tripping arbiters/DOP from disallowing a requested single round bye per tournament.

I don't see why a player should be allowed to take a bye in most tournaments without a very valid reason. I notice that some big one-game-a-day tournaments have now started to abolish rest days and instead give players the right to take a half-point bye as a rest day at certain stages in the event and I think this is a good idea in terms of cutting costs for players. However if someone wants to take a round off in a weekender just because they feel like it - I don't see why this should be permitted.

Garvinator
06-07-2006, 02:30 PM
Also, at the 2006 Qld Open I wanted to take a bye in the last round and the DOP/Arbiter said 'no' for no apparent reason. I think there needs to be an ACF rule allowing a player to take at least one bye per tournament to prevent power tripping arbiters/DOP from disallowing a requested single round bye per tournament.
You will find that the general practice through almost every tournament in Australia is to not allow half pont byes in the last round, or on the last day in some tournaments. Especially when the player requesting the bye only asks for it on the final day and after the second last round has been completed.

Bill Gletsos
06-07-2006, 02:44 PM
You will find that the general practice through almost every tournament in Australia is to not allow half pont byes in the last round, or on the last day in some tournaments. Especially when the player requesting the bye only asks for it on the final day and after the second last round has been completed.The NSWCA practice has been to allow a maximum of 2 half point byes but none are permitted in the last 1/3 of the competition.

antichrist
06-07-2006, 06:22 PM
Give the repetitive trolling a break AC, it went mouldy long ago.

Well it worked for so long you never know. Only went mouldy this time mate.

Oepty
06-07-2006, 06:38 PM
At a tournament in SA a player who was an offical entry requested a first round bye. This was okay except a rumour started, and it seemed to come from more than one source, that they were ill and would be withdrawing. So come time to pair this player they were not at the venue and could not be contacted. They were left out of the second round draw. The second round draw was made public only for the player to walk into the playing venue right on time for second round. Another player who was not initially playing, was offered a first round half point bye and to play this player. They excepted fortunately so things turned out well.
It is generally the rule in SA to allow 2 half point byes for 7 round weekenders with no final round byes. 6 round weekenders have one half point by I think. I know of one case were a chess playing father was given 3 byes in a weekender because their chess playing son was playing in another sporting event that was delayed by rain. The son was given his second bye because of the delay.
I think it is just good practice to accomadate relugar, reliable players with requests for bye where possible and it doesn't impact on other players. Players with bad reputations for withdrawing from tournaments or the like should be treated less flexibly.
Scott

Kevin Bonham
07-07-2006, 03:55 PM
Well it worked for so long you never know.

It never worked. You got more steamed up about getting flamed for it than I did flaming you.

Creatures like you should never flatter themselves in public.

Kevin Bonham
07-07-2006, 03:59 PM
At a tournament in SA a player who was an offical entry requested a first round bye. This was okay except a rumour started, and it seemed to come from more than one source, that they were ill and would be withdrawing. So come time to pair this player they were not at the venue and could not be contacted. They were left out of the second round draw. The second round draw was made public only for the player to walk into the playing venue right on time for second round.

A player should not be assumed to have withdrawn unless they advise that fact themselves - it is their responsibility. That's probably the best way to avoid this situation.


Another player who was not initially playing, was offered a first round half point bye and to play this player. They excepted fortunately so things turned out well.

Good solution under the circumstances.

Arrogant-One
07-07-2006, 04:14 PM
I think all the three options I gave are fair to the absent player. Which one the arbiter chooses should depend upon the likely impact on other players - a player who can't show up on time and hasn't bothered to enter in advance has no rights.

If you want to play you should rock up on time. If you don't you should be glad of anything you can get - including the right to start from round 2 on a score of 0/1. If you're too slack to enter before the day and then some calamity stops you getting to the venue on time, try being more organised next time.

Well, if getting participation levels in tournaments up I have to disagree. Lets say you have plans to go to the Sunshine Coast on the weekend, but Saturday morning you realise its going to rain so you instead decide to play a local chess tournament. How inclined are you going to be to play if the DOP says sorry mate, you 'have no rights', you are on 0/1 if you still want to play this event?


Uniformity would constrain arbiters from making the best decisions in accord with the circumstances of the tournament.
Uniformity of rules is always the best, otherwise players can never know what's going to happen and may waste their time trying to get a result that the DOP won't give them (ie. sometimes because the DOP doesn't get on with that player).


When did you make this request and what sort of reason (if any) did you give?
Bye requests for the final round are very often refused because of their high potential to impact on prizes. (Even if yours doesn't, some DOPs prefer to ban all last round byes rather than pick which ones do or do not matter.)

I don't see why a player should be allowed to take a bye in most tournaments without a very valid reason. I notice that some big one-game-a-day tournaments have now started to abolish rest days and instead give players the right to take a half-point bye as a rest day at certain stages in the event and I think this is a good idea in terms of cutting costs for players. However if someone wants to take a round off in a weekender just because they feel like it - I don't see why this should be permitted.
I made the request the day before (on Saturday) and the DOP gave me a vague answer along the lines of maybe. Then, after losing round six and still wanting to withdraw the DOP said 'no' and asked me why I wanted a bye in the final round.

The fact that it was a 3 day tournnament and I had played every other round somehow didn't matter.

I'm sorry, but your prizemoney argument doesn't stack up either.

For instance, at the recent Day of Knights tournament, FM Jonathan Safari cost me prize money by agreeing to a last round draw instead of pulverising his 1600 opponent! So lets not kid ourselves, that kind of thing cannot be stamped out and outright stinks. Prohibiting last round draws does not weed out this practice.

Desmond
07-07-2006, 04:26 PM
Well, if getting participation levels in tournaments up I have to disagree. Lets say you have plans to go to the Sunshine Coast on the weekend, but Saturday morning you realise its going to rain so you instead decide to play a local chess tournament. How inclined are you going to be to play if the DOP says sorry mate, you 'have no rights', you are on 0/1 if you still want to play this event?.
I doubt whether it would make much difference to your average punter. A loss in the first round does not really make a pre-determination of the player's final score. There is even the school of thought that throwing the first round of a swiss tournament is beneficial to your final result (known as the Swiss Gambit").



Uniformity of rules is always the best, otherwise players can never know what's going to happen and may waste their time trying to get a result that the DOP won't give them (ie. sometimes because the DOP doesn't get on with that player).

Official need flexibility for obvious reasons.



I made the request the day before (on Saturday) and the DOP gave me a vague answer along the lines of maybe. Then, after losing round six and still wanting to withdraw the DOP said 'no' and asked me why I wanted a bye in the final round.
Why didn't you ask before the event? At what point on the Saturday did you ask?



The fact that it was a 3 day tournnament and I had played every other round somehow didn't matter.
Correct.


I'm sorry, but your prizemoney argument doesn't stack up either.

Incorrect. If people can wait to see their results after the penultimate round, and then decide if a half-point bye suits them, it is obvious how the system can be used to the advantage of an unscrupulous punter.



For instance, at the recent Day of Knights tournament, FM Jonathan Safari cost me prize money by agreeing to a last round draw instead of pulverising his 1600 opponent! So lets not kid ourselves, that kind of thing cannot be stamped out and outright stinks. Prohibiting last round draws does not weed out this practice.
Sarfati's game ended in a draw in a drawish endgame position.

Garvinator
07-07-2006, 04:48 PM
Sarfati's game ended in a draw in a drawish endgame position. Now now Boris, stop trying to use a factual basis for your arguments, you will get nowhere in this debate with that style:P

Garvinator
07-07-2006, 04:56 PM
I think the whole point is being missed here and maybe it has to do with chess culture in general.

Byes are a luxury granted by the organisers. They are allowed for two reasons at least

1) The assumption that having a no half point bye policy will decrease the total entry fee collected because some players cant/dont want to commit to a whole weekend/long weekend. This is then viewed as best avoided.
2) Awarding a zero point bye could put a player way outside 'their normal tournament position' and so greatly affects the players who did play all the preceding rounds and performed as per their rating or better.

So a balancing act is attempted between the integrity of the competition and flexibility for players who cant commit to every round.


If people can wait to see their results after the penultimate round, and then decide if a half-point bye suits them, it is obvious how the system can be used to the advantage of an unscrupulous punter.

This is one of the main reasons why the high majority practice in Australia is no half point byes in the last round. NSWCA goes further with no half point byes in the last 1/3 of the competition.

Almost any other sport expects that you play the entire competition and chess should be no different.

Arrogant-One
07-07-2006, 05:29 PM
Sarfati's game ended in a draw in a drawish endgame position.

He could have continued playing, and should have considering his opponent was several hundred points lower than him!

Instead he offered a draw, which was immediately accepted!

He likely did this because he knew a draw would secure first place for him, having seen the standings before commencing the final round.

Boris, are you saying that that practise should be condoned?

Desmond
07-07-2006, 05:36 PM
He could have continued playing, and should have considering his opponent was several hundred points lower than him!

Instead he offered a draw, which was immediately accepted!

He likely did this because he knew a draw would secure first place for him, having seen the standings before commencing the final round.

Boris, are you saying that that practise should be condoned?
Umm, do you mean the practice of players agreeing to a draw? There could be a FIDE rule allowing that to occur :hmm:

Garvinator
07-07-2006, 05:39 PM
He could have continued playing, and should have considering his opponent was several hundred points lower than him!

Instead he offered a draw, which was immediately accepted!

He likely did this because he knew a draw would secure first place for him, having seen the standings before commencing the final round.

Boris, are you saying that that practise should be condoned?
You are only making this an issue because you claim you were deprived of something. It is your mo. I bet if you received a prize because they agreed a draw we would not be hearing the first thing about it :hand: it is your typical crap just being spewed through many threads.

Kevin Bonham
07-07-2006, 05:39 PM
Well, if getting participation levels in tournaments up I have to disagree.

You have to question whether being too nice to late entrants to the potential chagrin of those who show up on time really gets participation rates up at all.


Lets say you have plans to go to the Sunshine Coast on the weekend, but Saturday morning you realise its going to rain so you instead decide to play a local chess tournament. How inclined are you going to be to play if the DOP says sorry mate, you 'have no rights', you are on 0/1 if you still want to play this event?

Why would you only realise it was going to rain there on Saturday morning? If you were serious about either your chess or your trip you'd keep an eye on weather forecasts and in most situations make a decision a day or two before. Anyway, if you're not committed to playing chess but decide to do so as a second option, then you shouldn't assume you'll get points on a platter.

(Incidentally most players I know just accept that if you miss a round without telling the DOP in advance you forfeit and that's that. Good enough for them, but not for whingers.)


Uniformity of rules is always the best, otherwise players can never know what's going to happen and may waste their time trying to get a result that the DOP won't give them (ie. sometimes because the DOP doesn't get on with that player).

