Invalid Results - Section E - Canadian/Quebec Open

[Charles Aronowitz]

I have serious questions about the validity of the Section E results.

Section E was for players rated under 1400 and unrated.

Let's begin with the first place "winner."

This player was registered as 1317 based upon two games played some time ago that were FQE rated. One of the arbiters told me after my loss to this player that I had been beaten by a strong player. So I googled him and was led to a blitz rating list dated January 3, 2007, showing this player to have had a 2064 rating based upon 290 games. That 1317 is obviously not a valid indication of his playing strength. Why was he allowed to play in an under 1400 section?

Now let's look at the second place "winner."

This gentleman played as unrated. He told me he was on a visit from Scotland and was looking for something to do. Not being content with slaughtering the under 1400 players (except for a loss to the player above), he participated in the Sunday blitz. This allegedly unrated player had a performance rating therein of 2219, including several wins over masters.

Now for third place.

One of the three tied for third was another unrated player who just materialized from the ether. Right!

As far as I'm concerned the true winners of Section E were the other two tied at 7.0 and the three at 6.5.

I challenge the federations to do the right thing.

[Hugh Brodie]

Re: Invalid Results - Section E - Canadian/Quebec Open

Remember - blitz ratings are not the same as "slow" ratings. A good friend of mine played in the U1700 section with a "slow" rating in the 1500's - but he plays blitz at a 2100 level. He did well - maybe not as well as a "real" 2100 rated player would have done. He simply doesn't play regularly in "slow" tournaments.

Like Jean Hébert did in the U2400 section, these players entered the section according to the rules. The 1317 player had 2 FQE-rated games - so he qualified for the U1400. Should a player be penalized because he seldom/never plays? Possibly the unrated player from Scotland had never played in a rated tournament before. Unless you force unrateds to play in a higher section, or limit their prize winnings, there will always be complaints.

[Charles Aronowitz]

Re: Invalid Results - Section E - Canadian/Quebec Open

Hugh, let's get real here. Someone with almost 300 rated blitz games at the expert level is not an under 1400 player. And unrated master-strength players don't just appear out of the blue. Some discretion needs to be used.
An unrated player should never be allowed to compete for cash prizes in low-rated sections. There should be a special dedicated prize for unrateds. That's the way it's done in most big money tournaments.

[Larry Bevand]

Re: Invalid Results - Section E - Canadian/Quebec Open

Hi Charles,

I agree with what you say about unrateds...it should be clear that they can not earn more than x dollars unless they are competing in the Open section. The question which has never been adressed is players with provisional ratings....perhaps they should be put in the same boat.

Larry

[Erik Malmsten]

Should only use established ratings

The 1317 player had only 2 FQE-rated games!! A provisional rating, i.e. less than 20 games, should count as unrated, and unrateds should compete only for the Unrated prize, which should be limited (except for the open prizes in the Open Section). With old ratings, maybe ICC should be checked?

I remember when a player from Russia easily won a class section at the Canadian Open in Hamilton, 1978. As a new immigrant, he needed the money.

As for the Scottish player, is there a rating system in Scotland? A formula for matching British ratings with FIDE?

[Shao Hang He]

Re: Invalid Results - Section E - Canadian/Quebec Open

I agree with Charles. I'm also a section E player, and I find these unrated players are very strong(I play one of them and he is 3rd). In addition, the 1317 rated player is much stronger. He arrived late very often, but he still win. Like Charles mentionned, he has a blitz rating of 2064(expect lv). That is a big difference compare to a rating of 1317.By the way, this player's slow rating is from 2 years ago.

[Jean Hébert]

Re: Invalid Results - Section E - Canadian/Quebec Open

I agree with what you say about unrateds...it should be clear that they can not earn more than x dollars unless they are competing in the Open section. The question which has never been adressed is players with provisional ratings....perhaps they should be put in the same boat.

