English Chess Forum

NickFaulks wrote:

Roger de Coverly wrote: but FIDE rules preclude it.

You keep saying things like that, but when challenged you're never able to point to the actual rule which you claim exists.

From the FIDE Handbook: C.04.2 General handling rules for Swiss Tournaments:

2 Before the first round the players are ranked in order of, respectively
a. Strength (rating)
b. FIDE-title (GM-IM- WGM-FM-WIM-CM-WFM-WCM-no title)
c. alphabetically (unless it has been previously stated that this criterion has been replaced by another one)

With the caveat that I haven't read the entire FIDE Handbook section on Swiss pairing rules (so there might be something that contradicts this), it would appear from the above that alphabetical order is the default ranking order for unrated players, but organisers are free to use any other order provided they specify it in advance. Whether or not the pairing software permits this is another matter, but it is clearly possible for unrated players to be ranked randomly, so that players at the tail end of the alphabet don't suffer repeatedly from getting the bye.

From the FIDE handbook

C.04.2 General handling rules for Swiss Tournaments

B
Initial Order

2
Before the first round the players are ranked in order of, respectively
Strength (rating)
FIDE-title (GM-IM- WGM-FM-WIM-CM-WFM-WCM-no title)
alphabetically (unless it has been previously stated that this criterion has been replaced by another one)

Thus whilst FIDE don't insist that the order be alphabetical, to avoid using this the arbiter would have to come up with some other criteria.


Further, under A4 we have

The FIDE Swiss Rules pair the players in an objective and impartial way, and different arbiters or software programs following the pairing rules should arrive at identical pairings.

which precludes the use of randomness at any point.

Is there a deterministic criteria for selecting order that would not tend to alight upon certain players for the bye in odd numbered fields?

(Sorry Ian - you posted whilst I was typing).

Nothing, I suppose, to prevent arbiters specifying the criterion, "reverse alphabetic order" which would have the effect of reversing the normal outcome. In other words, those players who habitually received byes (the Y's and Z's) would be unlikely to get them while those who normally never received byes (the A's and B's) would receive them. There's a sort of elementary justice about this although Mr Aardvark, entering a tournament for the first time, might take a while to perceive this.

Roger Lancaster wrote:Nothing, I suppose, to prevent arbiters specifying the criterion, "reverse alphabetic order" which would have the effect of reversing the normal outcome. In other words, those players who habitually received byes (the Y's and Z's) would be unlikely to get them while those who normally never received byes (the A's and B's) would receive them. There's a sort of elementary justice about this although Mr Aardvark, entering a tournament for the first time, might take a while to perceive this.

Jacob Aagaard too

Martyn Harris wrote: Further, under A4 we have

The FIDE Swiss Rules pair the players in an objective and impartial way, and different arbiters or software programs following the pairing rules should arrive at identical pairings.

which precludes the use of randomness at any point.

I discussed this concept with the SPP people in Baku. They accept that it is at present no more than a pious hope, and it has no effect on the Title and Rating Regulations. Strangely, none of us even noticed the obvious issue about alphabetical order, and I shall ask them about that.

Martyn Harris wrote:Further, under A4 we have

The FIDE Swiss Rules pair the players in an objective and impartial way, and different arbiters or software programs following the pairing rules should arrive at identical pairings.

which precludes the use of randomness at any point.

Given that any kind of ranking (including alphabetical order) of unrated players is entirely arbitrary, I think the 'identical pairings' requirement only applies after the initial ranking has been set. So an initial random order ought to be acceptable - different programs or arbiters using the same ranking should produce the same pairings. You just can't have any randomness (or other adjustments) thereafter.

Ian Kingston wrote: Given that any kind of ranking (including alphabetical order) of unrated players is entirely arbitrary, I think the 'identical pairings' requirement only applies after the initial ranking has been set.

That would seem reasonable, but in fact I suspect that nobody has considered the point. In any case, it is at present an aspiration rather than a requirement.

LawrenceCooper wrote:

Roger Lancaster wrote:Nothing, I suppose, to prevent arbiters specifying the criterion, "reverse alphabetic order" which would have the effect of reversing the normal outcome. In other words, those players who habitually received byes (the Y's and Z's) would be unlikely to get them while those who normally never received byes (the A's and B's) would receive them. There's a sort of elementary justice about this although Mr Aardvark, entering a tournament for the first time, might take a while to perceive this.

Jacob Aagaard too

Or Manuel Aaron

The obvious non-random, perfectly fair and organiser-attractive method is surely to replace alphabetical order with the order in which competitors have entered the competition. In their own hands be it!

Thank you for all your comments. I understand the issues a little more.

In India, where this problem occurs for v-y children regularly, the organisers of tournaments show some sympathy but seem very frightened of FIDE, even though many tournaments are only for children and are not FIDE-rated.

What you need is an arbiter experienced with other pairing methods and who is not at all frightened of FIDE. I would be more than happy to arbit some tournaments in India.

You would need to be able to cope with the constant cries of, "Illegal move! illegal move!" echoing all round the playing hall !

IM Jack Rudd wrote: and who is not at all frightened of FIDE

I wish I knew where where this nonsense originates - perhaps the federations? I have never seen a tournament disallowed for rating because of the pairing method used - indeed, with games now rated individually it is difficult to see how this would be possible. I have seen a handful of tournaments disallowed for norms, but only in the most egregious and entirely justifiable circumstances.

On the actual point of no game there were 3 default wins shown in round 2 so was the young person given the option of a repairing.
With a large number of '0' rated juniors on 0/1 it looks like the arbiter has done everything to ensure that the '0' rated juniors were given a game against a rated player.

Was the person give an opportunity to play a game against an unpaired opponent in the tournament up?

A bye in round 1 would got to the player rated in list as mid-point +1. Frustrating when that happens & not given an opportunity of a 1 point bye but a
pairing in the tournament above. I told the organiser is he had read my application I had already volunteered to be upgraded if the tournaments had odd numbers.

I then won my game against a higher rated opponent - it was then apparent he would end up with a bye in round 2. I said transfer me to the Open tournament and we are then balanced. I was then given the dubious which seems to be fide approved lowest player on 1 paired against top rated player taking a half point bye in round 1.

The young player ought not to worry about having a 1 point bye as at least they had 3 other games against rated players.

Not sure why he was put on the bottom because it cannot be alphabetical Vishal got paired in round 2

The organisers did try to find a game for Vicksho, but his potential opponent declined.

Vishal (aged 10) is actually Vicksho's younger brother! (Vicksho is 12.). The two boys were due opposite colours so this may be the reason why Vicksho got the short straw. I was actually fearful that Vishal would be given a bye in Round 3, but fortunately there was an even number of players in that round.

I would like to emphasise that Vicksho did enjoy his experience of the London Chess Classic. He got one good victory in the Super Rapidplay tournament against quite a highly rated player and may possibly end up with a rapid FIDE rating, which would please him immensely.