If players showed up on time they wouldn't have that problem - and if they stated their case simply and straightforwardly rather than whinging about it, they would not use up much time anyway.


I made the request the day before (on Saturday) and the DOP gave me a vague answer along the lines of maybe.

Did you explain your reason for wanting a bye that round?
Was the DOP's answer any more informative than just saying maybe - did the DOP suggest any possible conditions?


Then, after losing round six and still wanting to withdraw the DOP said 'no' and asked me why I wanted a bye in the final round.

Indeed he should ask!


The fact that it was a 3 day tournnament and I had played every other round somehow didn't matter.

Of course not. It isn't relevant.


I'm sorry, but your prizemoney argument doesn't stack up either.

For instance, at the recent Day of Knights tournament, FM Jonathan Safari cost me prize money by agreeing to a last round draw instead of pulverising his 1600 opponent!

Irrelevant because Sarfati has the right to do that in order to ensure his own victory in the tournament, if he does not want to take a risk. The fact that you missed money is irrelevant - indeed had the other guy not drawn Sarfati in the last round he might have won his game! Nobody has the right to win money by getting a half-point bye from the DOP. And Sarfati still has to play well enough to not lose his game - a different matter from not playing at all.

Garvinator
07-07-2006, 05:43 PM
Irrelevant because Sarfati has the right to do that in order to ensure his own victory in the tournament, if he does not want to take a risk. The fact that you missed money is irrelevant - indeed had the other guy not drawn Sarfati in the last round he might have won his game! Nobody has the right to win money by getting a half-point bye from the DOP. And Sarfati still has to play well enough to not lose his game - a different matter from not playing at all.
As I am sure you are aware Kevin, AO would be 'blowing up' just as much if Sarfati was allowed to take a half point bye in the last round.

Desmond
07-07-2006, 05:48 PM
AO, your quest to win a prize in the Logan event would not have changed if Sarfarti had won anyway. You would have sneaked into =3rd and lost the cash on tiebreak. It would have increased my winnings, but you should notice I'm not the one whineing about it.

Garvinator
07-07-2006, 05:55 PM
AO, your quest to win a prize in the Logan event would not have changed if Sarfarti had won anyway. You would have sneaked into =3rd and lost the cash on tiebreak.
Imagine the blow up then :P

pax
07-07-2006, 10:44 PM
Well, if getting participation levels in tournaments up I have to disagree. Lets say you have plans to go to the Sunshine Coast on the weekend, but Saturday morning you realise its going to rain so you instead decide to play a local chess tournament. How inclined are you going to be to play if the DOP says sorry mate, you 'have no rights', you are on 0/1 if you still want to play this event?

The last thing the DOP wants is to increase numbers in the event by having a bunch of blow-ins turn up for round two and expect to play. Giving away free points to those players would just encourage the slackers who can't be arsed getting to the venue in time to sign up for round 1.

If you are allowed to play at all you should be grateful.

bergil
07-07-2006, 10:50 PM
The last thing the DOP wants is to increase numbers in the event by having a bunch of blow-ins turn up for round two and expect to play. Giving away free points to those players would just encourage the slackers who can't be arsed getting to the venue in time to sign up for round 1.

If you are allowed to play at all you should be grateful.
Well said. :clap:

Arrogant-One
08-07-2006, 12:00 PM
I bet if you received a prize because they agreed a draw we would not be hearing the first thing about it
Captain Obvious appears again - just in time to save the day! :clap:

Arrogant-One
08-07-2006, 12:03 PM
AO, your quest to win a prize in the Logan event would not have changed if Sarfarti had won anyway. You would have sneaked into =3rd and lost the cash on tiebreak. It would have increased my winnings, but you should notice I'm not the one whineing about it.
Actually, thats something I didn't know. How can you prove this Boris, or is it mere speculation?

If it is true, I wouldn't have complained about the draw between Safari and Gene, although I still think a player always has the obligation to play until mate, especially when he is several hundred points higher.

I will show how I did this in the next installment of Grandmaster Theatre, to show that I lead by example.

Desmond
08-07-2006, 12:32 PM
Actually, thats something I didn't know. How can you prove this Boris, or is it mere speculation?
Look at the tiebreak fields in the table. If I am wrong, someone would probably have pointed it out by now.



If it is true, I wouldn't have complained about the draw between Safari and Gene, although I still think a player always has the obligation to play until mate, especially when he is several hundred points higher.
How can you try to take the high moral ground when you admit you are only raising the point because of personal gain?


I will show how I did this in the next installment of Grandmaster Theatre, to show that I lead by example.
Goody

Garvinator
08-07-2006, 12:47 PM
Look at the tiebreak fields in the table. If I am wrong, someone would probably have pointed it out by now.
You are correct.

Arrogant-One
08-07-2006, 04:00 PM
How can you try to take the high moral ground when you admit you are only raising the point because of personal gain?

Because the two were not mutually exclusive of one another - that's how. :cool:

Desmond
08-07-2006, 04:09 PM
Because the two were not mutually exclusive of one another - that's how. :cool:
That makes no sense.

Arrogant-One
08-07-2006, 04:12 PM
You have to question whether being too nice to late entrants to the potential chagrin of those who show up on time really gets participation rates up at all.
Perhaps, but denying them access to the tournament altogether would certainly not be conducive towards improving participation levels.


Why would you only realise it was going to rain there on Saturday morning? If you were serious about either your chess or your trip you'd keep an eye on weather forecasts and in most situations make a decision a day or two before. Anyway, if you're not committed to playing chess but decide to do so as a second option, then you shouldn't assume you'll get points on a platter.
You're missing the point. The point is that sometimes there are genuine and valid reasons why I player hasn't made it in time to play round one. Penalising that player by not giving him a half point bye when he has a genuine reason for tardiness isn't helpful.

I once played a tournament in Toronto (one hour away from my hometown) but missed round one because I got stuck in an snow storm. The DOP gave me only a half point bye - it was very unfair. Are you saying in that case I shouldn't have been given anything?


If players showed up on time they wouldn't have that problem -
Yeah, not always possible. Please see above, re: Snowstorm.


Did you explain your reason for wanting a bye that round?
Yeah, because I was having a crappy tournament. That reason is no less valid than 'I have to withdraw for personal reasons' which answer often precludes a DOP from further inquiry.


Was the DOP's answer any more informative than just saying maybe - did the DOP suggest any possible conditions?
No, he said maybe and then just [changed his mind-mod] the next day.


Of course not. It isn't relevant.
Oh yes it is! You're saying I can't have one bye but other competitors can be allowed to have 3 or more? That is a double standard.


Irrelevant because Sarfati has the right to do that in order to ensure his own victory in the tournament, if he does not want to take a risk. The fact that you missed money is irrelevant - indeed had the other guy not drawn Sarfati in the last round he might have won his game! Nobody has the right to win money by getting a half-point bye from the DOP. And Sarfati still has to play well enough to not lose his game - a different matter from not playing at all.
Okay, you make a good point here. I cannot refute it (yet) so I won't bother trying. :wall:

Bill Gletsos
08-07-2006, 04:37 PM
Yeah, not always possible. Please see above, re: Snowstorm.Undoubtedly that excuse will go well in Queensland. ;)

Garvinator
08-07-2006, 05:16 PM
I once played a tournament in Toronto (one hour away from my hometown) but missed round one because I got stuck in an snow storm. The DOP gave me only a half point bye - it was very unfair. Are you saying in that case I shouldn't have been given anything?
Why was a half point bye unfair? I am sure other players were affected also by the snowstorm, but they managed to get to the tournament on time. Maybe they knew the storm was coming and made pre arrangements.


Yeah, because I was having a crappy tournament. That reason is no less valid than 'I have to withdraw for personal reasons' which answer often precludes a DOP from further inquiry.
So you publically admit that your continued participation in a tournament only exists if you are doing well in that tournament.


No, he said maybe and then just [changed his mind -mod] the next day.Who [changed his mind-mod] the next day?



Oh yes it is! You're saying I can't have one bye but other competitors can be allowed to have 3 or more? That is a double standard.
In the Qld Open, who was allowed to take 3 half point byes? Please give names and rounds they took those half point byes? The policy on half point byes was: Only 1 half point bye per player and no half point byes for ANYONE on the last day (rounds 6 and 7).

Garvinator
08-07-2006, 05:16 PM
Undoubtedly that excuse will go well in Queensland. ;)
would be just as valid as most of his other excuses.

Kevin Bonham
08-07-2006, 05:44 PM
If it is true, I wouldn't have complained about the draw between Safari and Gene, although I still think a player always has the obligation to play until mate, especially when he is several hundred points higher.

Then why didn't you play until mate in your game against Stahnke in which you were several hundred points higher?


Perhaps, but denying them access to the tournament altogether would certainly not be conducive towards improving participation levels.

In that case we are converging towards the view that they should be added on 0/1.


You're missing the point. The point is that sometimes there are genuine and valid reasons why I player hasn't made it in time to play round one. Penalising that player by not giving him a half point bye when he has a genuine reason for tardiness isn't helpful.

But failing to enter events in advance isn't helpful either, so you're square. You should enter in advance to reduce the risk of points loss if you can't get there on time. If you don't take that step and something happens, tough.

(I always love it when people accuse me of missing the point when in fact they are just talking their monologue straight past me, ignoring my prior comment on that issue.)


I once played a tournament in Toronto (one hour away from my hometown) but missed round one because I got stuck in an snow storm. The DOP gave me only a half point bye - it was very unfair. Are you saying in that case I shouldn't have been given anything?

Did it occur to you to enter in advance?
Did it occur to you that it sometimes snows around Toronto and checking the weather forecast to see if that was a risk might be a bright step?
Half a point under the circumstances sounds reasonable if not lenient. For you to suggest you should have got a full point is totally ridiculous. Next you'll say you should be able to stay home all weekend due to circumstances "beyond your control" (not) and score 7/7.


Yeah, because I was having a crappy tournament. That reason is no less valid than 'I have to withdraw for personal reasons' which answer often precludes a DOP from further inquiry.

That reason is completely invalid. If you withdrew for that reason it would be a clear UWD so you shouldn't be able to get byes for it either. And DOPs generally know when an opponent claiming they need to withdraw for personal reasons is being insincere and have ways of dealing with that as it happens.
(Actually I have never known a player to offer that excuse and not elaborate.)


Oh yes it is! You're saying I can't have one bye but other competitors can be allowed to have 3 or more? That is a double standard.

Where on earth did I say anything remotely like that?

Arrogant-One, my impression from your comments on this BB is that you are the sort Stewart Reuben refers to as a world-champion whinger.

