Best Disputes

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
Stewart Reuben
Posts: 4057
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:04 pm
Location: writer

Re: Best Disputes

Post by Stewart Reuben » Mon May 13, 2013 10:01 pm

Richard Bates said. Which doesn't occur in the 4NCL because the 80pt rule is explicitly stated to not apply if both captains agree.

Thank you Richard, I did not know that and accessing data is difficult in Croatia. It then meets the FIDE Regulations. If the 80 point rule was absolute, then waiving it on a whim would be against the rules. I was misled by an earlier post. It was said that the arbiter agreed to the switch. He did not need to be consulted. He needed only to be informed that both captains had agreed to the change.
Thus Roger is wrong to suggest that there are no FIDE guidelines for team events.

It is a little odd that a player could be parachuted in for the last round of a team tournament. It might be Magnus Carlssen, thus enabling a player to gain his final GM norm even if he lost. This would not be allowed for a Swiss.

Nick Thomas
Posts: 455
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 9:56 pm

Re: Best Disputes

Post by Nick Thomas » Mon May 13, 2013 10:09 pm

The rules state that the arbiter must also agree.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18345
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Best Disputes

Post by Roger de Coverly » Mon May 13, 2013 10:12 pm

Stewart Reuben wrote: Thus Roger is wrong to suggest that there are no FIDE guidelines for team events.
If you were starting a brand new team event and you wanted the potential to offer Norms, where would you look to find FIDE's rules or guidance on what you can and cannot put in your league rules regarding board orders and player substitution?

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18345
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Best Disputes

Post by Roger de Coverly » Mon May 13, 2013 10:25 pm

Nick Thomas wrote:The rules state that the arbiter must also agree.
Quoting the current rules about board order in full:-
8.3 In all divisions FIDE ratings will be used to determine the order of strength of a team. For a player without a FIDE rating, an ECF grade will be converted to an equivalent FIDE rating using the appropriate conversion formula. For players who are not English and do not have FIDE ratings, their national ratings will take precedence over ECF grades. All games in all divisions will be submitted for both FIDE rating and ECF grading. For juniors under eighteen years on 1 January 2013 [ix] captains may elect to use latest published ECF grades or other national ratings for conversion to an equivalent FIDE rating using the appropriate conversion formula.


8.4 Where there is a difference of more than 80 FIDE rating points under rule 8.3 between two players in the same team, the higher rated player must play on a higher board than the lower rated player. In squads with more than one team a player is only eligible for a lower team if his rating under rule 8.3 is not more than 80 FIDE rating points higher than the rating of any person playing in a higher team in the same numbered round.


8.5 When applying the 80 point requirement for squads with more than one team under rule 8.4, the male and female player "pools" under rule 7.2 and the northern-designated and southern-designated player "pools" under rule 2.3 are considered separately (NB junior players in Division 2 under rule 7.2 are considered part of the female player "pool" for this purpose). It should be noted, however, that all teams must comply with the 80 point requirement for all players in the team regardless of sex or age. It should also be noted that for the purposes of applying the 80 point rule across squads with more than one team, lower teams in a squad may not have a higher average FIDE rating than higher teams in the same squad. When calculating team average FIDE ratings, board 8 in teams in Divisions 1 and 2 will not be included.


8.6 Any complaint about the composition of a team must be made before the scheduled start of the round.
But these can be ignored
8.7 Where both captains and the Chief Arbiter agree in advance, the requirements of rules 8.3 to 8.6 may be waived, if this is in the best interests of the League.
"Best interests of the League" has usually been interpreted to mean allowing Norm chances.

As regards the addition of players to squads, the final weekend isn't treated any differently to any of the earlier weekends.

Ian Thompson
Posts: 2232
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
Location: Awbridge, Hampshire

Re: Best Disputes

Post by Ian Thompson » Mon May 13, 2013 10:31 pm

Stewart Reuben wrote:Richard Bates said. Which doesn't occur in the 4NCL because the 80pt rule is explicitly stated to not apply if both captains agree.

