Use of Technology at the British Championships

[Paul Dargan]

@ Ben - I think the point about the issues with the timetable at the British weren't advertised/known ahead of the council meeting, meaning that no debate can be had. I realise that we (well Council) elect a board and to a large extent they should be allowed to get on with it - but really should the British have a faster time control than 4NCL? But no-one could raise that point as it went through unannounced after Council met.

Paul

[Roger de Coverly]

It does do it by ranking. The ranking is based on rating, then title, then alphabetically.
So the Dutch system can swap players ignoring their rating. The CAA thinks it better to choose rating as the first priority and whether they're called Brown or Young as a much lower one

I thought it an accepted practice that if ratings were coincident, that you could adjust the ranking order to put siblings or partners on the same odds or evens, thereby reducing the likelihood of them playing. I'm aware that unrated players in official FIDE tournaments are likely to be ranked in alphabetic order.

Perhaps I have this wrong, but I thought that if using a Dutch system, that having established a ranking, this was invariant for the whole tournament. So if ranking 4 and 5 had the same rating, or were 100 points apart, this didn't affect the pairings.

[Alex McFarlane]

Hi Roger,

I'm now in Auckland so not in touch as often as usual. Apologies for the delay in answering.

You are wrong about the initial allocation of pin numbers which if you follow the FIDE recommendation is exactly as I said.
You are correct that once the Dutch system allocates a pin it is the significant factor in pairings rather than the rating. My (strong) feeling is that this is just lazy programming, when a switch of opponent has to be made minimising rating difference should be a higher priority especially when a potential opponent of the same rating is available.

If you have read the Dutch system it is easy to see that it has been written for computer programmers rather than mere mortals. I doubt that the people involved would even dispute my claim.

[Roger de Coverly]

You are correct that once the Dutch system allocates a pin it is the significant factor in pairings rather than the rating.

Exactly my point. Ratings affect nothing once the initial PIN numbers have been determined. The place to look then is at the allocation of initial PINs and what flexibility can be allowed. I thought it a well known trick to allocate siblings and partners either on odds or evens.

The essential problem is that rules containing the words "arbiter's discretion" are that they are out of place with computer pairings. It had been my impression that the CAA rules were designed to be deterministic. http://www.utuchess.com claim to have programmed them

Once upon a time, pairings were semi random. Had attempts been made to computerise such pairings, the rules could be much simpler. The obvious thing to do would be to rank the top half and randomly draw their opponents.

[Alex McFarlane]

But if you totally automate it and allow the computer to allocate pins then it is the way that I said.

FIDE says that all players should have the same conditions. 'Fixing' the pin numbers to 'favour' some players may break this.

[Alan Walton]

Personally I would just use computer pairings full stop, using the official FIDE rules as well (the majority of tournamants abroad are using these rules)

If you get paired against a club mate or sibling then it is tough luck, it is an individual tournament

[Paolo Casaschi]

Effectively those paying for the system are those who gain least from it. Attempts to get on-line spectators to pay have all failed miserably.
Perhaps the solution in England is to increase the ECF membership fee by £2 and have that increase earmarked for technical development.

I understand that taxing the ECF members is the easiest thing to do (sort of a chess equivalent of the TV license); however you'd still dump the charges on people that do not necessarily benefit from the service and have relatively low options to reject the charge. Ultimately, broadcasting games is the choice of the event organizer and promotes the image of the event; as such the cost should be part of the event budget; otherwise what's next, adding £1 to the ECF membership to allow for free tea and biscuits at every congress?

So why do I persist in being involved with events using manual pairings. Simply because I have concerns with the Dutch system which is the programme one. It has been altered several times over recent years. On each occasion not to get it closer to what most people would expect from a swiss pairing but to make it easier to program so that the FIDE recognised software packages are all consistent.
...
But nor should it be seen as an explanation for problems that really lie elsewhere.

Not sure I understand your concern about making the pairing algorithm easier to program; I'm no expert in chess pairing, however if the pairing rules allow for two different compliant programs (or two different arbiters) to produce different pairings, then it seems to me the rules are not defined well enough and any simplification/clarification is welcome.

[Michael Flatt]

Today's live broadcast is atrocious.

Bottom rank of board obscured and a second superimposed soundtrack with a significant delay.

Is someone having a joke?

Tech man is now onscreen trying to fix it.

Tech man left and problem remains.

[Michael Flatt]

From Chess24 chat line.

What a shambles, I've never seen such pathetic coverage for a chess tournament. The ECF are pathetic. What a bunch of useless amateurs. A total disgrace to English chess.

Momentarily fixed then it screws up again.

Finally sound fixed, but bottom of board still obscured.

[MartinCarpenter]

Tech can be awfully hard, especially on a shoe string with (I presume) ageing equipment etc

Don't think you could do a membership wide surcharge for the live broadcasts of the British. That might almost be plausible if it was to, for example, do a really big grading website upgrade. Maybe to a national results service or such like.

Although that sort of thing can go entirely horribly wrong!

[Michael Flatt]

I think it is lack of expertise and manpower rather than money.

You can't drop this sort of thing on an unprepared volunteer in the middle of a tournament, no matter how willing they are.

Some pre tournament training and expert back-up is needed.

Obviously, live coverage doesn't rank very high in the order of priorities. Yet it probably one of the most powerful advertising tools.

Proper online coverage of the ECF's premier tournament should rank far higher.

[Carl Hibbard]

Proper online coverage of the ECF's premier tournament should rank far higher than an empty online forum that duplicates an existing service.

A good call

[Michael Flatt]

Well done, Carl,

You managed to capture my thought before I edited it.

[Paolo Casaschi]

I think it is lack of expertise and manpower rather than money.

Money could buy you that expertise and manpower.

However, putting things into perspective, if additional money were available, I wonder about the best use of that money: making sure that all top British GMs join a more meaningful British championship or making sure the public has a working live commentary? If a donor were to make money available, I'd vote for the former; if the money is expected from ECF members, I'd honestly vote for none of the above

[Michael Flatt]

I think it is lack of expertise and manpower rather than money.

Money could buy you that expertise and manpower.

I recognised the Tech man as the youngest member of the Arbiters' Team. I doubt very much whether he knew before the event that he would have to provide technical support to the live broadcasts.

If he takes charge of the broadcasts next year I would hope that he can get the system properly set up and checked out before the start of each broadcast and properly monitor the output. It was fortunate that he was able to step in, but as youngest member of the team he did not have the authority to sort out the technical issues immediately they became known.

Those trying to follow events online were understandably disappointed at the broadcast and quite scathing in their comments.