Garvinator
08-07-2006, 06:20 PM
Arrogant-One, my impression from your comments on this BB is that you are the sort Stewart Reuben refers to as a world-champion whinger.
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Arrogant-One
08-07-2006, 09:33 PM
I once played a tournament in Toronto (one hour away from my hometown) but missed round one because I got stuck in an snow storm. The DOP gave me only a half point bye - it was very unfair. Are you saying in that case I shouldn't have been given anything?


Undoubtedly that excuse will go well in Queensland. ;)
The threat of climate change, and its adverse impact of chess attendance, needs to be taken far more seriously by the NSW Chess Association!

Arrogant-One
08-07-2006, 09:38 PM
Who [changed his mind-mod] the next day?

In the Qld Open, who was allowed to take 3 half point byes? The policy on half point byes was: Only 1 half point bye per player and no half point byes for ANYONE on the last day (rounds 6 and 7).
You were the DOP who wouldn't let me withdraw Garvin. Do you remember when you threatened to call it an unauthorised withdrawl if I refused to play the last round?

And the player who took 3 byes was the CAQ Vice Presdient, not that I would admonish him for it. He showed far more courage and dedication to chess than anyone else on the CAQ Council (except perhaps yourself) by playing and attending the event.

Bill Gletsos
08-07-2006, 09:45 PM
And the player who took 3 byes was the CAQ Vice Presdient, not that I would admonish him for it.According to the CAQ web site that is totally incorrect.
He had a half point bye in round 4 and a zero point bye in round 5.
He played in the other 5 rounds.

Kevin Bonham
08-07-2006, 09:46 PM
You were the DOP who wouldn't let me withdraw Garvin. Do you remember when you threatened to call it an unauthorised withdrawl if I refused to play the last round?

Quite rightly so. I applaud Garvin for this action. :clap: :clap: :clap:

Arrogant-One
08-07-2006, 09:51 PM
Then why didn't you play until mate in your game against Stahnke in which you were several hundred points higher?
Did you enjoy that episode of Grandmaster Theatre? Of course you did! In answer to your query he had a time advantage and endgames tend to require more time then openings and middle games.


In that case we are converging towards the view that they should be added on 0/1.
Yes, but I also like the three options you eluded to earlier.


But failing to enter events in advance isn't helpful either, so you're square. You should enter in advance to reduce the risk of points loss if you can't get there on time. If you don't take that step and something happens, tough.
Perhaps we could just say that avoiding the late entry fee is motivation to register early.


(I always love it when people accuse me of missing the point when in fact they are just talking their monologue straight past me, ignoring my prior comment on that issue.)
But that didn't really occur this time, did it?


Did it occur to you to enter in advance?
Did it occur to you that it sometimes snows around Toronto and checking the weather forecast to see if that was a risk might be a bright step?
Actually, no to the first question, and yes to the second. We accounted for the snow, just not excessive amounts of it. And because we had a 4WD, it actually wouldn't have been a problem if the police hadn't locked down the motorway - so that apsect of the saga was completely unforeseeable.


Half a point under the circumstances sounds reasonable if not lenient.
If its a choice between the two I'll go with reasonable.


For you to suggest you should have got a full point is totally ridiculous.
It was worth a shot. The DOP actually considered it when he heard our true and tragic story about getting stopped because of ice on the highway.


Next you'll say you should be able to stay home all weekend due to circumstances "beyond your control" (not) and score 7/7.
Now you're the one being ridiculous.


Arrogant-One, my impression from your comments on this BB is that you are the sort Stewart Reuben refers to as a world-champion whinger.
Still being ridiculous. ;)

Garvinator
08-07-2006, 09:53 PM
You were the DOP who wouldn't let me withdraw Garvin. Do you remember when you threatened to call it an unauthorised withdrawal if I refused to play the last round? Yes. Kevin Bonham has called it the same below. I also notice that he has commented again while I have been typing this. No arbiter can prevent a player from withdrawing from a tournament, but with all actions there are consequences.

That reason is completely invalid. If you withdrew for that reason it would be a clear UWD so you shouldn't be able to get byes for it either.


And the player who took 3 byes was the CAQ Vice Presdient, not that I would admonish him for it. He showed far more courage and dedication to chess than anyone else on the CAQ Council (except perhaps yourself) by playing and attending the event.
Bill Powell did no such thing. He wasnt able to play on the Sunday and was awarded one half point bye and one zero point bye. Bill then turned up on Monday and completed the tournament.

Alex, you really seem to be struggling with the difference between zero point byes, half point byes and full point byes.

Arrogant-One
08-07-2006, 09:58 PM
According to the CAQ web site that is totally incorrect.
He had a half point bye in round 4 and a zero point bye in round 5.
He played in the other 5 rounds.
I thought he missed a whole day, but concede that I may have been paying to much attention to my own game and not enough to how many byes he got.

I'll accept Bill's account that he only had two.

But my point is still somewhat valid, if he had two why couldn't I have but one?

Bill Gletsos
08-07-2006, 10:02 PM
I thought he missed a whole day, but concede that I may have been paying to much attention to my own game and not enough to how many byes he got.

I'll accept Bill's account that he only had two.Surely you should have actually checked your facts before shooting off your mouth with false accusations.

But my point is still somewhat valid, if he had two why couldn't I have but one?His was in the middle of the event and he continued playing in the event. You wanted the bye in the last round simply because you were playing poorly.

Arrogant-One
08-07-2006, 10:02 PM
That makes no sense.
Well, maybe not to a Pumpkin-Head, but to everyone else it does.

If you want me to expound my remarks just ask - politely.

Garvinator
08-07-2006, 10:03 PM
I thought he missed a whole day, but concede that I may have been paying to much attention to my own game and not enough to how many byes he got.

I'll accept Bill's account that he only had two.

But my point is still somewhat valid, if he had two why couldn't I have but one?
I now have had a complete gutful of your crap :evil:. You make disparaging comments about caq council members. Howard, Ian, Bill and myself have all been in your firing line at times. You make no effort to do any research into your claims.

It took Bill Gletsos just a couple of minutes to check your claims and refute you easily.

You are walking a very fine line, which you may cross at any stage with your bullshit claims :evil:

Arrogant-One
08-07-2006, 10:04 PM
Surely you should have actually checked your facts before shooting off your mouth with false accusations.
I think Garvin conceded that he missed a day of play.

Once again I think he was head and shoulders above the rest of the CAQ Council (Garvin excepted) by simply playing a substantial amount of the tournament.

Garvinator
08-07-2006, 10:04 PM
Well, maybe not to a Pumpkin-Head, but to everyone else it does. that is a high class response, not :hand:


If you want me to expound my remarks just ask - politely.
why should Boris, you certainly dont.

Garvinator
08-07-2006, 10:05 PM
I think Garvin conceded that he missed a day of play.
How did I concede anything? I just stated facts.

Arrogant-One
08-07-2006, 10:07 PM
I now have had a complete gutful of your crap :evil:. You make disparaging comments about caq council members. Howard, Ian, Bill and myself have all been in your firing line at times. You make no effort to do any research into your claims.

It took Bill Gletsos just a couple of minutes to check your claims and refute you easily.

You are walking a very fine line, which you may cross at any stage with your bullshit claims :evil:
Go back to sleep Garvin - You're having a bad dream.

Arrogant-One
08-07-2006, 10:08 PM
I think Garvin conceded that he missed a day of play.

How did I concede anything? I just stated facts.
Post 123 second last para, second sentence.

It wasn't in my imagination afterall, perhaps you forgot.

Bill Gletsos
08-07-2006, 10:10 PM
I think Garvin conceded that he missed a day of play.So what, that is totally immaterial.
The onus was on you to check how many games he missed.
The facts were easy to determine however you clearly didnt bother.
You just sprouted out rubbish based on no facts whatsoever.

Bill Gletsos
08-07-2006, 10:14 PM
Post 123 second last para, second sentence.

It wasn't in my imagination afterall, perhaps you forgot.You made the false claim that he received 3 byes.
Garvin simply pointed out he did not play on the Sunday.
Given you played in the event it is reasonable to expect that you should have known only two games were played on the Sunday.

Kevin Bonham
08-07-2006, 10:20 PM
Did you enjoy that episode of Grandmaster Theatre? Of course you did! In answer to your query he had a time advantage and endgames tend to require more time then openings and middle games.

Excuses, excuses, excuses. If taking a draw to ensure an outright first is not a good enough reason then that doesn't even come close. And if you needed more time for that endgame than that middlegame then you either play the middlegame far too fast or the endgame far too slow.

Incidentally, wouldn't "Gene" be Gene Nakauchi? Rapidly improving junior, hmmm? So surely the rating difference between him and Sarfati is a lot less significant according to your own arguments concerning underrated juniors?


Perhaps we could just say that avoiding the late entry fee is motivation to register early.

It's part of it, but clearly it isn't strong enough by itself! (NB I don't have late entry fees in my events - I have early entry discounts.)


But that didn't really occur this time, did it?

Yes. :hand:


Actually, no to the first question, and yes to the second. We accounted for the snow, just not excessive amounts of it. And because we had a 4WD, it actually wouldn't have been a problem if the police hadn't locked down the motorway - so that apsect of the saga was completely unforeable.

Any time there is snow there is a risk of it being heavier than expected and hence a risk of authorities closing the road. You strike me as someone who just cruises along expecting bad stuff not to happen then goes looking for scapegoats when it does - you seem to blame anyone but yourself.


If its a choice between the two I'll go with reasonable.

I'm happy with "reasonable" actually since it is within the range of credible options. Your criticism of the DOP was completely unreasonable since anything more than a half point bye would have been ludicrous.


Now you're the one being ridiculous.

Nah, you just don't realise how easily satirised your nonsense is.


Still being ridiculous. ;)

Well it seems at least one DOP who has had the pleasure to deal with you agrees with me.

I'm betting there are others. :D


But my point is still somewhat valid, if he had two why couldn't I have but one?

Powell was unable to play, you just didn't want to, and your reason for not wanting to was invalid.

Even then he only got one half-point bye, and for the other round was marked as absent, so your claim he got two is false.

Arrogant-One
08-07-2006, 10:23 PM
You made the false claim that he received 3 byes.
Garvin simply pointed out he did not play on the Sunday.
Given you played in the event it is reasonable to expect that you should have known only two games were played on the Sunday.
Actually, I confirm that that is where the error lies Bill. I assumed that 3 rounds were played the day Bill missed, when in fact it was two.

Question: Should I have checked the cross table first (over something rather trivial - 2 byes vs 3 byes)?

Answer: Perhaps!

Question: Did Garvin and Bill overreact to my small error?

Answer: Perhaps!

Bill Gletsos
08-07-2006, 10:26 PM
Actually, I confirm that that is where the error lies Bill. I assumed that 3 rounds were played the day Bill missed, when in fact it was two.The facts were easy to check.

