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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: CCC Discusses Chess - Posts of Interest - Failure to Play Last Round.

    Originally posted by Victor Plotkin View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Ed Zator; Thursday, 26th April, 2012, 01:17 PM. Reason: sp

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: CCC Discusses Chess - Posts of Interest - Failure to Play Last Round.

      Originally posted by Steve Karpik View Post
      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 My wife was sick so I had to miss a round and as a result wasn't paired the next round and withdrawn, even though I'd notified the TD.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.
      Gary Ruben
      CC - IA and SIM

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: CCC Discusses Chess - Posts of Interest - Failure to Play Last Round.

        Bye means bye-bye to prizes :D

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: CCC Discusses Chess - Posts of Interest - Failure to Play Last Round.

          Originally posted by Ed Zator View Post
          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.
          "We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
          "Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
          "If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: CCC Discusses Chess - Posts of Interest - Failure to Play Last Round.

            Originally posted by Victor Plotkin View Post
            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.
            "We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
            "Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
            "If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey

            Comment

            Working...
            X