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.
Right on, Jean! There's a real problem when a player can gain a point or win a prize by not playing.
And the problem is: people who see everything as black or white. Sorry for the chess pun, maybe I should say: people who see everything as right or wrong.
Did Nakurama take his bye a month in advance thinking, "This will win me some money"? Players sometimes need to take last round byes. I would assume Nakurama is a very competitive player and would have loved to be playing that last round.
Now, if you're saying maybe the organizer(s) shouldn't be awarding Nakurama a half-point bye in the last round, that means the organizer risks Nakurama not participating at all in the event. Did you ever do such a thing as an organizer? In other words, did you at all times as an organizer refuse to allow a half-point bye for the last round even if requested well in advance, and never bend the rule for exceptional circumstances, not even for a star player?
Well, even if you did, maybe you were wrong to be so dogmatic. Maybe you didn't stop to think that maybe that player (star or not) would love to be playing the last round, but just couldn't, yet still wanted to play the event and not be discriminated against because of some prejudiced thinking.
I'll admit that someone COULD abuse getting such a bye, trying to win prizes by avoiding a tough last-round match, but that someone would be a coward and would eventually be put in their place in the world of competitive chess. Sometimes you just have to believe in karma. :)
Nakamura is not to blame. He like most players simply take advantage of the unprincipled approach and loose regulations favoured by many organizers and chess politicians whose motto is too often "anything goes if we think it can bring one more entry or one more buck".
Well, first of all, any player who takes advantage of an unprincipled approach IS partially to blame. Let's not pooh-pooh it just because it's a top rated player. If that top rated player stood against the unprincipled approach, maybe that approach would disappear.... unless that top rated player happens to be someone who is known for hypocrisy and self-serving rants... ...in which case, the organizers wisely and correctly ignore said top-rated player.
Secondly, organizers whose motto is as you describe seem to be rare, because if they were everywhere, they'd be doing things like, oh, you know, printing flyers, putting signs on top boards, running demo boards... but on a more serious tone, they'd be doing things like running chess960 events, or other variants, or combining chess with poker, or any thing you can imagine that would BRING MORE ENTRIES and MAKE MORE MONEY. The fact that none of this is happening means the bulk of organizers are NOT concerned with making another buck. They are concerned with running chess tournaments while not simultaneously overdrafting their (or someone else's) bank accounts by either (1) pandering to spoiled chess elitists, or (2) pandering to gamblers.
As much as it would be nice if more organizers WERE more interested in making money (so that chess and poker could be combined blah blah blah), I for one accept the status quo and still praise these dyed-in-the-wool chess organizers for devotion and for remaining true to chess. Bravo to them, and good for chess! Eventually, money-driven organizers will appear to do the things I have mentioned, but I hope that the true chess organizers continue to live long and prosper (where "prosper" means not necessarily to make money, but at least to hold successful and well-attended chess tournaments).
As to the bye issue of the OP: should be allowed if it's all announced beforehand and irrevocable. To think that one would PLAN on winning a tournament with a last-round half-point bye is absurd. If it's not motivated by true need (as in the OP's case), then it's a roll of the dice, and chess players are not noted for rolling dice. A player who thinks s/he has a chance to win going into the last round would rather PLAY THE GAME. Better to do that than to sit at home, chewing your nails, wondering if your half-point will hold up.
But hey, if they do roll the dice and it works: kudos. And to anyone who grumps about losing a tournament section prize to such a scenario: don't ever play poker, maybe you shouldn't even live life, because there's a bad beat around every corner (Google it if you don't get it).
Tell that to H.Nakamura, who just grabbed a first prize with the last round bye (the bye was request in advance (month?) :D (the story was discussed some year ago at chesstalk)
Nakamura is not to blame. He like most players simply take advantage of the unprincipled approach and loose regulations favoured by many organizers and chess politicians whose motto is too often "anything goes if we think it can bring one more entry or one more buck".
And sharing prize money because someone took a half point bye in the last round should be just as unfair as sharing with someone who took thier bye in the first round.
Tell that to H.Nakamura, who just grabbed a first prize with the last round bye (the bye was request in advance (month?) :D (the story was discussed some year ago at chesstalk)
There are a lot of interesting points of view on the issue. And don't get me wrong; it would never be a reason not to play. I would gladly pay the enrty fee in any tournament just to play in one round if that was all that I could do! I'm not really a prize money kind of player. :)
In a couple of tournaments where I had to take a 0 point bye, I finished in the overall standings lower than those who took byes in other rounds. If I only had that half point bye I may have finished in the top half (which is usually a goal of mine, since I often start a tournament in the bottom half). :)
After a little more thinking it seems that a player who starts in the bottom half could benefit more for a first round bye and a player near the top could possibly benefit from a later round half point.
But I still can't imagine anyone taking a half point bye in the final round (if announced before the tournament starts) with any strategic precision. It would depend on the number of players in the tournament, number of rounds, number of other byes and their rounds, what color would the top player have in round one (in order to estimate your number of whites), and other complex factors. And sharing prize money because someone took a half point bye in the last round should be just as unfair as sharing with someone who took thier bye in the first round.
But by no means to I think I'm right on this one. It is just an rule I found to be worthy of intellectual effort. I'm still thinking about it!
In my opinion a last round bye is a withdrawal and as such the player is not even eligible for a prize. Can you win money in any other sport if you do not finish?
Alex is bang on regarding our bye expectations. As an organizer I like features which encourage participation, so at regstration time I am happy to provide byes. Then the appreciation fades. Most people who lose a game while a rival skips the round and still passes him on the cross table are likely to harbour to some resentment.
