English Chess Forum

While looking for a tournament to play in, I came across a couple of foreign weekend tournaments with unusual time controls. I've not seen this in this country. What do people think? Would these sorts of tournaments interest people?

Tournament 1

8 rounds swiss

Rounds 1-4: 15 minutes + 5 sec per move
Rounds 5-8: 90 minutes + 30 sec per move

Playing Schedule
Friday: R1: 18:30, R2: 19:30, R3: 20:30, R4: 21:30
Saturday: R5: 11:00 R6: 16:00
Sunday: R7: 10:00 R8: 15:00

Tournament 2

7 rounds swiss

Rounds 1-3: rapid (time limit not specified)
Rounds 4-7: 90 minutes + 30 sec per move

Playing Schedule
Friday: R1: 18:30, R2: 20:00, R3: 21:00
Saturday: R4: 9:00 R5: 14:00
Sunday: R6: 9:00 R7: 14:00

"Bizarre" would be my reaction.

Off the top of my head I don't think such tournaments would be FIDE rateable. I believe you have to have one time control for the entire tournament and you couldn't rate the standard part of the tournament because the pairing wouldn't conform to an approved FIDE pairing scheme unless the earlier rapid rounds were ignored.

I'm guessing there would likely be similar problems with most national rating schemes as well.

Were there any prizes?
Were there any tie-break schemes announced?

Tournament details are here and here.

Brian Towers wrote:Off the top of my head I don't think such tournaments would be FIDE rateable.

One definitely is FIDE rated. The other probably is (depending on what ELO-registered means).

Brian Towers wrote:Were there any prizes?

Yes.

Brian Towers wrote:Were there any tie-break schemes announced?

Not that I can see, but why would that matter?

Ian Thompson wrote:

Brian Towers wrote:Were there any prizes?

Yes.

Brian Towers wrote:Were there any tie-break schemes announced?

Not that I can see, but why would that matter?

Ian, sorry for my laziness, but I can't be bothered to search through my copy of the FIDE Arbiter's Handbook and provide chapter and verse.

Nevertheless, I'm pretty sure it says that in the case where there are cash prizes then the tie break system used for these must be decided by the organizers in advance and the players informed before the tournament starts, ideally in the promotional material so they don't get a shock at the start of the first round. This is all pretty obvious stuff and competent organizers will do this as a matter of course.

None of this means that you should definitely not enter such a competition, but it does act as a warning flag.

Brian Towers wrote: Off the top of my head I don't think such tournaments would be FIDE rateable. I believe you have to have one time control for the entire tournament and you couldn't rate the standard part of the tournament because the pairing wouldn't conform to an approved FIDE pairing scheme unless the earlier rapid rounds were ignored.

I don't know why you would think that. Games have been rated individually for some years now. Of course, the tournament could not offer norms.

By the way, this "accelerated" option is very common in the States.

Ian Thompson wrote: Playing Schedule
Friday: R1: 18:30, R2: 20:00, R3: 21:00
Saturday: R4: 9:00 R5: 14:00
Sunday: R6: 9:00 R7: 14:00

Around 50 players is about the practical maximum for a five round Swiss to to avoid the risk of two players with 100% . If you needed more than 50 entrants to finance attractive prizes per section, running the first three rounds as rapid-play could be an elegant solution of sorts.

I couldn't see it working in the UK. Travelling to a Friday evening round can be subject to severe delays, so many players elect half point byes to avoid travel headaches. I don't see byes working in the Swedish format. Having round times staring at 9 am would be a courageous decision for a British organiser.

For FIDE rating purposes, presumably it just goes through as two tournaments.

There are precedents in the USA where players can elect to play the first four or five rounds of nine round tournaments as rapid-play.

Brian Towers wrote: Nevertheless, I'm pretty sure it says that in the case where there are cash prizes then the tie break system used for these must be decided by the organizers in advance and the players informed before the tournament starts

The usual British system is to share the prize money among those with the same score, so no tie break system is needed. That only gets marginally complex if there are special prizes for juniors, seniors or women and rating prizes where some aggregation rule is necessary.

I can think of no British events where the money prizes are not shared equally. Swedish tournaments may differ.

NickFaulks wrote:I don't know why you would think that. Games have been rated individually for some years now. Of course, the tournament could not offer norms.

By the way, this "accelerated" option is very common in the States.

Good points!
I stand corrected.

Brian Towers wrote:"Bizarre" would be my reaction.

Off the top of my head I don't think such tournaments would be FIDE rateable. I believe you have to have one time control for the entire tournament and you couldn't rate the standard part of the tournament because the pairing wouldn't conform to an approved FIDE pairing scheme unless the earlier rapid rounds were ignored.

I'm guessing there would likely be similar problems with most national rating schemes as well.

Not in the ECF as I understanbd it. Our club had a competition that was a knockout with a provision for replays following a draw to follow different rules from the main competition, so different in fact that they could not be graded (one side had a time penalty, but only had to draw to go through to the next round).

I specifically asked the grading team about the position here and was told that the 'main' games could still be submitted for grading even though not all games would then be submitted. I suppose the reasoning is that the requirement for complete submission is so that it is not possible to pick and choose games after they are completed: in this case the fact that a game cannot be submitted was known before the result.

Michael Farthing wrote: Our club had a competition that was a knockout with a provision for replays following a draw to follow different rules from the main competition, so different in fact that they could not be graded (one side had a time penalty, but only had to draw to go through to the next round).

There was one year when Hastings was run as a single round knockout, but with unequal time. I believe Stewart Reuben asserted that the FIDE Rules as they then stood didn't preclude the games from being rated.

Ian Thompson wrote:While looking for a tournament to play in, I came across a couple of foreign weekend tournaments with unusual time controls. I've not seen this in this country. What do people think? Would these sorts of tournaments interest people?

Tournament 1

8 rounds swiss

Rounds 1-4: 15 minutes + 5 sec per move
Rounds 5-8: 90 minutes + 30 sec per move

Playing Schedule
Friday: R1: 18:30, R2: 19:30, R3: 20:30, R4: 21:30
Saturday: R5: 11:00 R6: 16:00
Sunday: R7: 10:00 R8: 15:00

Tournament 2

7 rounds swiss

Rounds 1-3: rapid (time limit not specified)
Rounds 4-7: 90 minutes + 30 sec per move

Playing Schedule
Friday: R1: 18:30, R2: 20:00, R3: 21:00
Saturday: R4: 9:00 R5: 14:00
Sunday: R6: 9:00 R7: 14:00

I have to say that this appears to me to be a far more elegant solution than accelerated pairings favoured by some arbiters and organisers.

I remember once the Somerset U-18 championship was run with the following schedule:

Round 1: G/60
Rounds 2-5: 30/60 + G/15

I asked the Chief Arbiter why this was. After 90 minutes into round 1, when all the games had finished, he said "that's why".

Sean Hewitt wrote:I have to say that this appears to me to be a far more elegant solution than accelerated pairings favoured by some arbiters and organisers.

What is the accelerated pairing

soheil_hooshdaran wrote:

Sean Hewitt wrote:I have to say that this appears to me to be a far more elegant solution than accelerated pairings favoured by some arbiters and organisers.

What is the accelerated pairing

A description of the system commonly used in England can be downloaded from the [English] Chess Arbiters' Association website.

soheil_hooshdaran wrote:

Sean Hewitt wrote:I have to say that this appears to me to be a far more elegant solution than accelerated pairings favoured by some arbiters and organisers.

What is the accelerated pairing

In general terms, a pairing system designed to minimize the number of rounds taken to have fewer than two people on 100%. There are a number of methods that do this.