Larry

I did address those questions when I was editor of Echec+ a decade ago. I said then and still say that provisionnal ratings should simply not be considered. As for unrateds I thought that this was settled but no, the 2008 COC organizers simply forgot... People simply forget or don't pay attention. Discouraging...:(

[Patrick Godin]

Re: Invalid Results - Section E - Canadian/Quebec Open

can we put all the unrated chess players ( and the one with less than X amount of games) in the same section??


My 1st tourney in 1999 (look section E , all unrated)

http://www.fqechecs.qc.ca/index.php?...34&nofqe=72988

[Dan Scoones]

Re: Invalid Results - Section E - Canadian/Quebec Open

A provisional rating is just that -- provisional. It can be used for pairing purposes but it should not be used for winning prizes. Treat provisionals as unrated, I say.

[Jean-Pierre Rhéaume]

Re: Invalid Results - Section E - Canadian/Quebec Open

Mr. Aronowitz :
An unrated player should never be allowed to compete for cash prizes in low-rated sections. There should be a special dedicated prize for unrateds.

Just like everybody (it seems), I agree 100 %.

JPR (Jean-Pierre Rhéaume), arbiter of sections D and E of the tournament under discussion.

[Shao Hang He]

Re: Invalid Results - Section E - Canadian/Quebec Open

can we put all the unrated chess players ( and the one with less than X amount of games) in the same section??


My 1st tourney in 1999 (look section E , all unrated)

http://www.fqechecs.qc.ca/index.php?...34&nofqe=72988

I'm 1000% agree with you:) My first tournament in CMA is also like that.

[Evan Frangakis]

Re: Invalid Results - Section E - Canadian/Quebec Open

Charles is entirely correct.

I too, played against the Scottish player and it was clear to me (having played against many players rated in the high 1300's) that his playing strength was well above the section limit (regardless of whether he had a formal rating). To discourage this type of exploitation of the system, a limit on the prizes available to unrated (or provisionally rated) players should be applied.

I will now add more to the controversy about the final results;

Prior to my game with the Scottish player (round 6), I became quite ill, but played through the round in any event. After the game, I advised the arbiter that if my condition did not improve prior to round 7, I would have to withdraw from the tournament (at this point I had a score of 4/6). I was told that I would get a call the following day with a number to call if I had to withdraw. Indeed, I received the call and was told I would have to call- in prior to 3pm. After waiting until 2:30pm, it became clear my condition was not improving and so I called the number I was given (514-252-3034) to pull out of the tournament. The gentleman (I did not ask for his name) was understanding and took down all the details.

Clearly, I expected the pairings to be revised as this would be the only fair thing for me as well as all the other competitors vying for the top spots. To my dismay, this did not happen and I was scored a <loss> in round 7 while my opponent benefitted from a free point (he ended up with a final score of 6.5). This is not fair to the other players who were competing for prizes.

I believe this should also be taken into consideration when reviewing the validity of the final results in section E.

[Sam Sharpe]

Re: Invalid Results - Section E - Canadian/Quebec Open

Evan, yes strange pairing results are not unheard of... In last year's CO in Ottawa, my 1st round opponent didn't show... I registered the forfeit win and then found out later I had been given a bye retro-actively. Nothing like wasting big $ by taking a day off work to travel and paying an extra night in a hotel.

[Louis Morin]

Re : Re: Invalid Results - Section E - Canadian/Quebec Open

As for unrateds I thought that this was settled but no, the 2008 COC organizers simply forgot... People simply forget or don't pay attention. Discouraging...:(

According to FQE rules, in Quebec Open unrated players cannot win big prizes except in A section. This was different for this Canadian Open, however, because we had to abide by CFC rules.

[Jean Hébert]

Re: Re : Re: Invalid Results - Section E - Canadian/Quebec Open

According to FQE rules, in Quebec Open unrated players cannot win big prizes except in A section. This was different for this Canadian Open, however, because we had to abide by CFC rules.

The FQE has to abide by CFC rules... Very funny Louis.