Tradewise Gibraltar Masters 2017

[NickFaulks]

Jovanka Houska made some really interesting comments this morning (via FB) and its hard not to agree with them and put this matter to rest:
....
"On a separate note, Hou has really has been a wonderful role model for girls and women so I hope that commentators won't be too hard on her."

I feel that way too but seriously, the sooner she apologises to the organisers the better.

[Mark Ashley]

Jovanka Houska made some really interesting comments this morning (via FB) and its hard not to agree with them and put this matter to rest:

"Now it's all been verified that the pairings were correct,I think that Hou should make an official apology to the organisers (and to her opponent for keeping him waiting for 25 minutes).

Whilst I admire the strength of her convictions, she sacrificed a lot of money to make her point. I do think she should have fact checked with an arbiter before she made her point. I actually didnt realise how easy this is to do!

Hou also didn't turn up for her prize at the closing dinner which really didn't go down well. It wasn't fair to the people who had put so much energy and effort into making the tournament special. I also hope everyone can move on from this and remember the chess heroes of the tournament David Anton, Hikaru and Ju Wenjun.

On a separate note, Hou has really has been a wonderful role model for girls and women so I hope that commentators won't be too hard on her."

Could Yifan's behaviour be related to her no longer wanting to play in the Women's world championship? and some deeper seated issue with Fide? That, and being paired with both muzychk sisters in consecutive rounds may have gone someway to giving her the idea the draw was being manipulated.

[NickFaulks]

and some deeper seated issue with Fide?

She is certainly annoyed with FIDE, for reasons which whether justifiable or not are easy to understand, but why take it out on Gibraltar?

[Mick Norris]

That's a question perhaps best put to her, or to anybody who thinks for any reason, good or bad, that certain pairings in a tournament, which would otherwise occur, should be avoided.

Which I think has been established was the case here, to avoid an Iran v Israel clash

Ignoring the politics of this ...

We don't live in a hypothetical world where you can do that. We live in the real world.

What I meant was, let's not discuss whether the politics is right or wrong

Why does this manipulation not invalidate the event for norm purposes?

The relevant FIDE Regulation reads:

"Tournaments that make changes to favour one or more players (for example by altering the number of rounds, or the order of rounds, or providing particular opponents, not otherwise participating in the tournament), shall be excluded."

Avoiding a pairing between players from countries actually or prospectively in conflict is not done for any such purpose.

Ok, but is there a list of such purposes that are ok? In other words, can you legitimately avoid Pert v Pert pairings, father v daughter, and where does it stop?

(I'll try hard and not replace countries with counties and ask the ECF the question )

[Roger Lancaster]

Good question, Mick. Hypothetical scenario - A and B have entered a tournament but don't wish to play one another. So, well before the event the starts, they button-hole the chief arbiter and tell him or her that they are in a close personal relationship of one type or another. If the arbiter agrees their request, and a situation later arises where they would normally have been paired against one another, chances are that the arbiter's pairings will be questioned. In these circumstances, would the arbiter feel obliged to justify his or her decision by revealing what might be confidential personal information?

[Mike Gunn]

British (CAA) pairing rules include "35. In round 1, pairings between relatives, players from the same club, distant local area or foreign country are best avoided. The extent to which such pairings are avoided in later rounds is at the discretion of the arbiter."

As far as I can see there is no such provision in the FIDE rules / Swiss Manager/ the Dutch System of pairing used at Gibraltar and there was no variation to the pairing rules published before the tournament (that I can find).

[LawrenceCooper]

British (CAA) pairing rules include "35. In round 1, pairings between relatives, players from the same club, distant local area or foreign country are best avoided. The extent to which such pairings are avoided in later rounds is at the discretion of the arbiter."

As far as I can see there is no such provision in the FIDE rules / Swiss Manager/ the Dutch System of pairing used at Gibraltar and there was no variation to the pairing rules published before the tournament (that I can find).

I've only been to Gibraltar once but for the first round they did a draw at the opening ceremony to decide some of the top board pairings. Presumably this was announced in advance and was approved by FIDE.

[Mike Gunn]

They did that again this year so I presume that must have been on the entry form (which I can't find now). The draw was between the top 6 players and the top 6 of the bottom half (I think) and I guess this is not something about which there would be complaints.

[David Sedgwick]

As far as I can see there is no such provision in the FIDE rules / Swiss Manager/ the Dutch System of pairing used at Gibraltar and there was no variation to the pairing rules published before the tournament (that I can find).