Question: Should I have checked the cross table first (over something rather trivial - 2 byes vs 3 byes)?

Answer: Perhaps!No not perhaps, definately. You were the one making the accusation of 3 byes. You didnt bother to check them.
As such whatever credibility you had just drops further.

Question: Did Garvin and Bill overreact to my small error?

Answer: Perhaps!No. You made a totally false accusation.
An accusation that could have been entirely avoided if you had checked your facts.
You didnt.
You just shot your mouth off.

Garvinator
08-07-2006, 10:27 PM
Actually, I confirm that that is where the error lies Bill. I assumed that 3 rounds were played the day Bill missed, when in fact it was two.

Question: Should I have checked the cross table first (over something rather trivial - 2 byes vs 3 byes)?
when you publically defame any person, especially when some simple checking would ensure it doesnt happen, I think I have been quite measured in my responses.

Here is an insult for you- Matt Sweeney has more respect and credibility on this board than you atm :)

Bill Gletsos
08-07-2006, 10:29 PM
Here is an insult for you- Matt Sweeney has more respect and credibility on this board than you atm :)Are you suggesting that AO could easily get the same level of respect and credibility by a simple mod action. ;)

Arrogant-One
08-07-2006, 10:30 PM
You made a totally false accusation.
I prefer to call it an honest but mistaken assertion. I already acknowledged that I could have, and perhaps should have, checked the cross tables first.

I note you've also over looked my commendation of Bill Powell for playing the event.

I think that's commendable, don't you?

Garvinator
08-07-2006, 10:33 PM
Are you suggesting that AO could easily get the same level of respect and credibility by a simple mod action. ;)
That simple mod action would probably help his credibility because he wouldnt be dribbling right now :P

Bill Gletsos
08-07-2006, 10:33 PM
I note you've also over looked my commendation of Bill Powell for playing the event.I ignored it because your implication was unjustified.

Kevin Bonham
08-07-2006, 10:33 PM
Actually, I confirm that that is where the error lies Bill. I assumed that 3 rounds were played the day Bill missed, when in fact it was two.

Question: Should I have checked the cross table first (over something rather trivial - 2 byes vs 3 byes)?

Answer: Perhaps!

Don't even try to get out of it.
You agreed to be more careful in checking your facts when criticising others.
You're not living up to that agreement.

You were crudely abusive towards Garvin in your earlier comment - I didn't realise you were referring to him at the time or I might have thrown you off on the spot.
You need to learn to accept full and complete responsibility for your mistakes, to anticipate them better and try harder to avoid them.

If you don't it is only a matter of time before you seriously defame someone and wind up banned for a very long time.

Garvinator
08-07-2006, 10:33 PM
I hereby nominate AO for a goosemaster norm.

Seconder please.

Arrogant-One
08-07-2006, 10:34 PM
when you publically defame any person, especially when some simple checking would ensure it doesnt happen, I think I have been quite measured in my responses.

Here is an insult for you- Matt Sweeney has more respect and credibility on this board than you atm :)
Defamation (as the BB defines it) generally requires an intention to cause harm to a reputation.

I have only applauded Bill's reputation, and chastised the CAQ Councils for non-attendance.

Also, any defo would be negligible (2 byes and not 3 byes - not earth shattering stuff). Also, it was an honest mistake.

Moreover, Matt Sweeney has been called a stand up guy. I kind of like him so far, but the jury is still out. Please wait until his ban is over before you kick him.

Now, please, go back to sleep Garvin.

Arrogant-One
08-07-2006, 10:36 PM
I hereby nominate AO for a goosemaster norm.

Seconder please.
I'll second that motion. :P We'll add it to my GM norm.

Kevin Bonham
08-07-2006, 10:38 PM
Defamation (as the BB defines it) generally requires an intention to cause harm to a reputation.

False. Intention is irrelevant.


Also, any defo would be negligible (2 byes and not 3 byes).

1 bye actually.


It was an honest mistake.

I doubt it. It was more likely a negligent one arising from your whinging biased attitude towards the situation.


Now, please go back to sleep Garvin.

You are the one who would be better served by a more tranquil attitude. :P

(I really would miss AO if I had to ban him again. He's such amusing sport.)

bergil
08-07-2006, 10:41 PM
AO if you get banned again you can PM starter and he'll post for you. ;)

Arrogant-One
08-07-2006, 10:41 PM
Any time there is snow there is a risk of it being heavier than expected and hence a risk of authorities closing the road. You strike me as someone who just cruises along expecting bad stuff not to happen then goes looking for scapegoats when it does - you seem to blame anyone but yourself.
The weather was to blame Kevin, and checking it beforehand wouldn't have changed it into sunshine and lollipops.

Also, its very rare for the police to close down the motorway. The only other time I recall them doing so was when President Clinton came to town and had need of the motorway.

Arrogant-One
08-07-2006, 10:43 PM
AO if you get banned again you can PM starter and he'll post for you. ;)
Thanks Bergil, but the defo spoken of this time was not serious enough, or they would have banned me instead of admonishing me. Kevin is out to get me for some reason today, so I will be closely watching my posting. :eek:

Desmond
08-07-2006, 10:44 PM
I hereby nominate AO for a goosemaster norm.

Seconder please.
I cannot decide if goose or boob is a more apt description :hmm:

Garvinator
08-07-2006, 10:47 PM
I cannot decide if goose or boob is a more apt description :hmm:

I have thought far harsher words.

On here a poster earns a goosemaster norm for repeatedly making 'goosey' posts on a subject, especially after being competely refuted by the facts of the situation.

I have nominated him for a goosemaster norm and now have a seconder :rolleyes:

Arrogant-One
08-07-2006, 10:49 PM
1 bye actually. .)
Are you sure not one half point bye and one zero point bye? I'm not sure enough to say anything further on Bill's byes in that event at the moment.


I doubt it. It was more likely a negligent one arising from your whinging biased attitude towards the situation.
So there is a difference between an honest mistake and a negligent one? I think a lazy mistake would be the better definition, b/c I didn't look it up first.


You are the one who would be better served by a more tranquil attitude. :P
"Nothing give one man more of an advantage over another than to remain cool and unruffled under all circumstances" - Thomas Jefferson


(I really would miss AO if I had to ban him again. He's such amusing sport.)
You mean competitive sport KB, but I too would be saddened if AO got banned again. :)

bergil
08-07-2006, 10:50 PM
I have thought far harsher words.

On here a poster earns a goosemaster norm for repeatedly making 'goosey' posts on a subject, especially after being competely refuted by the facts of the situation.

I have nominated him for a goosemaster norm and now have a seconder :rolleyes:
When does he become a deluded master? :owned:

Garvinator
08-07-2006, 10:51 PM
When does he become a deluded master? :owned:
:hmm: not sure. I thought goosemaster was the highest title, but you never know :whistle:

Desmond
08-07-2006, 10:51 PM
AO, I'm very impressed that you are still able to type with both feet in your mouth, and the whole lot stuck firmly up your [edited for being too close to the truth]

Arrogant-One
08-07-2006, 10:53 PM
I cannot decide if goose or boob is a more apt description :hmm:
I prefer to call you a Pumpkin-Head! :D

Kevin Bonham
08-07-2006, 10:53 PM
I hereby nominate AO for a goosemaster norm.

He keeps saying Powell got two byes when Powell actually got one bye and a forfeit, so he's got to qualify.

Isn't that his second one? :D


The weather was to blame Kevin, and checking it beforehand wouldn't have changed it into sunshine and lollipops.

Confirms my impression, really. I don't think Tasmania is anything like as snow-prone as Toronto but even here people sometimes can't get from Hobart to Launceston (2 hr drive) because of snow. Usually they have the perspective to at least realise that that's a hazard of travelling in winter. If you absolutely must get through and snow is forecast, you go the previous day.


Also, its very rare for the police to close down the motorway. The only other time I recall them doing so was when President Clinton came to town and had need of the motorway.

I'll take your word for it but you still have no grounds to complain about a half-point bye.

Clearly there's no point a DOP being kind to you, since you still complain!

Bill Gletsos
08-07-2006, 10:54 PM
You mean competitive sport KB, but I too would be saddened if AO got banned again. :)Now I wonder why the words "Another one bites the dust" keep coming to mind. :owned:

Arrogant-One
08-07-2006, 10:54 PM
AO, I'm very impressed that you are still able to type with both feet in your mouth, and the whole lot stuck firmly up your [edited for being too close to the truth]
Down Boy!

Arrogant-One
08-07-2006, 10:55 PM
Now I wonder why the words "Another one bites the dust" keep coming to mind. :owned:
Because maybe you heard it on the radio today. Its an old song from the 70's, I think Queen sang it.

Garvinator
08-07-2006, 10:55 PM
Isn't that his second one? :D
If the goosemaster qualifications committee accepts the norm application, then yes it is his second one. Which would put him in an elite and rare league, with chesslover being the only other poster to have earnt two goosemaster norms.

Also it would rack up my third occasion when I have been the other person in the sparring match which lead to a gm norm being awarded :eek:

Kevin Bonham
08-07-2006, 10:57 PM
Are you sure not one half point bye and one zero point bye? I'm not sure enough to say anything further on Bill's byes in that event at the moment.

A zero-point bye is not a bye - it is an approved absence.


So there is a difference between an honest mistake and a negligent one? I think a lazy mistake would be the better definition, b/c I didn't look it up first.

Lazy/negligent - not much difference between the two.


You mean competitive sport KB,

Rather less competitive than fox-hunting actually.

bergil
08-07-2006, 10:58 PM
If the goosemaster qualifications committee accepts the norm application, then yes it is his second one. Which would put him in an elite and rare league, with chesslover being the only other poster to have earnt two goosemaster norms.

Also it would rack up my third occasion when I have been the other person in the sparring match which lead to a gm norm being awarded :eek:
What about FG7? :hmm:

Desmond
08-07-2006, 10:59 PM
Down Boy!
Are you trying to entice me down to your level? You must have a lot of rope.

Garvinator
08-07-2006, 11:00 PM
What about FG7? :hmm:
I dont think he has actually been awarded one.

The tally is:

Chesslover 2
arosar 1
AO 1

As I said it is an exclusive club, even Matt hasnt actually earnt one.

bergil
08-07-2006, 11:01 PM
I dont think he has actually been awarded one.

The tally is:

Chesslover 2
arosar 1
AO 1
Only 1? :eek:

Arrogant-One
08-07-2006, 11:02 PM
A zero-point bye is not a bye - it is an approved absence.
Okay, I didn't know that!


Lazy/negligent - not much difference between the two.
But lazy maistakes can be honest ones, hopefully.