... It then meets the FIDE Regulations. If the 80 point rule was absolute, then waiving it on a whim would be against the rules. I was misled by an earlier post. It was said that the arbiter agreed to the switch.
The 4NCL rules say that the two team captains and the arbiter can agree to waive the board order rules if "this is in the best interests of the league".

So, by analogy, an individual swiss tournament could meet (or, perhaps more accurately, circumvent) the FIDE rules on norms by saying "the pairing system used will be XYZ unless the arbiter decides something different would be in the best interests of the event once its underway"? Perhaps its time to rewrite the FIDE rules.

Chris Rice
Posts: 2886
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 5:17 am

Re: Best Disputes

Post by Chris Rice » Tue May 14, 2013 6:55 am

The FIDE rules applying to Swisses and Team competitions are inconsistent and here's an example which hopefully just meets the criteria of a dispute.

In 2012 Bragi Thorfinnsson (Iceland) was on for a GM norm coming into the last round at the Reykjavik Open. But he needed to play someone of a minumum Elo grade and I think a title to do it. The Icelandic Controller would have none of it, citing the FIDE rules which Stewart refers to and paired him against a 2255 which was no good to Bragi. Bragi refused to play that game and boycotted the 2013 event because of it. Oh by the way the 2255 was by sheer coincidence....Ian Thompson!

Anyway in the 2012/13 4ncl season Bragi did much better and was able to get the GM norm precisely because we were able to arrange for him to play the right opponents, on the right board with the right colour. We didn't try and waive the 80-point rule for him with any opposing captain but we had been given permission to if we needed to.

Therefore in the team competition, at least as far as the 4ncl is concerned, you have four advantages over the FIDE rules for the Swiss. As a side note, for Icelandic players when they get norms and titles they get money from the Icelandic Chess Federation so there was a direct cost to Bragi when the FIDE rules were applied by the Icelandic Controller back in 2012.

Richard Bates
Posts: 3011
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:27 pm

Re: Best Disputes

Post by Richard Bates » Tue May 14, 2013 7:45 am

Chris Rice wrote:The FIDE rules applying to Swisses and Team competitions are inconsistent and here's an example which hopefully just meets the criteria of a dispute.

In 2012 Bragi Thorfinnsson (Iceland) was on for a GM norm coming into the last round at the Reykjavik Open. But he needed to play someone of a minumum Elo grade and I think a title to do it. The Icelandic Controller would have none of it, citing the FIDE rules which Stewart refers to and paired him against a 2255 which was no good to Bragi. Bragi refused to play that game and boycotted the 2013 event because of it. Oh by the way the 2255 was by sheer coincidence....Ian Thompson!

Anyway in the 2012/13 4ncl season Bragi did much better and was able to get the GM norm precisely because we were able to arrange for him to play the right opponents, on the right board with the right colour. We didn't try and waive the 80-point rule for him with any opposing captain but we had been given permission to if we needed to.

Therefore in the team competition, at least as far as the 4ncl is concerned, you have four advantages over the FIDE rules for the Swiss. As a side note, for Icelandic players when they get norms and titles they get money from the Icelandic Chess Federation so there was a direct cost to Bragi when the FIDE rules were applied by the Icelandic Controller back in 2012.
Sounds like a somewhat petulant attitude, seeing as the arbiter was only following the regulations. As i pointed out above, they are framed in such a way that to be in breach would not just jeopardise the norm in question but all norms secured in the tournament. As it happens i think there should in principle arguably be some leeway within the circumstances of an individual tournament to allow some pairing manipulation where there are no prizes at stake, although this is pretty difficult to ascertain in practice with rating prizes being competed for all the way down the tournament. It could also put arbiters in difficult situations where they are able to help one individual's norm chances at the expense of another.

On one of the other points, I do think there is a serious gap in FIDE's regulations with respect to colours. Whilst it may be a consequence of the rating system implicitly ignoring the possibility of colour bias, I do think it wrong that somebody can get a norm whilst playing almost exclusively with one colour (usually white). In this case Bragi Thorfinnsson had 8 whites in 9 games. This would not happen in an individual tournament, and would not happen 'by accident' in team tournaments. It would seem utterly reasonable to me that a regulation could be introduced to require, say, a maximum of 2/3 qualifying games played with one colour.