As has been noted, there was a small variation in Round 1, with the opponents of the top seeds being drawn from within a limited rating band. This was certainly announced beforehand, although possibly only at the event. It has been the practice at Gibraltar for several years.

(Edit: Lawrence has beaten me to it.)

Mick N, I haven't responded to your question because I'm not sure of the answer. I can't add anything to what Mike G has said.

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that the arbiters acted prudently and sensibly both in avoiding an Iran v Israel pairing (if indeed they did) and in allowing the other pairings discussed here to stand.

[Roger de Coverly]

British (CAA) pairing rules include "35. In round 1, pairings between relatives, players from the same club, distant local area or foreign country are best avoided. The extent to which such pairings are avoided in later rounds is at the discretion of the arbiter."

Any pairing rules which contain the phrase "discretion of the arbiter" are wide open to challenges of bias, to say nothing of the difficulties this presents in writing a coherent pairing program.

[David Shepherd]

Logic says that it is very unlikely for Hou Yifan to be paired against so many women,

Why should you think that.

I haven't tried to calculate the odds myself, although someone earlier in the thread did, however my instinct is that a pairing against 7 women in 9 rounds is very unlikely. I am not trying to suggest in any way, that there was something wrong with the pairings, just that an unlikely event happened. As a consequence the player that was subject to that event became understandably upset and read things into the situation that didn't exist.

I understand your point though about the pairings, and maybe my comment should just have been unlikely rather than very unlikely (although this depends at what point an unlikely event becomes very unlikely), but I think my point is still valid

[Alan Walton]

Logic says that it is very unlikely for Hou Yifan to be paired against so many women,

Why should you think that.

I haven't tried to calculate the odds myself, although someone earlier in the thread did, however my instinct is that a pairing against 7 women in 9 rounds is very unlikely. I am not trying to suggest in any way, that there was something wrong with the pairings, just that an unlikely event happened. As a consequence the player that was subject to that event became understandably upset and read things into the situation that didn't exist.

I understand your point though about the pairings, and maybe my comment should just have been unlikely rather than very unlikely (although this depends at what point an unlikely event becomes very unlikely), but I think my point is still valid

It might be unlikely that they are female players, but not if you take rating into account, it was just unfortunate that the rating she was expected to play were female

[Alex Holowczak]

British (CAA) pairing rules include "35. In round 1, pairings between relatives, players from the same club, distant local area or foreign country are best avoided. The extent to which such pairings are avoided in later rounds is at the discretion of the arbiter."

In my opinion, this is bad advice. It is much better to pair them together in the early rounds, specifically to avoid pairing them together in later rounds, where the chance of colluding is much higher. E.g. if we had Pert v Pert as a potential British Round 4 pairing, it makes far more sense to me to pair them together in Round 4, rather than run the risk of pairing them together in the last round - which fairly or unfairly, could lead to allegations of collusion between them.

Any pairing rules which contain the phrase "discretion of the arbiter" are wide open to challenges of bias, to say nothing of the difficulties this presents in writing a coherent pairing program.

I think this is part of the reason why Tournament Director was always so poor at implementing the CAA pairing rules, which in turn was why British arbiters never trusted it to do the pairings and hung on to doing it manually for so long. This also meant British arbiters didn't engage with the FIDE Swiss pairing rules as much as they could have done, which is probably why many of the arguments about who to float where have been lost - they were several years too late getting to the table.

[LawrenceCooper]

From Facebook:

Stuart Conquest "For complete avoidance of doubt: the pairings were the correct ones, and nothing was done at any time to make Yifan (or any other player) more likely to play women (or men). Her protest - according to the reasons she gave - was therefore entirely without justification."

[David Sedgwick]

This also meant British arbiters didn't engage with the FIDE Swiss pairing rules as much as they could have done, which is probably why many of the arguments about who to float where have been lost - they were several years too late getting to the table.

I certainly don't accept that point.

Stewart Reuben and I raised the issue at the FIDE Congress 1995 in Paris. At that time the BCF Swiss Pairing Rules, as they were then called, were fairly new but seemed to be working satisfactorily, so we suggested that FIDE should consider adopting similar provisions regarding floats.

Geurt Gijssen argued that there were very few complaints about the FIDE Rules as they stood, so there was no need to make any changes. His view prevailed.

It is correct that we were unsuccessful. It is not correct to say that we didn't try.