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.
15. Have fun!
(Thanks to Nigel Hanrahan for writing these up!)
CCC Discusses Chess - Posts of Interest - Failure to Play Last Round.
Re: CCC Discusses Chess - Posts of Interest - Failure to Play Last Round.
Hi Bob Armstrong;
If you are referring to The Niagara Falls Open 2012.
No player who competed got 4 points and was given a last round withdrawal for not playing the last round.
One player did get sick and had to withdraw due to their illness.
One player did not play the last round and the TD did not withdraw him and gave him the 0 pt bye for round 5.
Had Erwin (who started the original post) showed up and played I'm sure that the TD would have given the 0 pt bye for the last round and not withdrawn Erwin. Erwin contacted the TD late Friday about only playing
4 Rounds. The TD had to make a quick decision and chose to offer Erwin 4 Rounds and a last Round withdrawal. This was a hasty decision but Erwin did not show up so none of your post here ever happened.
If you do indeed have the exact tournament in question then maybe we can give you more accurate opinions.
Re: CCC Discusses Chess - Posts of Interest - Failure to Play Last Round.
Hi John:
Though Erwin did another post concerning the Niagara Falls Open, this thread has nothing to do with the actual tournament. It just so happens that the tournament condition from that tournament of " 2 byes only, in first 3 rounds " is a nice clear rule and suits my hypothetical.
The actual tournament I have been trying to remember re not playing the last round is a different one from some time ago.
What is interesting about that tournament, re this issue, though, is that in his spontaneous TD decision re the last round re Erwin, John Erickson used the " no last round bye; only withdrawal " rule in making his decision, which is the same rule used by our Scarborough CC, and by at least one Toronto organizer/TD.
It's maybe a good thing Erwin didn't happen, in 4 rounds, to tie for first, since it would appear that the issue of whether Erwin was eligible for a prize was not discussed at the time of the request for a 5th round bye.
Bob
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Tuesday, 24th April, 2012, 07:19 AM.
Re: CCC Discusses Chess - Posts of Interest - Failure to Play Last Round.
The Cooperative Chess Coalition ( CCC ) hopes that by raising the two issues of last round bye requests, and prizes if tournament not " finished ", it has alerted organizers/TD's to the importance of advertising the terms re these two items before the tournament.
Re: CCC Discusses Chess - Posts of Interest - Failure to Play Last Round.
If the player requested a round 5 bye prior to the start of the tournament and the TD agreed, then he should be eligible for prizes. If he was not going to be eligible, the TD should have told him that before the first round.
However if the bye was requested after the tournament began, I think it should be considered a withdrawal.
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?
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.
.... 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.
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?
Last edited by Steve Karpik; Thursday, 26th April, 2012, 01:31 AM.
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.
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.
"Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.
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.
Tweet
Comment