If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
Okay, thanks Egis, that explains it. The TD clearly had no choice. The rules are the rules. His hands were tied. If he had awarded Olivier the $300 he would have had the others all over his ass.
I still think this rule is stupid.
I hope there is such an outcry that no organizer/TD ever imposes this rule again.
Hi Bob G:
I think Bryan Lamb has the "withdrawal = no prize" rule in his tournaments. But I don't think there is any public advertisement of this before the tournament, nor any pre-Rd. 1 announcement about it.
We need to find out before the Hart House Holidays Open in late Dec., which has Bryan as the arbiter.
Of course he should get the money. That is just sour grapes, trying to punish someone who is not playing all the games when others are. The reality is that the player didn't need 5 rounds to outscore the others. He only needed 4.
What about the player #5? Did he deserve the prize too?
IMHO, the player must play all games (except the forced bye) to be eligible for prizes.
Here are all the rules in question (applicable to all tournaments in Quebec):
1) A player who withdraws cannot win money (except in a force majeure situation).
2) A player can ask for zero point byes before the start of the tournament and will therefore be eligible for prizes.
These rules are applied in every tournament in the province, so pretty much everybody knows about them. It's pretty frequent to receive zero point bye requests before the tournament. However, Olivier only told the arbiter during round 3, and the arbiter asked him if he was sure, as he would not be eligible for the prizes. Olivier's reason was not made public.
It's unfortunate that such cases happen, but the rules do exist for a reason. Otherwise, what would prevent players who are leading their section (say GM Sambuev, as it's often the case) to ask for a last-round bye, knowing they would still win the section (and thus not risking any rating points but still getting the money)? As Tom pointed out, there are even some cases where it can favor the leader. In the case of this tournament, if Olivier had played, the pairings would have been different and one player might have even tied first with him. Giving him the full first prize would have been unfair (unless he has a really important reason for not playing).
In my opinion, granting a 1/2-point or even a 0-point bye to any player in any round subverts the Swiss system at it foundation. Except for the bye that a TD must issue to the lowest-rated, lowest-scoring odd player, all voluntary byes should be abolished. A chess tournament is a competition among a group of players with the goal of identifying a winner. Voluntary byes disrupt that process. Surely we are not so desperate for entries that our tournaments must now pander to the "busy person." If you're going to play in a chess tournament, play in a chess tournament. If you've got other things to do, do those things. But please don't mix them up.
Here are all the rules in question (applicable to all tournaments in Quebec):
1) A player who withdraws cannot win money (except in a force majeure situation).
2) A player can ask for zero point byes before the start of the tournament and will therefore be eligible for prizes.
These rules are applied in every tournament in the province, so pretty much everybody knows about them. It's pretty frequent to receive zero point bye requests before the tournament. However, Olivier only told the arbiter during round 3, and the arbiter asked him if he was sure, as he would not be eligible for the prizes. Olivier's reason was not made public.
It's unfortunate that such cases happen, but the rules do exist for a reason. Otherwise, what would prevent players who are leading their section (say GM Sambuev, as it's often the case) to ask for a last-round bye, knowing they would still win the section (and thus not risking any rating points but still getting the money)? As Tom pointed out, there are even some cases where it can favor the leader. In the case of this tournament, if Olivier had played, the pairings would have been different and one player might have even tied first with him. Giving him the full first prize would have been unfair (unless he has a really important reason for not playing).
I understand the rules but in this case was different. He already played #2, #3 and #4 winning all 3 games. I'm pretty sure he had a very good reason for leaving before the last round.
Rules are made to be broken ...
In my opinion, granting a 1/2-point or even a 0-point bye to any player in any round subverts the Swiss system at it foundation. Except for the bye that a TD must issue to the lowest-rated, lowest-scoring odd player, all voluntary byes should be abolished. A chess tournament is a competition among a group of players with the goal of identifying a winner. Voluntary byes disrupt that process. Surely we are not so desperate for entries that our tournaments must now pander to the "busy person." If you're going to play in a chess tournament, play in a chess tournament. If you've got other things to do, do those things. But please don't mix them up.
Fundamental to your point is the belief that the point to a chess tournament, it's raison d'etre, is to determine a winner - that's why it is organized and why people come to the event.
That might be true for something like the Canadian Closed, BC Closed, or something similar. But, it is not the point of the Thanksgiving Open, Rememberance Day Open , or other weekend tournament du jour. The primary purpose of most tournaments is to provide the opportunity for like minded people to pursue their hobby. That there is a winner, is secondary.
It is very clear to me as an organizer that what I am doing in making weekend events happen is selling an entertainment package, not organizing to find a champion. I wouldn't characterize myself as being 'desparate' in catering to busy people, but yes, I want their business. And if I were organizing events to find the strongest player, 90% of the players in my events would not be allowed to play because they are too weak. That there are U1600, U2000 etc. sections makes it clear that the point is not primarily about finding a champion.