Rather less competitive than fox-hunting actually.
Well, you did have the aid of Bill Gletsos, Boris, Garvin, all at the same time - and I had no aid from anyone. So yes, fox hunting is fair analogy.

Result: Wounded in the front paw by Bill, but still escaping the hounds (for now - until I get banned :P ) and making safe passage back to my den. :clap:

Arrogant-One
08-07-2006, 11:03 PM
I dont think he has actually been awarded one.

The tally is:

Chesslover 2
arosar 1
AO 1

As I said it is an exclusive club, even Matt hasnt actually earnt one.
I withdraw my seconding of the motion because Garvin is still going on about it.

Garvinator
08-07-2006, 11:05 PM
Only 1? :eek:
yes just 1. I think he could have earnt plenty more, but wasnt nominated by anyone.

Bill Gletsos
08-07-2006, 11:09 PM
As I said it is an exclusive club, even Matt hasnt actually earnt one.I'm sure he is awarded it in a similar manner to how in some FIDE events you can earn a FIDE title immediately without previously having the required norms. ;)

Arrogant-One
08-07-2006, 11:09 PM
yes just 1. I think he could have earnt plenty more, but wasnt nominated by anyone.
You still have to get the first norm seconded!

Garvinator
08-07-2006, 11:11 PM
You still have to get the first norm seconded!
you already have one norm clown. I have nominated you for a second one.

Still awaiting nomination btw. Anyone. Or maybe the gm committee is already considering it without the application :clap:

Desmond
08-07-2006, 11:11 PM
You still have to get the first norm seconded!
I second it.

Garvinator
08-07-2006, 11:12 PM
I'm sure he is awarded it in a similar manner to how in some FIDE events you can earn a FIDE title immediately without previously having the required norms. ;)
I had been wondering about a similar point. If a person earns a gm norm in an olympiad thread, does it count for 20 games also:uhoh:

bergil
08-07-2006, 11:12 PM
You still have to get the first norm seconded!
I believe boris did but if you want a show of hands we can form a queue? :P

Garvinator
08-07-2006, 11:13 PM
I second it.
I thought this was your nomination ;)

AO, I'm very impressed that you are still able to type with both feet in your mouth, and the whole lot stuck firmly up your [edited for being too close to the truth]

Garvinator
08-07-2006, 11:15 PM
I am going to add- On here normally a person can find another person to support their position in a debate, no matter the thread or topic.

So far in this 'discussion' not one poster has joined AO's side. I do think that says something.

Kevin Bonham
08-07-2006, 11:15 PM
But lazy maistakes can be honest ones, hopefully.

That's debatable. My understanding of the term "honest mistake" involves due care to not make an error.


and I had no aid from anyone.

In terms of the credibility of your argument, there could be a reason for that!

If you're really lucky Cat might play tag, if you ask him very nicely.

Bill Gletsos
08-07-2006, 11:31 PM
I am going to add- On here normally a person can find another person to support their position in a debate, no matter the thread or topic.

So far in this 'discussion' not one poster has joined AO's side. I do think that says something.Starter isnt online (or is asleep or missed it) and Matt cant post ;)

Garvinator
08-07-2006, 11:32 PM
Starter isnt online
Starter has commented before that at BHCC, their policy is dont even ask for a half point bye in the last round. So no support for AO there:P

ursogr8
09-07-2006, 12:18 AM
Starter isnt online (or is asleep or missed it) and Matt cant post ;)

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: ^^




I think there are a lot of people who don't bother to go on-line when experienced posters fail to ensure that an argument proceeds in a thread where quality research and search are then available.

Perhaps the SHOUTBOX could be put off-limits for a while so that we can all improve.

Mischa
09-07-2006, 12:23 AM
??

Bill Gletsos
09-07-2006, 12:26 AM
??He is :drool: again.

Bill Gletsos
09-07-2006, 12:30 AM
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: ^^




I think there are a lot of people who don't bother to go on-line when experienced posters fail to ensure that an argument proceeds in a thread where quality research and search are then available.I realise observational skills isnt one of your strong points but it is clear the bulk of the conversation took place in this thread.
Sporadic comments were made in the shoutbox.

Given the amount of :drool: in your post it is clear that:
Alert, Mop and Bucket required
Alert, Mop and Bucket required
Alert, Mop and Bucket required


Perhaps the SHOUTBOX could be put off-limits for a while so that we can all improve.Perhaps you just need to be more observant.

ursogr8
09-07-2006, 09:24 AM
I <snip>

My response posted in a more relevant thread.

Garvinator
09-07-2006, 11:39 AM
My response posted in a more relevant thread.
which thread?

Arrogant-One
09-07-2006, 05:29 PM
That's debatable. My understanding of the term "honest mistake" involves due care to not make an error.
I am determined to compromise here! Can we call it a sloppy, yet honest, mistake?


In terms of the credibility of your argument, there could be a reason for that!
The reason you are eluding to is that you banned Matt Sweeny and Belty and Cat weren't logged when I needed them. :(

Kevin Bonham
09-07-2006, 05:39 PM
The reason you are eluding to is that you banned Matt Sweeny and Belty and Cat weren't logged when I needed them. :(

Sweeney would not have given you much sympathy. Sweeney's view on the bye, stated on this board before, is that there should be no bye and that there should be a reserve player on hand to serve as the bye in the case of an odd number of entrants. He would view a player taking a bye because they felt like it, and hence potentially robbing another player of a chance to play a game that round, as totally unacceptable.

Oepty
10-07-2006, 06:56 PM
Sweeney would not have given you much sympathy. Sweeney's view on the bye, stated on this board before, is that there should be no bye and that there should be a reserve player on hand to serve as the bye in the case of an odd number of entrants. He would view a player taking a bye because they felt like it, and hence potentially robbing another player of a chance to play a game that round, as totally unacceptable.

I would agree with Matthew if it is at all possible. I played the first three rounds of the tournament on the weekend so there would not be a bye.
Scott

Capablanca-Fan
04-04-2007, 12:23 PM
For instance, at the recent Day of Knights tournament, FM Jonathan Safari cost me prize money by agreeing to a last round draw instead of pulverising his 1600 opponent! So lets not kid ourselves, that kind of thing cannot be stamped out and outright stinks. Prohibiting last round draws does not weed out this practice.

As Kevin Bonham said, a player is entitled to take a draw and ensure himself of victory in the tournament. He is not obliged to risk his standing just so other players get prize money. Did Arrogant One lose to Sarfati earlier? If so, then play better next time! If not, then he had an easier draw than Nakauchi, so he should stop whinging.

Garvinator
04-04-2007, 01:19 PM
Interesting that this thread come back to life just when I have been thinking about this matter.

What do people think of the middle ranked player in the draw getting the full point bye in the first round (when there are odd numbers of course) instead of the lowest rated player?

Been thinking about it and it seems to make more sense. The middle ranked player normally would be playing one of the bottom seeds and so would win 99% of the time.
Also under the current system of awarding the first round bye, it means the lowest rated player in the tournament gets paired in the 1 point score group for round two, or against the highest rated 0.5 or 0 point player.

Desmond
04-04-2007, 01:30 PM
The middle ranked player normally would be playing one of the bottom seeds and so would win 99% of the time. Following this reasoning, wouldn't it be more consistent to award the free point to the highest rated player?

Ian Rout
04-04-2007, 01:51 PM
Following this reasoning, wouldn't it be more consistent to award the free point to the highest rated player?
No, the top board is often a contest whereas the bottom board is almost invariably a wipeout, unless a slack arbiter has just dumped all the unrated players as blank (=zero) in alphabetic order rather than put them in at a reasonable estimate as required by the rules (which is unfortunately common).

Aaron Guthrie
04-04-2007, 01:52 PM
Following this reasoning, wouldn't it be more consistent to award the free point to the highest rated player?I presume it would be most consistent to award the point to the player who would out rate their opponent by the greatest margin. I also presume this would not be the highest rated player.

Desmond
04-04-2007, 02:05 PM
No, the top board is often a contest whereas the bottom board is almost invariably a wipeout, unless a slack arbiter has just dumped all the unrated players as blank (=zero) in alphabetic order rather than put them in at a reasonable estimate as required by the rules (which is unfortunartely common).I didn't know that was a requirement. :)

Garvinator
04-04-2007, 02:27 PM
Following this reasoning, wouldn't it be more consistent to award the free point to the highest rated player?
Maybe, but by awarding it to the highest rated player that would affect the colour preferences of one of the leading contenders.

While this would have a similar effect for the middle ranked player, it wouldnt be as pronounced as players in the middle of the field regularly get two of the same colours in a row.

Aaron Guthrie
04-04-2007, 02:46 PM
I was going to suggest another way to award it would be to give it the last person to enter, as they are the cause of the bye. Then I realised not everyone would consider it to be a disadvantage to get a full point bye :doh:

Garvinator
04-04-2007, 05:13 PM
I was going to suggest another way to award it would be to give it the last person to enter, as they are the cause of the bye. Then I realised not everyone would consider it to be a disadvantage to get a full point bye :doh:
The last person to enter or register after the scheduled closing time would normally get a zero or a half point bye if they caused odd numbers ;)

Kevin Bonham
04-04-2007, 11:48 PM
Been thinking about it and it seems to make more sense. The middle ranked player normally would be playing one of the bottom seeds and so would win 99% of the time.

I don't think that follows. You can say that if there was one more player then the middle ranked player would be playing one of the bottom seeds, but that only works if that one more player is ranked below them. One more higher ranked player and the previously middle-ranked player is playing the top seed in round 1. For a player around midfield when you don't know the exact field size yet then the expected score is around half a point - perhaps a little bit more.

You can however argue that along the lines of my "assume there is a player who is so bad they lose to everyone" idea, then the bye should be paired to the middle of the zero group until there is no zero group remaining, and only then from the bottom of the lowest score group. I guess the issue with that is that one very fresh midranked player then has a free crack at a strong opponent, but that happens anyway in round 2 when someone well up towards the pointy end gets an easy win over the bottom seed as you mentioned.

The mismatch problem is avoided by the TCA bye-mismatch-avoidance system that I mentioned before (pair bye recipients as if they had lost that round until the middle of the tournament) though this is such a pain to implement using SP that we made it optional and it usually isn't used.

Garvinator
05-04-2007, 12:53 AM
I don't think that follows. You can say that if there was one more player then the middle ranked player would be playing one of the bottom seeds, but that only works if that one more player is ranked below them. One more higher ranked player and the previously middle-ranked player is playing the top seed in round 1. For a player around midfield when you don't know the exact field size yet then the expected score is around half a point - perhaps a little bit more.

You can however argue that along the lines of my "assume there is a player who is so bad they lose to everyone" idea, then the bye should be paired to the middle of the zero group until there is no zero group remaining, and only then from the bottom of the lowest score group. I guess the issue with that is that one very fresh midranked player then has a free crack at a strong opponent, but that happens anyway in round 2 when someone well up towards the pointy end gets an easy win over the bottom seed as you mentioned.

