CCC Discusses Chess - Posts of Interest - Failure to Play Last Round.

[Peter McKillop]

Re: CCC Discusses Chess - Posts of Interest - Failure to Play Last Round.

I agree with the organizer. Not because the idea of forcing strong players play all rounds, but because the justice of the tournament. I hope this example can explain my opinion.

Suppose we have 5-round swiss tournament. After 4 rounds tournament standing is:
1. Player A has 4 point
2. Player B has 3.5 points
3. Player C and few others have 2.5 points...
Untill now everything is very real. Pretty tipical situation for week-ender.

Now suppose player A has 1700 rating, player B - 1900, players C - 2000, all other below 1700.
Looks not very logical, but sometimes you need only 1 surprise to get this situation. So how it could be?
1. Player A beat 3 lower-rated players and (probably in round 4) beat player C (surprise).
2. Player B drew once in first 4 rounds (or had a bye) and beat 3 lower-rated players.
3. Player C drew once in first 3 rounds (or had a bye), beat 2 lower-rated players and lost to player C in 4-th round.

If everything continues properly A plays against B in round 5. Rating differencial (200 points) gives him about 70 % to lose last game and finish tournament clear second. But A can make unusual move - withdraw from the tournament. In this case A gets 0 point bye, and finishes tournament with 4 points. B playes against C, because C is the highest-rated 2.5 point player. Rating differencial (100 points) gives him about 30 % to win, 20 % to draw and 50 % to lose his last game.

So if player A plays his last game he has 30 % to finish 1-st and 70 % to finish second. If player A forfeits he has 50 % to finish 1-st, 20 % to share 1-2 place and 30 % to finish 2-nd. Second option gives him much better chances.

For example if 1-st prize is 400 CAD and 2-nd is 200 CAD player A wins (average) 260 CAD if he plays last round and 320 CAD if doesn't. (he just delegates his game to player C, who is much higher-rated).

TD should avoid this situation. His decision not to give any prize to player who didn't play last round looks very fair to me.

But....but.....you forgot to mention, Victor, that just after the last round started, the ghosts of the Piatigorskys entered the tournament hall. They immediately noticed player B's plight and, out of sympathy for his situation, made $100,000 materialize in B's wallet. I heard that B was quite satisfied with the outcome.

I also heard from a reliable source that the Piatigorskys were going to keep their eyes peeled just in case some other dumbass organizer tried this 'no play-no pay' stunt in circumstances similar to those outlined by Bob Armstrong.

[Peter McKillop]

Re: CCC Discusses Chess - Posts of Interest - Failure to Play Last Round.

Said player had given notice before the tournament even began. Therefore he could not predict (an unlikely) last round unfavourable matchup.

Even thinkers would have to concede that ON AVERAGE, dropping a full point
lowers your chance of winning a prize.

The TD applying his rule blindly, ignoring when the notice was given, and not
warning the player at the start, was what was wrong here.

Exactly!! Nice summary, Ed.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: CCC Discusses Chess - Posts of Interest - Failure to Play Last Round.

Bye means bye-bye to prizes :D

[Gary Ruben]

Re: CCC Discusses Chess - Posts of Interest - Failure to Play Last Round.

What is the organizer gaining by this position?

Have you figured out the event, and if this actually happened? I tried to get it pinned down but ran into a bad case of "fuzzy memory". I guess setting up a scenario and letting the faithful go at it is one of the most fun parts of chess lawyering.

Withdrawing a player for missing a round isn't new. Happened to me decades ago. My wife was sick so I had to miss a round and as a result wasn't paired the next round and withdrawn, even though I'd notified the TD. No big deal.

For me it turned out for different reasons I never really knew if I'd be available for an event until a day or so before the start. By then it was late fee time. I'm philosophically opposed to paying late fees so never bothered to enter another CFC rated over the board event.

[Ed Zator]

Re: CCC Discusses Chess - Posts of Interest - Failure to Play Last Round.

Most people in the modern world just don't like to think (like a criminal or not - doesn't matter).

Said player had given notice before the tournament even began. Therefore
he could not predict (an unlikely) last round unfavourable matchup.

Even thinkers would have to concede that ON AVERAGE, dropping a full point
lowers your chance of winning a prize.

The TD applying his rule blindly, ignoring when the notice was given, and not
warning the player at the start, was what was wrong here.

[Jean Hébert]

Re: CCC Discusses Chess - Posts of Interest - Failure to Play Last Round.

I agree with the organizer. Not because the idea of forcing strong players play all rounds, but because the justice of the tournament. I hope this example can explain my opinion.

Suppose we have 5-round swiss tournament. After 4 rounds tournament standing is:
1. Player A has 4 point
2. Player B has 3.5 points
3. Player C and few others have 2.5 points...
Untill now everything is very real. Pretty tipical situation for week-ender.

