International round-up 15/7/12

[Mike Truran]

You shouldn't be eating more than one panino at your tender age. You're only storing up trouble for yourself in later life.

[Roger de Coverly]

Think about it this way: if a French player had been going for a norm, playing Ryan would have helped them, but not Ryan.

The British (manual) pairing rules appear to leave the arbiter with a certain scope. But suppose you had two pairings of plausible value, namely local v local + foreign v foreign or local v foreign and foreign v local. Do you favour the home norm seekers by giving them the foreign player or the foreign players by enabling them to avoid locals?

I'm a little surprised this issue hasn't come up before, at Hastings for example. Perhaps there are always enough WLS, SCO and IRL players around to avoid anyone with Norm aspirations playing 7 ENG.
It goes to explain why Open tournaments in Europe are willing to subsidise the participation of non national titled players. The recent Scottish championships looked to attract 10 GMs and 10 IMs.

[IM Jack Rudd]

I'm a little surprised this issue hasn't come up before, at Hastings for example. Perhaps there are always enough WLS, SCO and IRL players around to avoid anyone with Norm aspirations playing 7 ENG.

Hastings will nearly always meet the 20-foreigners-including-10-IMs requirement. Ditto the 4NCL and Gibraltar. The smaller international opens are the ones in danger of this problem.

[Roger de Coverly]

Hastings will nearly always meet the 20-foreigners-including-10-IMs requirement. Ditto the 4NCL and Gibraltar. The smaller international opens are the ones in danger of this problem.

I'm not sure of the exact rule. Assuming at least 20 foreigners, does it still matter that you need to play at least 3 of them and the other way, if you are a foreigner, you have to avoid playing at least 7 locals?

In the 4NCL, it's the League as a whole that counts, is it not, so you can play 9/9 English and still get a norm.

[Alex McFarlane]

For Hastings I would assume that this is considered when offering invitations to titled players. I would be amazed if Con/Stewart did not ensure the requirements of 20 FIDE rated foreigners (10 IM/WIM or above).

The first London Classic Open did not meet that requirement and even though the pairings were done by computer the situation was monitored. I don't think the need to consider altering any pairing for this reason arose however (but my memory isn't great!).

I agree that this will normally apply to smaller events but the first Classic had 123 entrants so it is not restricted to smaller events.
It is certainly something that a good IO would be aware of and try to prevent by judicious invitations (and why having a Trinidadian IM is better than having an English one )

To clarify if the 20 non-English rule as given is obeyed, an individuals variety of opponents nations does not matter.

[Roger de Coverly]

To clarify if the 20 non-English rule as given is obeyed, an individuals variety of opponents nations does not matter.

So if you invite at least 10 GM/IM/WGM/WIM not from your local Federation, you need another 10 "rated tourists" to make up the numbers. If you do that, norm chances are not affected by the Federation of opponents. Presumably the Paris event failed to muster 10 non local titled players.

[Alex Holowczak]

To clarify if the 20 non-English rule as given is obeyed, an individuals variety of opponents nations does not matter.

So if you invite at least 10 GM/IM/WGM/WIM not from your local Federation, you need another 10 "rated tourists" to make up the numbers. If you do that, norm chances are not affected by the Federation of opponents. Presumably the Paris event failed to muster 10 non local titled players.

Indeed, as we discovered way back on post number 7 of this thread.

[Jonathan Rogers]

Actually I count 12 or 13 non local titled players, if FMs count for this purpose. So hopefully Ryan has made it after all.

As will be obvious, I didn't know the rules very well and hadn't looked out for this detail originally. I could have read them I suppose but where is the fun in that?!

[Jonathan Rogers]

... and having just read the seventh post (see Alex's post above) I see that FMs don't count and so Ryan hasn't got it.

At the moment.

[Roger de Coverly]

Actually I count 12 or 13 non local titled players, if FMs count for this purpose. So hopefully Ryan has made it after all.

The lowest qualifying title is WIM, if I've followed the debate correctly. I've just checked the stats for the tournament in Leiden where I played 8*NED plus 1 Polish IM. The tournament would have been above the 20 player minimum qualification, but not by much. Non NED players were only around 25, but enough of them were GM or IM.

[E Michael White]

Presumably the Paris event failed to muster 10 non local titled players.

Paris shoot themselves in the foot by making it >2200, as this rules out some non-French WIMs who may otherwise wish to play. Also they have an overlap, as the next event down is <2300, so that attracts WIMs and WGs.

Max is quite right about the first round seeding; this can have a big effect. In the first round at Paris, I make it 10 non=French players had White and 14 Black, which is enough to considerably alter the probability of meeting French players, if a player is on the wrong colour. Ryan RG had Black in the first round so was in the wrong group, however he started with two Blacks so transferred to the better colour. In retrospect, his best course would have been to throw half a point in round 3 because there was a group containg more non French slightly lower placed than himself. When playing abroad its essential to carry a mathematician with you, forget the chess coach.

I dont approve of giving arbiters too much or even any discretion during the event, as regards changing the draw, because particularly ENG arbiters would take the opportunity to get it wrong and make matters worse. However they should be able to vary the seeding on the wall slightly to balance the non-home players better before the event starts. In Paris when two players had the same grade sometimes they placed them lexicographically in the seeding, but in other cases the reverse of this. Arbiters could probably be trusted to balance as far as possible the seedings on the charts if they were required to do this by the regulations.

The Paris event with its entry levels and high concentration of French players is probably a good event to get rating points for non French if they feel they are underrated but not the best for obtaining a norm.