The mismatch problem is avoided by the TCA bye-mismatch-avoidance system that I mentioned before (pair bye recipients as if they had lost that round until the middle of the tournament) though this is such a pain to implement using SP that we made it optional and it usually isn't used.
Just to clarify. My comments are only for round one of a tournament. Does this change your answer at all?

Kevin Bonham
05-04-2007, 01:09 AM
Just to clarify. My comments are only for round one of a tournament. Does this change your answer at all?

No. Round one is when it matters the most because a midfielder will get a free point and then, fresh from not having to play a game, play someone about a quarter of the way down who has played a game.

Garvinator
05-04-2007, 01:23 AM
No. Round one is when it matters the most because a midfielder will get a free point and then, fresh from not having to play a game, play someone about a quarter of the way down who has played a game.
The 'fresh' angle applies for a weekender style tournament, but doesn't apply for one round a week and the like tournaments.

Still considering how to respond to the rest.

Kevin Bonham
05-04-2007, 01:25 AM
The 'fresh' angle applies for a weekender style tournament, but doesn't apply for one round a week and the like tournaments.

Agreed.

Aaron Guthrie
05-04-2007, 01:37 AM
Is it a trade-off? For not giving the free point to the midfielder in round 1 you just gave someone an easy round in round 2 who will then be in fresher in round 3. Or am I missing some aspect of how the pairings work?

Garvinator
05-04-2007, 01:43 AM
Is it a trade-off? For not giving the free point to the midfielder in round 1 you just gave someone an easy round in round 2 who will then be in fresher in round 3. Or am I missing some aspect of how the pairings work?
This is exactly right. Furthermore, the lowest rated player, who didnt get to play in round one, most likely gets a massive mismatch in round two.

Kevin Bonham
06-04-2007, 01:04 AM
Is it a trade-off? For not giving the free point to the midfielder in round 1 you just gave someone an easy round in round 2 who will then be in fresher in round 3. Or am I missing some aspect of how the pairings work?

That's correct and the system I mentioned (pair as if the person getting the bye had lost that round until the midpoint of the tournament) avoids it, and gives the lowest rated player a not so silly match in rounds 2 and 3.

Garvinator
06-04-2007, 02:24 AM
The mismatch problem is avoided by the TCA bye-mismatch-avoidance system that I mentioned before (pair bye recipients as if they had lost that round until the middle of the tournament) though this is such a pain to implement using SP that we made it optional and it usually isn't used.I dont recall seeing this idea before. Can you give further information or a link to it please?

Kevin Bonham
06-04-2007, 04:23 AM
I dont recall seeing this idea before. Can you give further information or a link to it please?

Unsure where I previously mentioned it before this thread. Say you have a six round tournament with an odd number of players, say 17, and all games are won by the higher rated player:

Round 1: Player 17 gets the bye and moves to 1 point.

Round 2: Player 17 is paired as if on zero. So players 1-4 play 5-8, 9-12 play 13-15 and 17, and 16 gets the next bye. Player 17 is only playing player 12 who would have played 16 anyway if 17 wasn't in the field so no great extra mismatch.

Round 3: Players 17 and 16 are both on one but are still paired as if on zero. So players 1-2 (2 points) play 3-4, 5-8 (1 point) play 9-12, 13-14 (zero) play 16-17 (1 but paired as zero) and 15 gets the bye.

Round 4: Half-way point has been reached so now players on one are paired as if on one. Standings going into this round are:

3 points: 1, 2
2 points: 3-8
1 point: everyone else
14 gets the bye.

draw 1-2, 3-5 vs 6-8, 9-12 vs 13 and 15-17

(etc)

No major mismatches and no impact on leaders. Some minor ripples further down of course. In SP it can be implemented by initially giving byes as 0:0 then back-editing them to 1:0 once the midpoint is reached - but you have to tell the players what their real score is!

Garvinator
06-04-2007, 01:30 PM
I can see a danger there of players accusing the arbiter of fiddling with the draw. Of course it really isnt so, but sometimes the truth doesnt matter ;).

CameronD
07-04-2007, 03:00 AM
I think the current meathod should be kept for its flexibility due to withdrawals though I think the regrouping after 10 minnutes has some merit and interest. I dont agree with the "substitute" player waiting each round as no one should have to hang a round to cover the tournament for x days. Byes should not be approved at all where it creates another bye. The problem with requested byes is that someone may be forced to have a bye because of it. Commit to the entire tournament or dont play at all.

The fairest way in an odd round tournament would be for all players to receive a bye as follows in a 53 player 7 round tournament for example. Byes are worth 1 point.

Round 1 - Top 9 seeds receive bye
Round 2 - Next 9 seeds receive bye
Round 3 - Next 7 seeds receive bye
Round 4 - Next 7 seeds receive bye
Round 5 - Next 7 seeds receive bye
Round 6 - Next 7 seeds receive bye
Round 7 - Last 7 seeds recive bye

The advantage is that all players recive byes and they know which rounds they will occur in advance.

Oepty
07-04-2007, 05:11 PM
Unsure where I previously mentioned it before this thread. Say you have a six round tournament with an odd number of players, say 17, and all games are won by the higher rated player:

Round 1: Player 17 gets the bye and moves to 1 point.

Round 2: Player 17 is paired as if on zero. So players 1-4 play 5-8, 9-12 play 13-15 and 17, and 16 gets the next bye. Player 17 is only playing player 12 who would have played 16 anyway if 17 wasn't in the field so no great extra mismatch.

Round 3: Players 17 and 16 are both on one but are still paired as if on zero. So players 1-2 (2 points) play 3-4, 5-8 (1 point) play 9-12, 13-14 (zero) play 16-17 (1 but paired as zero) and 15 gets the bye.

Round 4: Half-way point has been reached so now players on one are paired as if on one. Standings going into this round are:

3 points: 1, 2
2 points: 3-8
1 point: everyone else
14 gets the bye.

draw 1-2, 3-5 vs 6-8, 9-12 vs 13 and 15-17

(etc)

No major mismatches and no impact on leaders. Some minor ripples further down of course. In SP it can be implemented by initially giving byes as 0:0 then back-editing them to 1:0 once the midpoint is reached - but you have to tell the players what their real score is!

Kevin, I like this idea. If there is a strong unrated player and they are not given a estimated rating then they might get a easier start than they really deserve.
Scott

Desmond
07-04-2007, 08:58 PM
Round 1 - Top 9 seeds receive bye
Round 2 - Next 9 seeds receive bye
Round 3 - Next 7 seeds receive bye
Round 4 - Next 7 seeds receive bye
Round 5 - Next 7 seeds receive bye
Round 6 - Next 7 seeds receive bye
Round 7 - Last 7 seeds recive byeOr, alternatively, we could let people play chess.

CameronD
07-04-2007, 10:13 PM
I did not recommend or say that was the best meathod as per the start of my message. I just said it was the fairest meathod. Best and fairest are two entirely different things.

Desmond
08-04-2007, 08:45 AM
I did not recommend or say that was the best meathod as per the start of my message. I just said it was the fairest meathod. Best and fairest are two entirely different things.I would say that it is significantly unfair to each and every participant who has gone to the trouble of paying and attending the event. They have been promised x number of rounds.

Kevin Bonham
08-04-2007, 11:24 PM
Kevin, I like this idea. If there is a strong unrated player and they are not given a estimated rating then they might get a easier start than they really deserve.

This is true and in the system I mention (which I should say is not mine - it was mentioned by Peter Wagg at a TCA meeting many years ago after I enquired about a way of avoiding the problem) an option would be to only give early byes to the lowest rated player.

Probably if there are unrated adults of unknown strength it is best to seed them at at least 1000, so that there will be many low-rated juniors below them while they find their level.

Garvinator
09-04-2007, 05:33 AM
an option would be to only give early byes to the lowest rated player.
Giving the bye to the lowest rated player is something that I really do endorse for two reasons:

1) Allowing all unrated players to be in the first round helps get them their first rating.
2) I dont think it encourages participation to have an unrated player turn up for their first rated tournament(s) and not be able to play in the first round due to odd numbers.

Oepty
09-04-2007, 02:36 PM
This is true and in the system I mention (which I should say is not mine - it was mentioned by Peter Wagg at a TCA meeting many years ago after I enquired about a way of avoiding the problem) an option would be to only give early byes to the lowest rated player.

Probably if there are unrated adults of unknown strength it is best to seed them at at least 1000, so that there will be many low-rated juniors below them while they find their level.

Kevin, I think you, and Garvin, are right, giving the bye to the lowest rated player is the fairest way to go. Also unrated players do win tournaments occasionally so they really shouldn't be given a free point just in case they are very strong.
Scott

joergw
21-09-2008, 10:26 AM
Hi,

I just wonder what are the rules for getting a bye when there is an uneven number of players.

In recent tournaments (e.g. Geelong Open) I got bye's, because "I don't (didn't) have a rating yet". That's O.K. for me - a simple and undersstandable rule.

At this weekends MMC Memorial now my son (ACF rating appr. 1100) got a bye. But there have been other players with no rating which in my opinion should have got the bye. But those got a preliminary rating of 1300 from the arbiter. One of those started playing chess 3 month ago - 1300 seems a bit high in that case.

Anyway: according to the rules, who should get a bye in such a situation?

Rincewind
21-09-2008, 10:42 AM
My understanding of the standard FIDE pairing rule is that the lowest ranked player gets the bye. If the arbiter gives a provisional rating to players he is doing that so that they are ranked in a way that the DOP believes to be a more reasonable.

Some DsOP prefer to give all unrated players provisional ratings which are below the lowest rated player but establish some perceived sensible ordering among the unrated pool. Others give estimates which are comparable and possibly greater than some of the rated players in the tournament. It sounds like you have encountered two different DsOP, one from each school of thought.

IMHO, 1300 isn't necessarily unreasonable for someone who has been playing competition chess for 3 months. Some home players can be this strong in their first tournament.

Bill Gletsos
21-09-2008, 12:43 PM
While dealing with only round one, it would be fair to say that as a policy is mentioned, it can be applied to all rounds. Otherwise there would be a different policy in place for different rounds.

So the bye goes to the lowest ranked player.This is incorrect.
It is only absolutely correct for the first round.

That is what the rules say.No they dont. It is only said for the first round.

The relevant pairing rule is

A.5 Byes
Should the total number of players be (or become) odd, one player ends up unpaired. This player receives a bye: no opponent, no colour, 1 point. A bye is considered to be a downfloat.
If one follows the FIDE Dutch pairing rules the pairings are done from the top down.
As such it is quite possible that in following the pairing rules it is necessary to move players around within a given score group and this can lead to the bye going to a player who is not the lowest ranked player. This is especially true in the latter rounds of an event.


