English Chess Forum

Matthew Turner wrote:What an idiot Mr. Croker must be, it is more important for the arbiter to have fun than do the job competently??

I think you should read what Stewart wrote again. Why would you expect somebody to spend time doing something (for free) that they don't enjoy? There is a difference between saying that the pairing method should be designed for the enjoyment of the arbiters, and respecting the right of an arbiter to not do the job if he doesn't get any enjoyment out of it.

The problem is if the arbiters take the decisions on pairing methods and make those decisions for the wrong reasons.

Richard Bates wrote:

Matthew Turner wrote:What an idiot Mr. Croker must be, it is more important for the arbiter to have fun than do the job competently??

I think you should read what Stewart wrote again. Why would you expect somebody to spend time doing something (for free) that they don't enjoy? There is a difference between saying that the pairing method should be designed for the enjoyment of the arbiters, and respecting the right of an arbiter to not do the job if he doesn't get any enjoyment out of it.

The problem is if the arbiters take the decisions on pairing methods and make those decisions for the wrong reasons.

I have yet to see a pairing program that is coupled to a language parser so that you can try to get pairings such as 'Liver' and 'Onions', or 'White' and 'Christmas'. The nearest I got was a pairing of 'Price' and 'Fisher', but the colour preferences were wrong.

Only then will computer software have a chance at being more widely accepted.

Wilf Arnold wrote: Only then will computer software have a chance at being more widely accepted.

Swiss Master paired Almond and Tart at Uxbridge. Will that do?

Sean Hewitt wrote:

Wilf Arnold wrote: Only then will computer software have a chance at being more widely accepted.

Swiss Master paired Almond and Tart at Uxbridge. Will that do?

I would've preferred 'Bakewell', but it's a sure sign of progress!

Matthew Turner wrote:What an idiot Mr. Croker must be, it is more important for the arbiter to have fun than do the job competently??

In defence of Eric, who was (and still is) a fine arbiter; when he made those comments the pairing programs were hopeless, and even now there are still issues with certain programs throwing up odd pairings.

However I've never been to a tournament abroad where they did pairings manually, and I have had some strange looks from overseas visitors at Golders Green when I wheel out the Peter Morrish approved pairing boards...

Stewart Reuben wrote:I do remember that publishing pairings for 250 players 30 minutes after a round finished was not a problem

The standard should be 5 minutes not 30, particularly when there's next to no time between rounds. That way you can even run a 5 minute tournament with short breaks and consistent pairings. The Germans were using computer pairings back in 1993 and probably earlier.

Moving on slightly, has anyone seen Maciol-Gormally? Nf2 was probably the worst move on the board... He won't hear the end of that!

Stewart Reuben wrote:I don't think they do what I prefer, which is to have two independent people (or teams) working out the same pairings and then comparing.

We often do better than that.

Jack Rudd and Lara Barnes do the pairing, the computer does the pairing, I do the pairing. If we all agree we rip it up and start again

Normally there is either agreement or one of the alternatives is immediately accepted.

On occasions there is a great deal of discussion before it is accepted that I am right

Seriously though we have had situations where both the computer and Lara/Jack have agreed but on reflection we have gone with my pairing.

Wilf Arnold >I have yet to see a pairing program that is coupled to a language parser so that you can try to get pairings such as 'Liver' and 'Onions', or 'White' and 'Christmas'. The nearest I got was a pairing of 'Price' and 'Fisher', but the colour preferences were wrong.<

How about Black-White (it nearly always it comes out that way round). Cannon-Ball. Morphy-Staunton (quite a common pairing in the 1970s). Lo-Lobo. Reuben-Fine alas has never happened.

Roger >The standard should be 5 minutes not 30, particularly when there's next to no time between rounds. That way you can even run a 5 minute tournament with short breaks and consistent pairings. The Germans were using computer pairings back in 1993 and probably earlier.<

You have quoted me out of context. I was referring to the time it takes to pair 250 players manually. Blitz should always be played double round in order to avoid pairings taking up an undue portion of the day. Of course computer pairings have been used for about 20 years.

Stewart Reuben

Jack Rudd and Lara Barnes do the pairing, the computer does the pairing, I do the pairing. If we all agree we rip it up and start again

That explains why Jack had an easy game in Round 1 then!

And he's given himself white in Round 2!

Alex McFarlane wrote:

Stewart Reuben wrote:I don't think they do what I prefer, which is to have two independent people (or teams) working out the same pairings and then comparing.

We often do better than that.

Jack Rudd and Lara Barnes do the pairing, the computer does the pairing, I do the pairing. If we all agree we rip it up and start again

Normally there is either agreement or one of the alternatives is immediately accepted.

On occasions there is a great deal of discussion before it is accepted that I am right

Seriously though we have had situations where both the computer and Lara/Jack have agreed but on reflection we have gone with my pairing.

Uncorruptible though no doubt he is, is this Jack Rudd having input to the Championship pairings you are referring to?

Roger de Coverly wrote:The standard should be 5 minutes not 30, particularly when there's next to no time between rounds. That way you can even run a 5 minute tournament with short breaks and consistent pairings. The Germans were using computer pairings back in 1993 and probably earlier.

I'm not totally averse to computer pairings but ........

At the London Classic two computers using the same program came up with different pairings. How we are still not sure.

On two occasions recently Swiss Master has refused to change a float in a higher score level and has therefore had to do more floats than were needed on lower score levels. This seems to me to be wrong. I emailed Guert Gjissen with the first instance but am still awaiting a reply.

I am afraid I still think that a human with a computer checking is the best solution at the current time.

Alex,
Danny had lost a piece anyway, because Qxg4 was threatened had he not played Nxf2

Matthew Turner wrote:Alex,
Danny had lost a piece anyway, because Qxg4 was threatened had he not played Nxf2

He talking about white's Nf2 allowing mate in 2.

Stewart Reuben wrote:Wilf Arnold >I have yet to see a pairing program that is coupled to a language parser so that you can try to get pairings such as 'Liver' and 'Onions', or 'White' and 'Christmas'. The nearest I got was a pairing of 'Price' and 'Fisher', but the colour preferences were wrong.<

How about Black-White (it nearly always it comes out that way round). Cannon-Ball. Morphy-Staunton (quite a common pairing in the 1970s). Lo-Lobo. Reuben-Fine alas has never happened.
Stewart Reuben

An e2e4 event included the pairing Almond-Tart for the first time.