Closed playoffs

[Pierre Denommee]

Re: Closed playoffs

http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.ht...0&view=article

5.0 Unplayed games

5.1 Whether these occur because of forfeiture or any other reason, they are not counted. Any game where both players have made at least one move will be rated.

FM Title ≥9 games ≥ 50 % = title maximum of 2 FM title are permitted.

It says ≥9 games and unplayed games are not counted. It does not say number of rounds ≥9 .

Where does it say that a game "does not count" for an FM title? I've already refuted FIDE section 1.4 as a source of that reasoning. I'm not talking about a GM norm, but an FM norm/title.

[Pierre Denommee]

Re: Closed playoffs

Norm tournaments are registered in advance with FIDE. If you alter the number of rounds, all norms would be invalid.

He should have either refunded the lowest rated player's cash or made it a ten rounder so anyone with a bye would still have 9 rounds to count for norms etc.

[Jonathan Berry]

Re: Closed playoffs

I think when Hal knew he had an uneven number for the closed and he had titles that could be made. He should have either refunded the lowest rated player's cash or made it a ten rounder so anyone with a bye would still have 9 rounds to count for norms etc.
This may have eliminated some of the playoffs at the end.

John Brown and Robert Roller: maybe, maybe not.

Morgon Mills scored 5/9. The published FIDE rules seem to indicate that he therefore earns an FM title. But what about the Bye he received in the 2nd round?

As noted earlier, the FIDE rules in some cases eliminate unplayed games from consideration, but explicitly not in this case.

After the rule (1.2) which gives Mills the FM title, there is rule 1.4, which begins:

1.4 The GM, IM, WGM, WIM titles can also be gained by achieving norms in internationally rated tournaments played according to the following regulations.

Note my emphases--and then goes on:

1.42 Games as follows are not included.

...

1.42c decided by forfeit, adjudication or any means other than over the board play. Other games once started, which are forfeited for whatever reason, shall however be included. In a last round game a player must play in order to have the required number of games, but can afford to lose. Then, if the opponent forfeits, the norm shall still count.

In those we note that FM titles are explicitly not mentioned. Parenthetically, I will add that it is telling that Byes are not mentioned in 1.42c. Why is it telling? Because a Bye could not further the kind of norm/title quest that is being addressed by section 1.4. This reinforces the impression that the omission of FM titles from the proscriptions of 1.4 was not just an oversight on the part of FIDE. The wording is deliberate.

Pierre Dénommée points us in 1.2 to "See Note a to d", which state exactly this:

(a) For example: Women’s World Championship: Finalist = 9 game GM norm. This means that the result counts as if it was a norm and had met all the necessary requirements.
(b) Wherea zonal/subzonal is played with preliminaries and finals, the results shall be pooled.
(c) Subzonals must be approved by the Presidential Board.
(d) For zonals/subzonals only one IM/WIM title can be obtained based on a result ≥66 2/3 percent, only two FM/WFM titles can be obtained based on a result ≥50 percent.

In other words, no proscription of unplayed games. Furthermore, it is deliberate on the part of FIDE's rule makers, and, as John and Robert both point out, fair that an FM title be allowed after a Bye. Well, certainly it's fair after an early Bye, which is the case here. It might even be fair after a late Bye and a very small odd-numbered (say 15 players) tournament, though there might be lamentation afterwards.

This is just my reading of the rules, and I'm just one International Arbiter. I'm still waiting for somebody to refute the logic.

[Fred McKim]

Re: Closed playoffs

I think Hal should present the FM title situation to FIDE for consideration. Sapozhnikov is eligible for an FM title in any case because of his rating, so it would only effect the other two with 4.5 who were supposed to play-off.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: Closed playoffs

I'm still waiting for somebody to refute the logic.

Since when a bye is a game?

FM Zonals and Sub-Zonals ≥9 games ≥ 50 % = title

1.1 The game of chess is played between two opponents who move their pieces alternately on a square board called a ‘chessboard’. The player with the white pieces commences the game. A player is said to ‘have the move’, when his opponent’s move has been ‘made’. (See Article 6.7)

[Jonathan Berry]

Re: Closed playoffs

Pierre, the rule you refer to is for Ratings, not for Titles. It comes from a completely different section and addresses quite distinct concerns. The game is "not counted" for rating. That is explicit, and that is all. And again, it does not address Byes, it addresses forfeits. A little joke, eh?

As for the distinction between games and rounds, that is a better attempt. I'd say two things. First, the burden of proof--or at least of argument--lies with you, and you have not achieved it. Second, they might have used the word "game" to distinguish those events such as the World Cup where a round implies more than one game; they may also have used "game" to allow the pooling of sub-events with less than 9 rounds each. That's the Remark (b) which you pointed out earlier.