Now suppose player A has 1700 rating, player B - 1900, players C - 2000, all other below 1700.
Looks not very logical, but sometimes you need only 1 surprise to get this situation. So how it could be?
1. Player A beat 3 lower-rated players and (probably in round 4) beat player C (surprise).
2. Player B drew once in first 4 rounds (or had a bye) and beat 3 lower-rated players.
3. Player C drew once in first 3 rounds (or had a bye), beat 2 lower-rated players and lost to player C in 4-th round.

If everything continues properly A plays against B in round 5. Rating differencial (200 points) gives him about 70 % to lose last game and finish tournament clear second. But A can make unusual move - withdraw from the tournament. In this case A gets 0 point bye, and finishes tournament with 4 points. B playes against C, because C is the highest-rated 2.5 point player. Rating differencial (100 points) gives him about 30 % to win, 20 % to draw and 50 % to lose his last game.

So if player A plays his last game he has 30 % to finish 1-st and 70 % to finish second. If player A forfeits he has 50 % to finish 1-st, 20 % to share 1-2 place and 30 % to finish 2-nd. Second option gives him much better chances.

For example if 1-st prize is 400 CAD and 2-nd is 200 CAD player A wins (average) 260 CAD if he plays last round and 320 CAD if doesn't. (he just delegates his game to player C, who is much higher-rated).

TD should avoid this situation. His decision not to give any prize to player who didn't play last round looks very fair to me.

This simply proves that one can make figures say whatever one wants. With some dubious basis and selected figures everything becomes possible, including getting better chances with a zero point bye than playing. This is not a criminal mind at work but simply a crime against intelligence.

[Jean Hébert]

Re: CCC Discusses Chess - Posts of Interest - Failure to Play Last Round.

What is the organizer gaining by this position?

Power.

[Victor Plotkin]

Re: CCC Discusses Chess - Posts of Interest - Failure to Play Last Round.

Most people in the modern world just don't like to think (like a criminal or not - doesn't matter).

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: CCC Discusses Chess - Posts of Interest - Failure to Play Last Round.

I've had two occasions in the last week where people admiringly(? ... well at least I was flattered) mentioned that I think like a criminal. One was my financial advisor; the other was one of my oldest friends. You sir, and I say this admiringly, also think like a criminal.

I agree with the organizer. Not because the idea of forcing strong players play all rounds, but because the justice of the tournament. I hope this example can explain my opinion.

Suppose we have 5-round swiss tournament. After 4 rounds tournament standing is:
1. Player A has 4 point
2. Player B has 3.5 points
3. Player C and few others have 2.5 points...
Untill now everything is very real. Pretty tipical situation for week-ender.

Now suppose player A has 1700 rating, player B - 1900, players C - 2000, all other below 1700.
Looks not very logical, but sometimes you need only 1 surprise to get this situation. So how it could be?
1. Player A beat 3 lower-rated players and (probably in round 4) beat player C (surprise).
2. Player B drew once in first 4 rounds (or had a bye) and beat 3 lower-rated players.
3. Player C drew once in first 3 rounds (or had a bye), beat 2 lower-rated players and lost to player C in 4-th round.

If everything continues properly A plays against B in round 5. Rating differencial (200 points) gives him about 70 % to lose last game and finish tournament clear second. But A can make unusual move - withdraw from the tournament. In this case A gets 0 point bye, and finishes tournament with 4 points. B playes against C, because C is the highest-rated 2.5 point player. Rating differencial (100 points) gives him about 30 % to win, 20 % to draw and 50 % to lose his last game.

So if player A plays his last game he has 30 % to finish 1-st and 70 % to finish second. If player A forfeits he has 50 % to finish 1-st, 20 % to share 1-2 place and 30 % to finish 2-nd. Second option gives him much better chances.

For example if 1-st prize is 400 CAD and 2-nd is 200 CAD player A wins (average) 260 CAD if he plays last round and 320 CAD if doesn't. (he just delegates his game to player C, who is much higher-rated).

TD should avoid this situation. His decision not to give any prize to player who didn't play last round looks very fair to me.

[Victor Plotkin]

Re: CCC Discusses Chess - Posts of Interest - Failure to Play Last Round.

I agree with the organizer. Not because the idea of forcing strong players play all rounds, but because the justice of the tournament. I hope this example can explain my opinion.

Suppose we have 5-round swiss tournament. After 4 rounds tournament standing is:
1. Player A has 4 point
2. Player B has 3.5 points
3. Player C and few others have 2.5 points...
Untill now everything is very real. Pretty tipical situation for week-ender.

