2nd Cambridge International Open

[LawrenceCooper]

Adams, Haubro & Tiviakov finished on 7/9 with Fernandez, Roberson & Wadsworth on 6.5.

[Mick Norris]

Adams first on tiebreak?

[LawrenceCooper]

Adams first on tiebreak?

I thought from their regulations that everything was shared, but maybe I missed something separate mentioning first place.

[Jonathan Rogers]

On the link you highlighted yesterday, it did speak of a tiebreak system, whilst also saying that money would be shared equally. I don't pretend to understand ...

A shame that Willow misses out on a high spot, there can't have been many others who played all of Fernandez, Adams and Tiviakov. At the same time I wonder whether he was disadvantaged when, on 4/5, he played a 1680-odd rated player (who in that game played to his rating, incidentally) - perhaps otherwise he might have needed half a point less for the GM norm.

An impressive recovery from 2/4 from Peter Roberson to get back to board one in the final round (and quite an interesting "human" game that was too).

[LawrenceCooper]

On the link you highlighted yesterday, it did speak of a tiebreak system, whilst also saying that money would be shared equally. I don't pretend to understand ...

A shame that Willow misses out on a high spot, there can't have been many others who played all of Fernandez, Adams and Tiviakov. At the same time I wonder whether he was disadvantaged when, on 4/5, he played a 1680-odd rated player (who in that game played to his rating, incidentally) - perhaps otherwise he might have needed half a point less for the GM norm.

An impressive recovery from 2/4 from Peter Roberson to get back to board one in the final round (and quite an interesting "human" game that was too).

Jonah also beat Haubro in round 3. The round 6 pairing wasn't ideal but being able to round the opponent's rating up to 2200 limited the damage.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I did have a look to see whether this tournament has enough foreigners for an exemption, but I don't think it has 10 non-English IMs and GMs.

Would anyone be able to clarify the exact caveats and exceptions that applied here? I think I understand them but am not entirely sure.

https://handbook.fide.com/chapter/B012024

1.4.3 Federations of opponents

"At least two federations other than that of the title applicant must be included, except 1.4.3a - 1.4.3d shall be exempt."

Does this mean if Lorenzo Fava (being ITA) had played one player from a different federation than both ITA and ENG, the performance would have counted as an IM norm?

Exception 1.43d is what I think Jack was referring to:

"Swiss System tournaments in which participants include in every round at least 20 FIDE rated players, not from the host federation, from at least 3 different federations, at least 10 of whom hold GM, IM, WGM or WIM titles"

I count 9 non-English IMs and GMs. Am I right that if there had also been a non-ENG WGM or WIM that would have met the requirements?

The calculation for Jonah Willow was different and didn't rely on an exception as his mix of opponents had already satisfied the requirements of 1.44?

I didn't look at Bodhana's WIM calculation. Was that a fully valid opportunity up to round 8?

[IM Jack Rudd]

Fava needed to have played at least four players who weren't Italian (he did), three players who weren't English (he didn't), and players from two non-Italy nationalities (he didn't).

[LawrenceCooper]

Adams first on tiebreak?

Yes, (according to the Cambridge International Chess Open Facebook page).

[Roger de Coverly]

On the link you highlighted yesterday, it did speak of a tiebreak system, whilst also saying that money would be shared equally. I don't pretend to understand ...

There was a physical trophy on display at the start of the final round as well as a few medals.

[Tim Spanton]

On the link you highlighted yesterday, it did speak of a tiebreak system, whilst also saying that money would be shared equally. I don't pretend to understand ...

There was a physical trophy on display at the start of the final round as well as a few medals.

Your eyesight must be good if you could see the trophy from the lowly board you were sat at.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Fava needed to have played at least four players who weren't Italian (he did), three players who weren't English (he didn't), and players from two non-Italy nationalities (he didn't).

I do feel a bit sorry for Fava (not too sorry as he may well get the rating and norms later) as I am not entirely sure that rule was designed to prevent this sort of performance counting.

What sort of situations are or were those rules intended to prevent?

[IM Jack Rudd]

Fava needed to have played at least four players who weren't Italian (he did), three players who weren't English (he didn't), and players from two non-Italy nationalities (he didn't).

I do feel a bit sorry for Fava (not too sorry as he may well get the rating and norms later) as I am not entirely sure that rule was designed to prevent this sort of performance counting.

What sort of situations are or were those rules intended to prevent?

I'm guessing they're there to prevent or lessen the likelihood of contrived "tournaments" where the results are carefully managed to as to ensure the maximum possible number of norms.

[NickFaulks]

I count 9 non-English IMs and GMs. Am I right that if there had also been a non-ENG WGM or WIM that would have met the requirements?

No. You are including one player who never arrived and another who was missing from three rounds.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I count 9 non-English IMs and GMs. Am I right that if there had also been a non-ENG WGM or WIM that would have met the requirements?

No. You are including one player who never arrived and another who was missing from three rounds.

Well spotted:

Bogdan Borsos is the Ukrainian IM who was missing from three rounds.
Khamparia Akshat is the Indian IM who didn't turn up.

My question still stands, if they had been present for all nine rounds, would a non-ENG WGM or WIM (or indeed another non-ENG IM or GM) have meant the exemption requirements were met?

And what exactly was the reasoning behind the 20 and 10 figures? Plucked out of thin air, or were there reasons.

It does seem a bit harsh that a clearly valid IM-level performance is not counted. For what reason?

[NickFaulks]

My question still stands, if they had been present for all nine rounds, would a non-ENG WGM or WIM (or indeed another non-ENG IM or GM) have meant the exemption requirements were met?

Yes.

And what exactly was the reasoning behind the 20 and 10 figures? Plucked out of thin air, or were there reasons.

I used to call this the "Aeroflot rule", from back when that tournament might have seventy GMs and you could play nine of them and by bad luck they were all Russian. There was felt to be a need for some exception for a "big Swiss" and these numbers seemed reasonable.

The hope was that they would in most cases they would be comfortably exceeded but we were fully aware that some organisers ( the usual suspects! ) would organise their events around them. This is why they are enforced with no latitude, and claims based on "18 or 19 plus a sob story" have been rejected.

The excerpt quoted leaves out

"For this purpose, players will be counted only if they miss at most one round (excluding pairing allocated byes)."

This is important, since it invalidates the "tag team" approach to the crucial players which had been exploited in some cases.

It does seem a bit harsh that a clearly valid IM-level performance is not counted. For what reason?

People don't talk about this much, but the reason must be a fear that players from your own federation will be more likely to help you out in your search for a title. I suspect that is less true than it may once have have been.