Nick Thomas
Posts: 455
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 9:56 pm

Re: Best Disputes

Post by Nick Thomas » Tue May 14, 2013 8:30 am

Ian Thompson wrote:
Stewart Reuben wrote:Richard Bates said. Which doesn't occur in the 4NCL because the 80pt rule is explicitly stated to not apply if both captains agree.

... It then meets the FIDE Regulations. If the 80 point rule was absolute, then waiving it on a whim would be against the rules. I was misled by an earlier post. It was said that the arbiter agreed to the switch.
The 4NCL rules say that the two team captains and the arbiter can agree to waive the board order rules if "this is in the best interests of the league".

So, by analogy, an individual swiss tournament could meet (or, perhaps more accurately, circumvent) the FIDE rules on norms by saying "the pairing system used will be XYZ unless the arbiter decides something different would be in the best interests of the event once its underway"? Perhaps its time to rewrite the FIDE rules.
This isn't the same thing at all. Pairings are not being manipulated in a team event therefore other teams are not being compromised, unless you think that the waiving of the 80 point rule changes the predictive result of the relevant fixture.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Best Disputes

Post by Alex Holowczak » Tue May 14, 2013 10:35 am

Joey Stewart wrote:What would the others of you have done in the situation?
The Birmingham League had a situation where one club lost some Division 1 players, and wanted to withdraw that team, rather than their bottom-most team in the league. The League informed this club that they had to withdraw their bottom-most team, which was the correct thing to do.

Ian Thompson
Posts: 2232
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
Location: Awbridge, Hampshire

Re: Best Disputes

Post by Ian Thompson » Tue May 14, 2013 9:18 pm

Chris Rice wrote:The FIDE rules applying to Swisses and Team competitions are inconsistent and here's an example which hopefully just meets the criteria of a dispute.

In 2012 Bragi Thorfinnsson (Iceland) was on for a GM norm coming into the last round at the Reykjavik Open. But he needed to play someone of a minumum Elo grade and I think a title to do it. The Icelandic Controller would have none of it, citing the FIDE rules which Stewart refers to and paired him against a 2255 which was no good to Bragi. Bragi refused to play that game and boycotted the 2013 event because of it. Oh by the way the 2255 was by sheer coincidence....Ian Thompson!
What actually happened was that Bragi Thorfinnsson's clock was started at the appointed time and 30 minutes later he was defaulted for failing to turn up. There followed an explanation to me of why he was likely to have not turned up (along the lines you state, but with the possibly significant difference that he asked for the draw to be changed after it had been published). Both the arbiter and his brother were very apologetic for what they clearly considered to be unacceptable behaviour. His brother was also involved in the organisation, so whether he was speaking as an embarrassed brother or an organiser, or both, I don't know.

I did notice that Bragi Thorfinnsson was not playing in the 2013 Reykjavik Open and wondered whether that was his decision or the organisers, or both.

Obviously, I don't know exactly what Bragi Thorfinnsson said to the organisers when he was trying to get them to change the draw, but I think it reasonable to conclude that anything that was said was not interpreted as a withdrawal otherwise there would have been no need to wait 30 minutes before defaulting him.
Chris Rice wrote:As a side note, for Icelandic players when they get norms and titles they get money from the Icelandic Chess Federation so there was a direct cost to Bragi when the FIDE rules were applied by the Icelandic Controller back in 2012.
... but presumably not fines or other penalties when they act in an unsporting way?
Richard Bates wrote:As it happens i think there should in principle arguably be some leeway within the circumstances of an individual tournament to allow some pairing manipulation where there are no prizes at stake, although this is pretty difficult to ascertain in practice with rating prizes being competed for all the way down the tournament.
In this tournament players such as me, on 5/8, were in with a chance of winning one of three 2200-2400 rating prizes. As it turned out, 6/9 was the winning score, although not by me, because my tie-break wasn't good enough.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18345
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Best Disputes

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue May 14, 2013 9:27 pm

Chris Rice wrote: In 2012 Bragi Thorfinnsson (Iceland) was on for a GM norm coming into the last round at the Reykjavik Open. But he needed to play someone of a minumum Elo grade and I think a title to do it.
I think there's a way it could have been cooked without appearing to override the computer pairings. There's a flag which is usually used to prevent pairings against Israeli players when this would cause problems for the non-Israeli. Assuming it can be applied during the tournament, just mark up all his potential opponents with ratings too low or without titles as pairings to be avoided.