Now suppose player A has 1700 rating, player B - 1900, players C - 2000, all other below 1700.
Looks not very logical, but sometimes you need only 1 surprise to get this situation. So how it could be?
1. Player A beat 3 lower-rated players and (probably in round 4) beat player C (surprise).
2. Player B drew once in first 4 rounds (or had a bye) and beat 3 lower-rated players.
3. Player C drew once in first 3 rounds (or had a bye), beat 2 lower-rated players and lost to player C in 4-th round.

If everything continues properly A plays against B in round 5. Rating differencial (200 points) gives him about 70 % to lose last game and finish tournament clear second. But A can make unusual move - withdraw from the tournament. In this case A gets 0 point bye, and finishes tournament with 4 points. B playes against C, because C is the highest-rated 2.5 point player. Rating differencial (100 points) gives him about 30 % to win, 20 % to draw and 50 % to lose his last game.

So if player A plays his last game he has 30 % to finish 1-st and 70 % to finish second. If player A forfeits he has 50 % to finish 1-st, 20 % to share 1-2 place and 30 % to finish 2-nd. Second option gives him much better chances.

For example if 1-st prize is 400 CAD and 2-nd is 200 CAD player A wins (average) 260 CAD if he plays last round and 320 CAD if doesn't. (he just delegates his game to player C, who is much higher-rated).

TD should avoid this situation. His decision not to give any prize to player who didn't play last round looks very fair to me.

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: CCC Discusses Chess - Posts of Interest - Failure to Play Last Round.

Hi Steve:

I think he is trying to force his top players to play right into the last round, and keep more games critical in this last round.

Bob

[Steve Karpik]

Re: CCC Discusses Chess - Posts of Interest - Failure to Play Last Round.

An organizer who is determined to treat the " last round ' bye ' request " as a " withdrawal ", can then use this to argue his rule that " no prize to a player who does not FINISH the tournament ".

What is the organizer gaining by this position?

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: CCC Discusses Chess - Posts of Interest - Failure to Play Last Round.

.... I suppose I could simply not show up and get a forfeit loss but still qualify for the prize. Or I could simply resign after my opponents first move (looking at 1. e4 I figure I'm pretty much done, so I'll resign). Or I'll play like an idiot and lose in 2 moves which might cost me 5 minutes and I can get to where I need to go. Any of these actions are, I think, kind of scummy but they circumvent the TD rule about last round byes.

Hi Steve:

From the 4 pt. players point of view, it is much more preferable to be awarded a " zero point bye ", and have it theoretically arguable that he " finished " the tournament, and therefore qualifies for a prize. In the scenarios you outline above, they are unsatisfactory, because the game will be rated and the 4-pt. player will lose rating points ( and at Scarborough CC it might put him into a lower group! LOL ). An organizer who is determined to treat the " last round ' bye ' request " as a " withdrawal ", can then use this to argue his rule that " no prize to a player who does not FINISH the tournament ".

So it seems to me that the distinctions being drawn in this debate are critical to what outcome is fair. Seems to me the wording makes a difference.

Bob, CCC Coordinator

[Steve Karpik]

Re: CCC Discusses Chess - Posts of Interest - Failure to Play Last Round.

I have to say I'm slightly perplexed by this conversation. I must be missing something.

Let's say I'm in a 5 round Swiss and after 4 rounds I have a perfect 4 out of 4. My closest rival has 3 out of 4. If I play the last round, the worst I can do is end up with 4 points. If I don't play, I end up with 4 points. Materially there is no difference. In which case depending on how my rival does, I might end up with the most points or maybe I'd end up tied at 4 points. Shouldn't I get the prize (or my share of it) for having the most points?

Let's say the TD is going to be strict and says no byes in the last round but I absolutely cannot play (I've got to work or I've got childcare problems or whatever). I suppose I could simply not show up and get a forfeit loss but still qualify for the prize. Or I could simply resign after my opponents first move (looking at 1. e4 I figure I'm pretty much done, so I'll resign). Or I'll play like an idiot and lose in 2 moves which might cost me 5 minutes and I can get to where I need to go. Any of these actions are, I think, kind of scummy but they circumvent the TD rule about last round byes. But is anyone really further ahead when I do something like this. Wouldn't it just be simpler to give me zero points for the last round and let the cards fall where they may?

I fully understand not giving a 1/2 point bye in the last round as such a practice could be abused. But a zero point bye, where's the harm? As I said, a quick loss is always available to me via the Fool's Mate or some other stupidity.

I agree with one of the other posters that as organizers of chess events, we need to make things easier for players to get involved as long as basic principles of fairness are maintained.

[Ed Zator]

Re: Failure to Play Last Round - Is Restriction a Good One?

In the actual tournament I'm trying to remember, I don't think the TD had advertised about " don't finish - don't win " before the tournament, and don't think he talked to the player about it when the player asked for the Rd. 5 " bye ".
Bob

A 0 point last round bye is exactly that, a "zero point" bye.
Not a "forfeit all points and prizes" bye.

What was advertised about byes for the later rounds?