Labrador might be in line for an FM title. According to the map on the front of the Québec national chess magazine which I used to read in the 1970s and 1980s, Labrador is part of Québec. The rich get richer. Although, curiously, the same map excluded the little tranche west of the Ottawa River that really is part of Québec.

http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.ht...0&view=article

5.0 Unplayed games

5.1 Whether these occur because of forfeiture or any other reason, they are not counted. Any game where both players have made at least one move will be rated.

FM Title ≥9 games ≥ 50 % = title maximum of 2 FM title are permitted.

It says ≥9 games and unplayed games are not counted. It does not say number of rounds ≥9 .

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Closed playoffs

This is just my reading of the rules, and I'm just one International Arbiter. I'm still waiting for somebody to refute the logic.

Chess Lawyering is an honourable profession. Particularly if the organization is willing to consider the argument favourably. Often they use a "catch all" to dismiss appeals.

In the end it's like appearing in traffic court to fight traffic tickets. Fifty percent wins, if you can get it, simply isn't bad.

[John Upper]

Re: Closed playoffs - FM Titles

... that's why the playoff is just between Miladin and Victor, and Roman is not involved?

I don't know.

Hal made an announcement before Rd.9 explaining all this --- incl. the fact that one of the players had already earned an FM title by other means --- but I was out of the FM sweepstakes so I didn't pay close attention.

[Jonathan Berry]

Re: Closed playoffs

I am, of course, not a lawyer. I'd prefer to think of it as advocacy rather than lawyering. Advocacy is for a result that is both fair and according to the rules.

In my experience, the yield rate is better than your 50% of traffic tickets, Gary. Of course there are exceptions, for example the recent Euro ruling against sanity in the Euro Individual Championship tiebreak incident. In that case, however, making the right decision might have cost the Euro people some money. When the organization making the decision is not the organization that might pay for it, you get the fair result more often.

Chess Lawyering is an honourable profession. Particularly if the organization is willing to consider the argument favourably. Often they use a "catch all" to dismiss appeals.

In the end it's like appearing in traffic court to fight traffic tickets. Fifty percent wins, if you can get it, simply isn't bad.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Closed playoffs

When I used to get players arguing the fine points of the rules, I'd decide based on the intent of the rule, as I saw it. If the player was correct it meant all future such situation had to be handled in the same manner as the appeal was decided.

Of course, if a player didn't like my ruling he could appeal.

Do you think your interpretation of that rule is in line with the intent of the rule?

[Pierre Denommee]

Re: Closed playoffs

Using fillers, who are not paired using regular methods, for extra games in order meet formal FIDE regulations for titles or norms will probably seem sketchy to FIDE. Does anyone know if this has been done anywhere else?

This is completely illegal.

1.42g Tournaments that make changes to favour one or more players (for example by altering the number of rounds, or the order of rounds, or providing particular opponents, not otherwise participating in the event), shall be excluded.

The tournament program and the pairing system used must be published at the time of the registration of the tournament.

1.11 Play shall be governedby the FIDE Laws of Chess and FIDE Tournament Rules. Minor deviations may be permitted by the Technical Commission Chairman.

The tournament system must be a fair one. Tournaments where the composition is changed (without FIDE approval) during the tournament or those where players have different conditions in terms of rounds and pairing are not valid.

The tournament must be registered at least 30 days in advance on the FIDE server, and all details of the tournament must be published in the FIDE calendar.

It is likely that it has been done in the past, but FIDE has become less permissive. Now that there is a registration server, all the details of a tournament are public and is is more likely that any deviation will be caught.

[Jonathan Berry]

Re: Closed playoffs

Do you think your interpretation of that rule is in line with the intent of the rule?

Yes!

When I started, I had to keep foremost in mind that often rules don't have an "intent". They are just rules, with not necessarily any broader ambitions towards fairness, let's say. But after spending some time with them, it looks more like the title rules have been crafted and thus have an intent. The intent is clear, and it is fair.

Of course, I could be wrong, and am awaiting a good point in contra.

[Pierre Denommee]

Re: Closed playoffs

Jonathan,

Off course it is for rating, but all norm tournaments must be FIDE rated. All the rating rules do apply. There is nothing explicitly about byes because a bye is not a game.

The Laws of Chess cannot cover all possible situations that may arise during a game, nor can they regulate all administrative questions. Where cases are not precisely regulated by an Article of the Laws, it should be possible to reach a correct decision by studying analogous situations which are discussed in the Laws. The same is true of all the rules in the FIDE Handbook. They do not cover every cases.

The spirit of the rule is that a game of chess becomes official when one move by White and one move by Black have been played. Its like a baseball game becoming official in the 5th inning. If there is no opponent, it is not a game.

