Oh, yes it has!Stewart Reuben wrote:Since Acceleration has never been computerised
Swiss Master has a very sophisticated acceleration option in terms of groups, points, number of rounds to apply, etc.
Vega (recently reviewed by Gerry Jepps) also has it. Since it is a trivial programming exercise I'd be surprised if any of the approved programs didn't have it as an option.
there is no reason for tournament organizers not to use it if they so wish and feel there is a need.FIDE Handbook C.04.2 General handling rules for Swiss Tournaments wrote: Accelerated methods are acceptable if they were announced in advance by the organizer and are not biased in favour of any player.
Why is it a problem for FIDE? Why is it not a problem for organizers to decide?shaunpress wrote: I can still report that FIDE SPP is looking at developing a standardised system of Acceleration. However at this point they are still running up against the problems of how long to accelerate for
Of course FIDE can give guidelines. The standard (not FIDE) guidelines are, I think, that acceleration should in all cases stop at least 2 rounds before the end. Otherwise it should continue until nobody in the bottom half is on 100%.
If the aim is to reduce the yo-yoing in the first few rounds then just have it for 2 or 3 rounds (in a 9 rounder).
How popular is this, in any case, with the chess playing public? I can imagine it being popular with the minority of very strong players, but speaking for the semi-patzer level, the first round of large rapids and opens is the one time I get to have a pop at a GM or IM with perhaps the chance of some free analysis and advice (if I can actually understand and follow what he's saying) in the post mortem!
Perhaps I'm being a bit thick (wouldn't be the first time) but I don't understand. Could you explain why there is more to it than just removing the "logical point(s)" used in the acceleration process and continuing with normal pairing?shaunpress wrote:and what to do when it stops.