Now some arbiters will give the bye to the lowest rated player in the lowest score group.Let us hope no FA or IA is just doing that but are instead following the pairing rules.

I believe swiss perfect automatically gives the bye to the lowest rated player, as opposed to the lowest ranked.I believe you are Incorrect.

Garvinator
21-09-2008, 01:01 PM
I believe you are Incorrect.You are correct. Should have checked first ;)

Rincewind
21-09-2008, 03:10 PM
It is only absolutely correct for the first round.

You're right, Bill. I was assuming the first round too. After that it is more complicated.

The primary issue in this case seems to be that the Geelong Open arbiter ranked the unrated players below all rated players and the MCC arbiter ranked unrated players based on a provisional rating which might be greater than some ACF rated players.

Would you agree that it is generally true that the lower your overall ranking the greater your chance of getting a bye where ranking is based on


score
rating
title
alphabetical?

Bill Gletsos
21-09-2008, 03:53 PM
You're right, Bill. I was assuming the first round too. After that it is more complicated.

The primary issue in this case seems to be that the Geelong Open arbiter ranked the unrated players below all rated players and the MCC arbiter ranked unrated players based on a provisional rating which might be greater than some ACF rated players.That appears to be the case.


Would you agree that it is generally true that the lower your overall ranking the greater your chance of getting a bye where ranking is based on


score
rating
title
alphabetical?
I agree.

Garvinator
21-09-2008, 04:50 PM
I have deleted my first answer, it was completely wrong and shows what happens when you try and reply quickly and just look at a couple of pairing rules, instead of thinking it through.

joergw
22-09-2008, 09:36 AM
I am not sure if I got it.
As I understand your posts, there is no FIDE rule for that situation and it is the arbiters choice if:
- he gives a rather high provisional rating
- pairs based on that
- gives a bye to the lowest RANKED player based on that?

Honestly I believe 1300 for a player who started learning chess 3 month ago and plays his first tournament is far too high anyway. When looking at the ACF percentile placings, he left already 43% percent of all players behind him without playing one tournament match ever???

Ian Rout
22-09-2008, 01:34 PM
I am not sure if I got it.
As I understand your posts, there is no FIDE rule for that situation and it is the arbiters choice if:
- he gives a rather high provisional rating
- pairs based on that
- gives a bye to the lowest RANKED player based on that?
In fact the Swiss pairing rules state that "If no reliable rating is known for a player the arbiters should make an estimation of it as accurately as possible" (my bolding) rather than just leave it blank (as some do), which is de facto giving a rating of zero.


Honestly I believe 1300 for a player who started learning chess 3 month ago and plays his first tournament is far too high anyway.Unlikely but not impossible. The test would be to see what the player's performance rating for the event was, and what they first come on to the rating list with, when they do. If those numbers are around 1300 the arbiter evidently knew what he was doing, if way below then you are entitled to wonder where the estimate came from.

Desmond
22-09-2008, 01:54 PM
In my opinion, it would be better if unrated people don't get the bye, so they play more games and get a rating sooner. Also, it is good to encourage new people, and leaving them to twiddle their thumbs for two and a half hours is not very encouraging.

joergw
22-09-2008, 02:45 PM
The test would be to see what the player's performance rating for the event was, and what they first come on to the rating list with, when they do. If those numbers are around 1300 the arbiter evidently knew what he was doing, if way below then you are entitled to wonder where the estimate came from.

Thanks for the answer!
Actually the only point won of the unrated players was won when the two played against each other ;-) So one ended the tournament 1/5 and the other 0/5

Kevin Bonham
22-09-2008, 03:03 PM
I am not sure if I got it.
As I understand your posts, there is no FIDE rule for that situation and it is the arbiters choice if:
- he gives a rather high provisional rating
- pairs based on that
- gives a bye to the lowest RANKED player based on that?

As Ian noted the arbiters should give an estimate rating.


Honestly I believe 1300 for a player who started learning chess 3 month ago and plays his first tournament is far too high anyway. When looking at the ACF percentile placings, he left already 43% percent of all players behind him without playing one tournament match ever???

I would use 1300 for a newish player if they had performed at that strength in some other tournament or if I had played them in casual games and thought they were about that good. Otherwise it seems a bit high. If I know next to nothing about a player except that they have very little previous experience I will usually use about 1000 for an adult, 900 for a highschool junior, 300 for a primary school junior.

As an arbiter I will try to ask unknown players about their previous experience to get a vague idea of their strength. For instance if a middle-aged adult has previous club experience then you could put them in at 1200 or higher even if they never had a rating and it was a long time ago. Quite often a player has a rating in another system or an online rating that can be used as a guide. Of course since most online ratings are for fast time controls and are inflated, one can always deduct 300 points. If the player says they only have a rating from Chessmaster one could divide it by 2 and add 300. :lol:

joergw
22-09-2008, 03:08 PM
In my opinion, it would be better if unrated people don't get the bye, so they play more games and get a rating sooner. Also, it is good to encourage new people, and leaving them to twiddle their thumbs for two and a half hours is not very encouraging.

Point taken, but on the other hand it is not to pleasant for a 8 year old either to twiddle his thumbs for two and a half hours - especially as the round would have started at 7PM.
An adult instead could have left the club to head home or visit a bar.

Denis_Jessop
22-09-2008, 04:28 PM
I am not sure if I got it.
As I understand your posts, there is no FIDE rule for that situation and it is the arbiters choice if:
- he gives a rather high provisional rating
- pairs based on that
- gives a bye to the lowest RANKED player based on that?

Honestly I believe 1300 for a player who started learning chess 3 month ago and plays his first tournament is far too high anyway. When looking at the ACF percentile placings, he left already 43% percent of all players behind him without playing one tournament match ever???

That is not quite right. The FIDE Swiss Rules Dutch System (the ones usually used) contain the following relevant provisions:


A.1 Rating

It is advisable to check all ratings supplied by players. If no reliable rating is known for a player the arbiters should make an estimation of it as accurately as possible before the start of the tournament.
(to convert German Ingo or British BCF use rating = 2840 - 8 x INGO = 600 + 8 x BCF)
A.2 Order

For pairing purposes only, the players are ranked in order of, respectively

1. score
2. rating
3. FIDE-title (IGM-WGM-IM-WIM-FM-WFM-no title)
4. alphabetically (unless it has been previously stated that this criterion has been replaced by another one)

The order made before the first round (when all scores are obviously zero) is used to determine the pairing numbers: the highest one gets #1 etc.

A.5 Byes

Should the total number of players be (or become) odd, one player ends up unpaired. This player receives a bye: no opponent, no colour, 1 point. A bye is considered to be a downfloat.

F.4

Because all players are in one homogeneous score bracket before the start of round one and are ordered according to A2 the highest player of S1 will play against the highest player of S2 and if the number of players is odd the lowest ranked player will receive a bye.

Thus, as Ian points out, A1 says that the arbiters "should" make an estimation of a rating. That, strictly speaking, gives the arbiters a discretion whether to do so. Were they to be obliged to do so, the word "shall" or "must" would have been the appropriate choice. Having said that, I think, in this case, that the power is meant to be discretionary as it may not be possible for the arbiters, through lack of reliable information, to make an intelligent estimate. This is especially likely in a club tournament where new and inexperienced players with no previous rating anywhere are involved . For example to give a player an estimated rating of, say 1300, when his true performance rating would be, say, 650 or 1750 is no better than not rating him at all.

Thus the rules give the arbiters a choice, but not an obligation, to estimate a player's rating before round 1 if that player has no relevant or reliable rating.

The player's "ranking" (which is not the same as "rating") is found with reference to A2 from which it will be seen that the unrated player will be ranked bottom, and in alphabetical order if there are two or more, only in the first round or where two or more unrated players have equal scores in later rounds. F4, read with A2, makes this clear for the first round.

DJ

WhiteElephant
22-09-2008, 10:54 PM
Has this rule changed in the last 10 years or so? When I used to play as a junior there used to be many tournaments with unrated players (no provisional ratings) as well as prizes for highest scoring unrated player. You don't see much of that these days.

Bereaved
22-09-2008, 11:29 PM
Thanks for the answer!
Actually the only point won of the unrated players was won when the two played against each other ;-) So one ended the tournament 1/5 and the other 0/5

Hi Joerg,

The player you are referring to who finished on 1/5 is a student of mine. I have played several casual games against him in the course of lessons, and have had to swindle him at least once. The fact that I have is an indication of my abilities, but the fact that it is necessary is suggestive to me that 1300 is not an unreasonable provisional rating. He has shown a quick grasp of the things shown in lessons, and has willingly undertaken independent study.

In regard to the following statement you also made


An adult instead could have left the club to head home or visit a bar.

The player spoken of is a high school student, and probably would not be going to the bar, and was travelling on public transport each way with two of the other competitors so would have been unlikely to have left anyway.

It was also his first tournament outside of Frankston chess club. I would not expect he would have been delighted to have got a bye either.

He beat only one player, to finish on 1/5; what of it? many players do poorly when they first play in an unusual environment, and it may not reflect accurately their ability.
Five games is not exactly a huge sample to judge on.


I am in no way shape or form denying you the right to be upset by the circumstances as they arose. It was an unfortunate sequence of events.

It is also perhaps of relevance that the person we are speaking of is a new member on this site. I do not think I would be thrilled to read every component of these discussions if it were about me; just a thought for all involved in discussing this matter, whether they have any chance of knowing what happened or not.

Anyway, that is my bit for the discussion and will leave it at that.


Take care and God Bless, Macavity

joergw
23-09-2008, 08:24 AM
Macavity,

sorry - it was not at all my intention to discredit anyone, and especially not the nice chap with the 1300 provisional rating who played a fine game against me as well! I hope he continues playing tournament chess, and I am sure he will make his way in the rating lists!

As you say, I was a bit upset at this high provisional rating lead to a unlucky situation for me/my son - but that's life, and other tournaments will hopefully be different. As another member said - in the end it all turns out!

I was really interested in understanding the rules behind bye's - and I think I got the concept...


At the end it is only a game anyway.
regards,
Joerg

Denis_Jessop
23-09-2008, 12:56 PM
Has this rule changed in the last 10 years or so? When I used to play as a junior there used to be many tournaments with unrated players (no provisional ratings) as well as prizes for highest scoring unrated player. You don't see much of that these days.

No - the rules were the same 10 years ago as they are now. I agree that in practice estimated ratings were (and I think still are) rarely given to unrated players and Ian made the same observation. As I said earlier, it is often very hard, or even impossible, to give a player a sensible estimated rating because of lack of reliable information.