Over the years I have fielded hundreds of bye requests from people during the tournament for whatever reason. When I suggest a zero point bye, their reason usually takes backseat to their ambitions on the crosstable, and invariably they choose to play instead!
There have been several compromises proposed, such as quarter or third point byes when requested. One way or another I would like to see us weaned off the whole notion of half point byes.
1) someone who has a zero point bye in the last round but still has enough points for a prize should still be entitled to that prize. He has demonstrated the ability necessary and not awarding it merely encourages people to show up and resign after one move.
2) personally speaking I have (and often still do) take zero point byes. I have had a TD refuse to give me a zero point bye for round 3 so I withdrew. I think his decision was pointless and not in any way helpful to building tournament attendance.
3) if not offered the possibility of getting a half point bye if requested in advance, I would be more likely not to play at all (although zero points for the last round is just fine) A zero point bye typically means more games in the rest of the tournament against weak players and uninteresting games - so less interest for me. So, if you don't mind lower tournament attendence and think there is no reason to bother accommodating otherwise possible entries, go ahead.
4) I know some people consider the idea of half point byes as 'damaging the tournament integrity' but fundamentally, this is a flawed view of what we call tournaments. For most players, a weekend Swiss is an entertainment experience not a competitiion designed solely to determine who is number 1. We have a long standing decline in participation in rated CFC games. Reversing this trend is not helped by talking about implementing policies to discourage entries.
Last edited by Roger Patterson; Tuesday, 30th November, 2010, 02:34 PM.
Players are not allowed to take a bye in the last round for obvious reasons : if you have good chances to win a prize, you will most likely be playing against stronger opponents than you already did in the first rounds. It would be unfair if we could beat weaker opponents in the firsts rounds and then take one or two byes and win the tournament...
Actually, it's the way how the tournament was setup. The prizes/trophies should not be shared equally among players who have identical scores but instead broken according to the tiebreak system. The disadvantage of taking a bye would be obviously significant compared to players who played all their games. These factors were all taken into consideration by the pairing software. If the tiebreak system is applied properly, there is no way that a player who took a bye should win a tournament but instead relegated to the bottom of the tournament standings.:)
It would seem opinion has turned decidedly against you!
On the other hand, I am sympathetic to your arguments. I think byes are a wonderful idea. It allows greater participation for those with family and other commitments without unduly harming someones chances of winning something (cash, trophies, or bragging rights). I am delighted they are a part of North American chess, so what if Europe thinks otherwise.
Limits are obviously necessary. Too many byes allow for ridiculous results. Last round byes are particularly frowned upon because someone could decide to take a final round (half point) bye to guarantee a prize without having to play a tough opponent.
But in your case (extraordinary travel conditions) a half point bye requested in advance of the start of the tournament seems worthy of consideration. It would have to be announced to everyone beforehand, and without the option of changing your mind. That sounds fair to me. :)
I doubt you will find many TD's willing, but why not ask. If it is a small friendly tournament, why not! :D
In my opinion a last round bye is a withdrawal and as such the player is not even eligible for a prize. Can you win money in any other sport if you do not finish?
Alex is bang on regarding our bye expectations. As an organizer I like features which encourage participation, so at regstration time I am happy to provide byes. Then the appreciation fades. Most people who lose a game while a rival skips the round and still passes him on the cross table are likely to harbour to some resentment.
Over the years I have fielded hundreds of bye requests from people during the tournament for whatever reason. When I suggest a zero point bye, their reason usually takes backseat to their ambitions on the crosstable, and invariably they choose to play instead!
There have been several compromises proposed, such as quarter or third point byes when requested. One way or another I would like to see us weaned off the whole notion of half point byes.
I don't suppose most people realize how spoiled we are in North America.
These "byes" hardly exist in Europe, people just don't take them. When it happens, it's a zero point bye, regardless of which round.
People here are used to being able to take the morning or evening off one round and still be in it for the money. This is probably due to ridiculously large class prizes (mostly in USA), when in my opinion us untitled players have no business playing for money.
We amateurs in my opinion should play for the love of the game and classes can be a good thing so we play against opponents of similar caliber. It shouldn't matter how many points we have or whether we get zero or half point bye for missing a round.
A half-point bye for not showing up is an incredible privilege which people nowadays consider a right. The idea is laughable in many parts of the world and at far more prestigious tournaments than the ones we see here.
But hey... I'll take a half-point bye :)
Players are not allowed to take a bye in the last round for obvious reasons : if you have good chances to win a prize, you will most likely be playing against stronger opponents than you already did in the first rounds. It would be unfair if we could beat weaker opponents in the firsts rounds and then take one or two byes and win the tournament...
I would suggest that the scoring system should now be changed to reflect a significant value of a draw against a bye. Hence, the scoring system will now be 3 points for a win, 2 points for a draw, 1 point for a bye and 0 point for a loss. 2 draws are similar to a win and a bye, 4 is to 4, instead of 1 is to 1.5 respectively.:)
Last edited by Ferdinand Supsup; Tuesday, 30th November, 2010, 10:13 AM.
Players are not allowed to take a bye in the last round for obvious reasons : if you have good chances to win a prize, you will most likely be playing against stronger opponents than you already did in the first rounds. It would be unfair if we could beat weaker opponents in the firsts rounds and then take one or two byes and win the tournament...
But really, why do you care? a bye in the earlier rounds gives you better pairings (but doesn't really change your final point score for prize money) so that matters but in the last round it doesn't affect anything but prizes.
The only reason why someone would care about getting a half point for a last round bye lies in the noble hope that this half point will get him into the prize list. Which is reason enough not to allow such byes, if byes should be allowed at all.
...in which case, the organizers wisely and correctly ignore said top-rated player.
Leave a comment: