English Chess Forum

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 16, 2018 1:13 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 16, 2018 12:54 pm

even though SPP produced numbers saying this system was fine.

I don't believe I ever saw this document. What were their stated objectives?

I've taken the time to trawl through minutes & annexes, as well as SPP's own website, and have found nothing. Can anyone help?

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 16, 2018 3:06 pm

I've taken the time to trawl through minutes & annexes, as well as SPP's own website, and have found nothing. Can anyone help?

No one with anything else to do, surely

David Robertson wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 16, 2018 3:18 pm

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 16, 2018 3:06 pm

I've taken the time to trawl through minutes & annexes, as well as SPP's own website, and have found nothing. Can anyone help?

No one with anything else to do, surely

Well, people have been complaining about the pairing system and there are claims that its use can be traced back to a FIDE document, so you might think that somebody knows where to find said document. Or was it all a dream?

Try:
https://www.fide.com/component/handbook ... cle&id=204

Not the original discussion document but the opening paragraph gives the reasoning. Later paragraphs give how it should be carried out.

Alex McFarlane wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 16, 2018 3:40 pm

Try:
https://www.fide.com/component/handbook ... cle&id=204

Not the original discussion document but the opening paragraph gives the reasoning. Later paragraphs give how it should be carried out.

Thanks, but I had found that. I got as far as "It can be shown that, in title tournaments, this can prevent players from achieving norms" and wanted to know more. I can see how this may be true in a huge event such as Cappelle la Grande, with entrants going from GMs to beginners, but not for those like Northumbria.

I was also hoping for an explanation of why it is necessary to alter the normal pairings for as many as five rounds, which is counter-intuitive. I suppose the problem is that the longer you keep it going, the longer you will have people on high scores whom norm seekers don't wish to play, so you've dug yourself into a hole. Best avoided altogether whenever possible, in my view.

I always thought the point of acceleration was to handle tournaments where N > 2^r, so you might have the two top players never meeting.

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 16, 2018 4:25 pm

Alex McFarlane wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 16, 2018 3:40 pm

Try:
https://www.fide.com/component/handbook ... cle&id=204

Not the original discussion document but the opening paragraph gives the reasoning. Later paragraphs give how it should be carried out.

Thanks, but I had found that. I got as far as "It can be shown that, in title tournaments, this can prevent players from achieving norms" and wanted to know more. I can see how this may be true in a huge event such as Cappelle la Grande, with entrants going from GMs to beginners, but not for those like Northumbria.

I was also hoping for an explanation of why it is necessary to alter the normal pairings for as many as five rounds, which is counter-intuitive. I suppose the problem is that the longer you keep it going, the longer you will have people on high scores whom norm seekers don't wish to play, so you've dug yourself into a hole. Best avoided altogether whenever possible, in my view.

I always thought the point of acceleration was to handle tournaments where N > 2^r, so you might have the two top players never meeting.

You didn't go to the relevant SPP meeting, so you won't have received the full document. FIDE Commissions never tend to publish enough of the meeting materials online; preferring instead to hand things out at the meeting that aren't available online. Some Commissions don't even have websites to publish things. The meeting agenda is normally online, but I don't ever recall finding detailed information such as this document from Roberto online.

I don't recall the stated objectives in the document, I'm afraid. Genesis for the idea came in 2015, when SPP decided they needed an accelerated pairing system because the QC title regulations offered the possibility. The big document was presented to the 2016 meeting in Baku; hence the Baku system. There were many graphs and other things, comparing numerous different submissions that had been submitted.

SPP found that the problem was bouncing between high-rated players and low-rated players, and this was detrimental to norm seekers. I do remember that the objective that followed from that was to create a dummy points system that minimised the difference between the ratings of two opponents as best they could. The Baku system was the result.

Perhaps you could e-mail Roberto to see if he still has that document on file?

The stated conclusion was that in general, the Baku system is better for 9-round tournaments than the Dutch system. Alex has explained why the Northumbria organisers chose to do it. "In general" means there must be tournaments where it is better to use it than others, and I'm sure you're right when you think it'd be more important at an event like Capelle than Northumbria.

With 1 (and a bit) round to go, does anyone know if any norms are possible?

The top game is following Feller - Donchenko from exactly one year ago. Black won that, so I hope Neil Berry has some improvement prepared.

...now there seems to be a move transmission problem.

Tim and his team ought to be congratulated on the tournament, location and pairing system, and rest of the festival. Well done!

Alexander Hardwick wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 18, 2018 2:43 pm

does anyone know if any norms are possible?

Yes I do.

No. Nasuta failing to convert his better position was the last of the 5 seekers from this morning.

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 18, 2018 4:05 pm

The top game is following Feller - Donchenko from exactly one year ago. Black won that, so I hope Neil Berry has some improvement prepared.

...now there seems to be a move transmission problem.

Service resumed, and if I were Black I would think I had a big advantage. Unlike me, I expect Donchenko will know how to convert it.

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 16, 2018 3:06 pm

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 16, 2018 1:13 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 16, 2018 12:54 pm

even though SPP produced numbers saying this system was fine.

I don't believe I ever saw this document. What were their stated objectives?

I've taken the time to trawl through minutes & annexes, as well as SPP's own website, and have found nothing. Can anyone help?

Two papers comparing various systems are at http://pairings.fide.com/documents/118- ... rings.html
The first paper was distributed for discussion between members of SPP before Baku in 2016, while the second one is an update for 2017.

Why can't I find the final scores? I have been all over the show

James Pratt wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 21, 2018 12:06 pm

Why can't I find the final scores? I have been all over the show

Because you're not looking in the right place? The very first post in this thread would be a good place to start looking.

James Pratt wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 21, 2018 12:06 pm

Why can't I find the final scores? I have been all over the show

You just need to follow the link given in the first post of this thread

Final results