Surely we are not so desperate for entries that our tournaments must now pander to the "busy person."
Yes! We are desperate for entries. What planet have you been living on!
All kidding aside, without half point byes, attendance would suffer. Lots of players are unable to commit an entire weekend to the tournament. They clearly don't take chess as seriously as you, and I am okay with that. Without these players there would be less prize money for those more serious players like yourself. So why do you insist on biting the hand that feeds you?
Failing to give him the prize just encourages next time for him to show up for the last round, and resign on move 1. It's a give the prize, no brainer decision.
Fundamental to your point is the belief that the point to a chess tournament, it's raison d'etre, is to determine a winner - that's why it is organized and why people come to the event.
That might be true for something like the Canadian Closed, BC Closed, or something similar. But, it is not the point of the Thanksgiving Open, Rememberance Day Open , or other weekend tournament du jour. The primary purpose of most tournaments is to provide the opportunity for like minded people to pursue their hobby. That there is a winner, is secondary.
A chess tournament is by nature a competition, and as such it attracts people who enjoy competing. If the primary purpose of a chess event is not the competitive aspect, then why follow the Swiss system at all? Why not have a big free-for-all instead: say, a pickup event in which players are paired as they come in?
It is very clear to me as an organizer that what I am doing in making weekend events happen is selling an entertainment package, not organizing to find a champion. I wouldn't characterize myself as being 'desparate' in catering to busy people, but yes, I want their business. And if I were organizing events to find the strongest player, 90% of the players in my events would not be allowed to play because they are too weak. That there are U1600, U2000 etc. sections makes it clear that the point is not primarily about finding a champion.
The purpose is not to find the strongest player, or the champion. The purpose is to determine a winner... of that specific event. As for the sectional events, isn't their purpose to find winners of those sections? If, as you suggest, class players are all wrapped up in the love of playing and have no interest in winning, etc., then why is it necessary to offer class prizes at all? It's because attendance suffers at tournaments that do not offer class prizes.
I'm sure there is a lot of evidence suggesting that allowing voluntary byes increases attendance at chess tournaments. But I still don't like it -- my prerogative.
Failing to give him the prize just encourages next time for him to show up for the last round, and resign on move 1. It's a give the prize, no brainer decision.
Yes I was wondering this, if he had been able to stay just until the first round start and immediately resign, or simply not be there and allow his flag to fall would either of those cases be considered withdrawing?
I have no issue with a zero-point bye in the last round however I don't see the necessity of making them withdraw which seems like a ridiculous rule. I think the CFC should ban forced withdrawal on last round byes (if asked for in advance of the final round or even before the tournament began).
So if he had just "not shown up" and was given a "forfeit loss", would he have been eligible for the 1st place money?
In which case more fault to him for being polite and saying he couldn't play the last round.
Steve
No. The rule also applies to forfeited last round games.
It is also good to mention that one cannot simply resign after one move He would definitely be disqualified for unsportsmanlike conduct, if not of pre-arranging a game.
It is also good to mention that one cannot simply resign after one move He would definitely be disqualified for unsportsmanlike conduct, if not of pre-arranging a game.
Are either of those specifically written up as rules anywhere? What specific move number does one have to wait for to resign and avoid "unsportsmanlike conduct"? What's the "magic number"?
Could one play into Fool's Mate and avoid "unsportsmanlike conduct"?
Or how about just deliberately just walk the King into the center of the board? Making the moves at blitz speed! LOL
You can't FORCE anyone to play a "full game" of chess. You can try something like paying prize money according to number of games played, but even that only gets you so far.
In pro sports, if a team is out of the playoffs, they still play out their schedule... because their paycheck is per game. But also in pro sports, you can't resign a game or play into the equivalent of a Fool's Mate and lose in 2 minutes. You must play out the entire game. Still, individual players on a team may decide not to dress for such a game, probably by feigning injury or sickness. But even this is rare, because athletes do have their pride. But here we are talking about hobbyist chess players.
Last edited by Paul Bonham; Friday, 1st November, 2013, 05:21 AM.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: As a TD, what would you do?
Yes, they are written up. Chess in Quebec receives a considerable support from both private sponsors and the government. It is important that both the organizers and the FQE look serious. A good way for that is to have complete rules. Most of the rules are the same as for FIDE, but there are additional rules for local tournaments (that cover cases not covered by FIDE rules or give more liberty to arbiters). As for most sports/leisures with government support, a sportsmanship charter exists for Quebec chess players. It is clearly stated that no game should pre-arranged (in which case one would definitely be disqualified). We can't force someone to play a "full game" of chess. But if the arbiter is convinced that the game was pre-arranged (i.e. a grandmaster that is checkmated in 5 moves), he can definitely disqualify either one or both players.
Tweet
Comment