My impression is that FIDE rules are made usually with major events in mind. In that case the Swiss Rules will work - say, for example, a player has no FIDE rating; he will almost certainly have a national rating that is a good guide. But that isn't the case in club events where an unrated player, that is, one without an ACF rating, is most likely to be completely unknown.

This problem is not unique to chess. I have been involved in veteran cycle racing for many years and there the races are either handicaps or graded scratch races. That means the officials must give an estimated "rating" to an unknown rider and more often than not it turns out to be way off the mark.

DJ

Phil Bourke
23-09-2008, 06:00 PM
The solution is to have DOP's who can also play, that way there will rarely be a bye. :) If the field is even, the DOP stays out, if otherwise, throw the DOP in!

Even then, there can always be a situation where there will be a need for a bye.
For example, the recent Blayney Open had a situation where three players had requested a bye in the 1st round. With an even number of players, that meant that there would be a bye. I did consider the option of playing the 1st round myself then withdrawing to even the field, but that creates a situation where one player isn't playing a comparable field to his opponents and could really mess up the tiebreaks later on.

As it turned out, the unrated player who got the 1st round bye went on to win the unrated prize, so his free point probably was appreciated.

Denis_Jessop
24-09-2008, 01:19 PM
The solution is to have DOP's who can also play, that way there will rarely be a bye. :) If the field is even, the DOP stays out, if otherwise, throw the DOP in!

Even then, there can always be a situation where there will be a need for a bye.
For example, the recent Blayney Open had a situation where three players had requested a bye in the 1st round. With an even number of players, that meant that there would be a bye. I did consider the option of playing the 1st round myself then withdrawing to even the field, but that creates a situation where one player isn't playing a comparable field to his opponents and could really mess up the tiebreaks later on.

As it turned out, the unrated player who got the 1st round bye went on to win the unrated prize, so his free point probably was appreciated.

Stewart Reuben has been known to fill in for a round or two to avoid a bye in the British Championship if I remember rightly. Also it is quite common for the arbiter to play in a club tournament he is directing. Ideally this is not a good idea as the rules - both the general Laws and the Swiss Rules - make this difficult and it is not good for the arbiter's concentration on his game either, not to mention what happens if the arbiter's game suffers a dispute. But the alternative is to find an arbiter who is willing to sit out the tournament which is also not easy in a club.

DJ

Brian_Jones
24-09-2008, 03:04 PM
Manuel Weeks played one round in the recent EU Championship in Liverpool!

Spiny Norman
24-09-2008, 03:16 PM
Re: first ratings:
1454 Chong, Reginald 3133941

This chap at Croydon recently got 1454 as his first published rating. Based on what I'd seen of his first few performances, I had estimated his strength at somewhere around 1500-1600, maybe even higher, but then a few poor results brought it back down to the 1400's. Not a junior though, so maybe the example doesn't count?

Denis_Jessop
24-09-2008, 05:17 PM
Re: first ratings:
1454 Chong, Reginald 3133941

This chap at Croydon recently got 1454 as his first published rating. Based on what I'd seen of his first few performances, I had estimated his strength at somewhere around 1500-1600, maybe even higher, but then a few poor results brought it back down to the 1400's. Not a junior though, so maybe the example doesn't count?

The fact that he isn't a junior shouldn't make any difference. You had the advantage of having seen some of his games as the basis for an estimate so that is OK. If you gave him an estimated rating of 1500 or even 1550 and he came out at 1454 that's a pretty good estimate in my view. The examples that concern me are those where there is no reliable information to go on.

DJ

Dougy
28-09-2008, 03:16 PM
Re: first ratings:
1454 Chong, Reginald 3133941

This chap at Croydon recently got 1454 as his first published rating. Based on what I'd seen of his first few performances, I had estimated his strength at somewhere around 1500-1600, maybe even higher, but then a few poor results brought it back down to the 1400's. Not a junior though, so maybe the example doesn't count?

Reg is a dark horse (: For example, he crushed me once (some of those final moves were in time trouble though):

[Event "The Capablanca"]
[Site "Croydon Chess Club"]
[Date "2008.04.24"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Chong, Reginald"]
[Black "Stones, Douglas"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D50"]
[BlackElo "1790"]
[PlyCount "99"]
[EventDate "2008.??.??"]

1. c4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 e6 5. e4 dxe4 6. Nxe4 Bb4+ 7. Nc3 O-O 8.
Nf3 c5 9. a3 Bxc3+ 10. bxc3 cxd4 11. cxd4 Qa5+ 12. Bd2 Qc7 13. Bd3 b6 14. O-O
h6 15. Re1 Rd8 16. Qc1 Bb7 17. Bf4 Qe7 18. d5 Qc5 19. Bxh6 gxh6 20. Qxh6 Nbd7
21. Ne5 Qf8 22. Qh4 Qg7 23. Re3 Nxe5 24. Rxe5 Ne4 25. Qf4 exd5 26. Bxe4 Kf8 27.
cxd5 Bxd5 28. Re1 Bxe4 29. Qxe4 Qf6 30. g3 Rac8 31. h4 Rd2 32. Qb4+ Qd6 33. Qf4
Rcc2 34. Re8+ Kg7 35. Qxd6 Rxd6 36. R1e3 Rf6 37. Re2 Rc3 38. R8e3 Rc4 39. Kg2
Rd6 40. Kh3 Rd1 41. f4 b5 42. Kg4 b4 43. axb4 Rxb4 44. Ra2 Kg6 45. Ra6+ Rb6 46.
Rxa7 f5+ 47. Kf3 Rf1+ 48. Kg2 Rc1 49. Rae7 Rbb1 50. R3e6+ 1-0

Alexrules01
04-10-2008, 01:28 AM
Ok, I know thi spost is over 4 years old :D

But I just want to add my thing in

I am only a junior still, and when I played in my first adult tournament, I scored 1/7- and that was from the bye

Now I've been hearing a lot of crap on this thread. One guy saying he wanted a bye in the last round, but wasn't given it, and it was a 3 day weekender

WHY THE HELL DO YOU NEED A BYE???

If your not going to play the full 3 days, then dont enter, or just accept the rest of your games will be forfeited

I think if someone walks in late, they should start on 0/1 regardless who they are, unless there is a complete legitimate excuse then maybe either 1/2 or 1

I really don't want to go through and read all 17 pages, but I really don't know why you would complain about having a bye, sure you have to wait, but it's a free point

I could go on and on about how this whole thread, to me is pointless

If theres an odd number of people, someone has to miss out each round
The higher seeded people shouldn't be given a bye (unless performing really badly) because that could impact on the overall winner

So if any of the whiners about a bye are reading this, harden up, your suppose to be adults but it seems i'm more mature than you
(this is not directed to anyone that had valid points, because i agreed with many things aswell)

CameronD
04-10-2008, 03:18 PM
I actually agree with alex, all agreed requested byes should be for 0 points. Though I believe that entrants should be allowed to withdraw or request a bye at any stage before a rounds draw is released.

The main reason that byes are worth 1/2 in Australia are that organisers are struggling for entrants here and most people wont enter if they must miss a round and not get 1/2, so a poor chess environment creates concessions.


1/2 point byes can be used as a tactic in a crammed in schedule, lets look at the qld minor as an example. http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=8685&highlight=minor


Round 1: Saturday November 8th 10am Round 2: Saturday November 8th 12.30pm
Round 3: Saturday November 8th 3pm Round 4: Saturday November 8th 5.30pm
Round 5: Sunday November 9th 10am Round 6: Sunday November 9th 12.30pm
Round 7: Sunday November 9th 3pm

Some people will take a bye in round 4 as a break, so instead of playing 4 non stop games without a break to the point of mental exhaustion and finishing at 8pm, getting home at 9:30, they finish at 5:30 and get home by 7 and be in better mental condition for the next day. People in the bottom halk could get a bye in the first round, getting a free 1/2 instead of a missmatch and be better rested than their opponents for the remaining rounds of the day.






Ok, I know thi spost is over 4 years old :D

But I just want to add my thing in

I am only a junior still, and when I played in my first adult tournament, I scored 1/7- and that was from the bye

Now I've been hearing a lot of crap on this thread. One guy saying he wanted a bye in the last round, but wasn't given it, and it was a 3 day weekender

WHY THE HELL DO YOU NEED A BYE???

If your not going to play the full 3 days, then dont enter, or just accept the rest of your games will be forfeited

I think if someone walks in late, they should start on 0/1 regardless who they are, unless there is a complete legitimate excuse then maybe either 1/2 or 1

I really don't want to go through and read all 17 pages, but I really don't know why you would complain about having a bye, sure you have to wait, but it's a free point

I could go on and on about how this whole thread, to me is pointless

If theres an odd number of people, someone has to miss out each round
The higher seeded people shouldn't be given a bye (unless performing really badly) because that could impact on the overall winner

So if any of the whiners about a bye are reading this, harden up, your suppose to be adults but it seems i'm more mature than you
(this is not directed to anyone that had valid points, because i agreed with many things aswell)

Basil
04-10-2008, 06:42 PM
Alex, when you're old enough, and if you want to, and if I'm still in business, call me.

Alexrules01
04-10-2008, 07:53 PM
What business is that? :D

Dougy
04-10-2008, 10:40 PM
I really don't want to go through and read all 17 pages, but I really don't know why you would complain about having a bye, sure you have to wait, but it's a free point

Because it's a waste of time and money?


I actually agree with alex, all agreed requested byes should be for 0 points. Though I believe that entrants should be allowed to withdraw or request a bye at any stage before a rounds draw is released.

Did Alex say that? If the entrant would get a 0-point bye anyway, why should the entrant request a bye? They could just not turn up instead.

CameronD
04-10-2008, 10:51 PM
Did Alex say that? If the entrant would get a 0-point bye anyway, why should the entrant request a bye? They could just not turn up instead.

You'd have to check with garvin, but I believe that the CAQ has a suspension policy for repeated no shows.

Garvinator
05-10-2008, 12:00 AM
Did Alex say that? If the entrant would get a 0-point bye anyway, why should the entrant request a bye? They could just not turn up instead.


You'd have to check with garvin, but I believe that the CAQ has a suspension policy for repeated no shows.
From the CAQ code of conduct:


d) 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

Miranda
06-10-2008, 10:46 PM
I don't see why there's so much debate over the bye.
There's basically no way you can avoid it - odd number of players, the lowest player gets a free point.

At my first Aus Juniors I had the bye for the first round, but 10 mins before the round started I was informed I was playing, because someone else's car had broken down or something. That was annoying, but things like that just can't be avoided. Sure, you have to hang around waiting for people, but I prefer to think of it as a break.

Anyway, nothing's going to change unless someone comes up with a radical, ingenious sugestion, and none of the ones I've read seem to work too well.