Irrespective of the score given, a bye is not a game. Since there is no opponent, it cannot be rated. This is why byes are not covered in this rating article.

The FM title requires 9 games and the definition of a game is at Article 1 of the Laws of Chess. A game requires an opponent in order to exist.

You must have played 9 games in order to get an FM title in a zonal. Essentially, the whole argument revolves around what is a game. It is true that byes are not mentioned in the rules for FM but the the 9 games requirement is very clearly stated in the table (≥9 games).

There is also a missing note number 3 in the FIDE Handbook .

Registered title (automatic title) is a title gained by achieving a certain place or result in a tournament. For example, winning, or achieving a result ³50 percent in a tournament. On application by the player’s federation and confirmation by the Qualification Commission, such titles are awarded automatically by FIDE.


This note number 3 might have the information that we want, but it has been forgotten in the online version of the Handbook. This note number 3 is obviously about the meaning of the word result. Does it include full point byes?

Pierre, the rule you refer to is for Ratings, not for Titles. It comes from a completely different section and addresses quite distinct concerns. The game is "not counted" for rating. That is explicit, and that is all. And again, it does not address Byes, it addresses forfeits. A little joke, eh?

As for the distinction between games and rounds, that is a better attempt. I'd say two things. First, the burden of proof--or at least of argument--lies with you, and you have not achieved it. Second, they might have used the word "game" to distinguish those events such as the World Cup where a round implies more than one game; they may also have used "game" to allow the pooling of sub-events with less than 9 rounds each. That's the Remark (b) which you pointed out earlier.

Labrador might be in line for an FM title. According to the map on the front of the Québec national chess magazine which I used to read in the 1970s and 1980s, Labrador is part of Québec. The rich get richer. Although, curiously, the same map excluded the little tranche west of the Ottawa River that really is part of Québec.

[Jonathan Berry]

Re: Closed playoffs

Pierre,

There are good, fair reasons not to rate a forfeit win or count it towards a GM norm. Such as? To do the opposite would encourage sharp practice, cheating. Such exclusions are specifically made in the rules, as they should be. If FIDE had wanted the full-point they award for a Bye not to count for FM norms, they would have stated so, somewhere. They don't.

I do not find any argument why you'd want to exclude those with an early Bye from FM-norm eligibility. And FIDE doesn't.

Sure, if you have to make analogies to cover situations not covered in the rules, make them. But here you're making a bad analogy. You're trying to re-cover a situation which in fact is adequately covered in the rules.

There's a Biblical quote something like: if you need bread, does your heavenly father give you a rock? No.

Here we have FIDE allowing or encouraging Zonals to be held with 9 rounds, why would they want to exclude 9 of the players in such an event from eligibility for the FM norm? Why would they want to deliver us a rock? Just because they can? It may seem that way in some bureaucracies, but we have a dismal view of things if we think it always has to be that way.

Jonathan,

Off course it is for rating, but all norm tournaments must be FIDE rated. All the rating rules do apply. There is nothing explicitly about byes because a bye is not a game.

The Laws of Chess cannot cover all possible situations that may arise during a game, nor can they regulate all administrative questions. Where cases are not precisely regulated by an Article of the Laws, it should be possible to reach a correct decision by studying analogous situations which are discussed in the Laws. The same is true of all the rules in the FIDE Handbook. They do not cover every cases.

The spirit of the rule is that a game of chess becomes official when one move by White and one move by Black have been played. Its like a baseball game becoming official in the 5th inning. If there is no opponent, it is not a game.

Irrespective of the score given, a bye is not a game. Since there is no opponent, it cannot be rated. This is why byes are not covered in this rating article.

The FM title requires 9 games and the definition of a game is at Article 1 of the Laws of Chess. A game requires an opponent in order to exist.

You must have played 9 games in order to get an FM title in a zonal. Essentially, the whole argument revolves around what is a game. It is true that byes are not mentioned in the rules for FM but the the 9 games requirement is very clearly stated in the table (≥9 games).

There is also a missing note number 3 in the FIDE Handbook .

Registered title (automatic title) is a title gained by achieving a certain place or result in a tournament. For example, winning, or achieving a result ³50 percent in a tournament. On application by the player’s federation and confirmation by the Qualification Commission, such titles are awarded automatically by FIDE.


This note number 3 might have the information that we want, but it has been forgotten in the online version of the Handbook. This note number 3 is obviously about the meaning of the word result. Does it include full point byes?

[Fred McKim]

Re: Closed playoffs

Another interesting point is the games played against unrated players.

What if Arthur had played and either drawn or beaten Morgan (no FIDE rating), would he be denied the title because he only is considered to have played 8 rated games.