Stewart Reuben
Posts: 4057
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:04 pm
Location: writer

Re: Best Disputes

Post by Stewart Reuben » Tue May 14, 2013 11:27 pm

The 4NCL rules should say that the two team captains can agree to waive the board order rules.

The current rule, if brought to the attention of the FIDE QC might well result in such results being disallowed, even retrospectively. It also places the arbiter in an invidious position.

It is perfectly true that players getting a high percentage of whites for norms in team events is incorrect. Even British players have benefitted.

The Olympiad Rules are incorrect in my view. The highest rated player in weaker teams has often been placed on the bottom board. Not so much now board prizes are decided by TPR.

The solution Roger proposes just above is clearly manipulating the Swiss pairings.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18345
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Best Disputes

Post by Roger de Coverly » Wed May 15, 2013 12:21 am

Stewart Reuben wrote:The 4NCL rules should say that the two team captains can agree to waive the board order rules.
This is what they currently say, but it's not solely up to the team captains.

In addition the waiver has to be approved by the arbiters on behalf of the 4NCL. Those with long memories may recall the match in the 1990s where, left to their own devices, the respective match captains and organisers of Slough and Midland Monarchs contrived to almost play the match in reverse order.

Geoff Chandler
Posts: 2088
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:36 pm
Location: Under Cover
Contact:

Re: Best Disputes

Post by Geoff Chandler » Thu May 16, 2013 1:42 am

So you did manage to get a dispute going here after all.

I've been off at the Bridge Forum.
They are a pretty insolent lot. The keep calling some guy, I've not found who yet, a dummy.

Had a quick read of the thread.

Hmmmmm.......

I seem to recall Stewart saying something else about GM titles....hang on.

Got it. Wed Oct 27, 2010

I don't store everything I read, but words from the likes or Stewart and Mr Barden I tuck away.

Stewart posted:

"I have postulated that the GM title is roughly the equivalent of a PhD. "

Maybe in the 70's Stewart when there were about 100 GM's knocking about and
there is a very good chance between us we could have named 60% of them
and the term "weak GM was totally unheard off."

These days I'd struggle to name all the English GM's.

Mr Barden started off a thread;

"Fine start for Englishman in Euro championship"

Looks like he is struggling to name them all as well. :wink:

It is GM Stephen Gordon who was seeded 131.

1970's 100 GM's now in 2013 we have GM's being seeded 131.

It does appear nowadays to get the equivalent PhD you just keep flitting
around from university to university till they give you a weaker or easier final exam paper.

Joey said:

"Unfortunately their ringleader, Des McCarthy, was quite a fiery character and the league
committee relatively reluctant to take him on so he was allowed to do this year in year out.

I was all for threatening to throw him and his cheating team out of the league..."

Hi Joey,

You cannot go around throwing chess teams out of leagues.
League chess is the life blood of the game, though the two national magazines
tend to ignore them preferring instead to give us GM games.

(Who apparently get their GM titles from slipping down the board order in the 4NCL).

The same old same old, 20 moves of theory, 20 moves of Fritz analysis and an excuse for losing.

And I'm fed up seeing pictures of Magnus Carlsen from every possible angle imaginable.

I want to see pictures of a smiling fiery Des surrounded by these trohies.
I want to see the games of fiery Des McCarthy and his 'dodgy' team.

The fiery Des McCarthy's of this world should be running things.

Stewart Reuben
Posts: 4057
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:04 pm
Location: writer

Re: Best Disputes

Post by Stewart Reuben » Fri May 17, 2013 12:22 am

After discussion, I now edge towards the view that the GM title is a higher qualification than a PhD.

Players of yeteryear like Donner, Janosevic, OKelly were not all that strong. It is true that I was able to recite the list of all of them when I was about 16. Now there are many more. But the reasons for this are well documented and not necessarily at all an indication of inflation.

Post Reply