2nd Cambridge International Open
-
- Posts: 7265
- Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:13 am
Re: 2nd Cambridge International Open
Adams, Haubro & Tiviakov finished on 7/9 with Fernandez, Roberson & Wadsworth on 6.5.
-
- Posts: 10384
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
- Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Re: 2nd Cambridge International Open
Adams first on tiebreak?
Any postings on here represent my personal views
-
- Posts: 7265
- Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:13 am
Re: 2nd Cambridge International Open
I thought from their regulations that everything was shared, but maybe I missed something separate mentioning first place.
-
- Posts: 4662
- Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:26 pm
Re: 2nd Cambridge International Open
On the link you highlighted yesterday, it did speak of a tiebreak system, whilst also saying that money would be shared equally. I don't pretend to understand ...
A shame that Willow misses out on a high spot, there can't have been many others who played all of Fernandez, Adams and Tiviakov. At the same time I wonder whether he was disadvantaged when, on 4/5, he played a 1680-odd rated player (who in that game played to his rating, incidentally) - perhaps otherwise he might have needed half a point less for the GM norm.
An impressive recovery from 2/4 from Peter Roberson to get back to board one in the final round (and quite an interesting "human" game that was too).
A shame that Willow misses out on a high spot, there can't have been many others who played all of Fernandez, Adams and Tiviakov. At the same time I wonder whether he was disadvantaged when, on 4/5, he played a 1680-odd rated player (who in that game played to his rating, incidentally) - perhaps otherwise he might have needed half a point less for the GM norm.
An impressive recovery from 2/4 from Peter Roberson to get back to board one in the final round (and quite an interesting "human" game that was too).
-
- Posts: 7265
- Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:13 am
Re: 2nd Cambridge International Open
Jonah also beat Haubro in round 3. The round 6 pairing wasn't ideal but being able to round the opponent's rating up to 2200 limited the damage.Jonathan Rogers wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2024 5:26 pmOn the link you highlighted yesterday, it did speak of a tiebreak system, whilst also saying that money would be shared equally. I don't pretend to understand ...
A shame that Willow misses out on a high spot, there can't have been many others who played all of Fernandez, Adams and Tiviakov. At the same time I wonder whether he was disadvantaged when, on 4/5, he played a 1680-odd rated player (who in that game played to his rating, incidentally) - perhaps otherwise he might have needed half a point less for the GM norm.
An impressive recovery from 2/4 from Peter Roberson to get back to board one in the final round (and quite an interesting "human" game that was too).
-
- Posts: 8839
- Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
- Location: London
Re: 2nd Cambridge International Open
Would anyone be able to clarify the exact caveats and exceptions that applied here? I think I understand them but am not entirely sure.IM Jack Rudd wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2024 9:37 amI did have a look to see whether this tournament has enough foreigners for an exemption, but I don't think it has 10 non-English IMs and GMs.
https://handbook.fide.com/chapter/B012024
1.4.3 Federations of opponents
"At least two federations other than that of the title applicant must be included, except 1.4.3a - 1.4.3d shall be exempt."
Does this mean if Lorenzo Fava (being ITA) had played one player from a different federation than both ITA and ENG, the performance would have counted as an IM norm?
Exception 1.43d is what I think Jack was referring to:
"Swiss System tournaments in which participants include in every round at least 20 FIDE rated players, not from the host federation, from at least 3 different federations, at least 10 of whom hold GM, IM, WGM or WIM titles"
I count 9 non-English IMs and GMs. Am I right that if there had also been a non-ENG WGM or WIM that would have met the requirements?
The calculation for Jonah Willow was different and didn't rely on an exception as his mix of opponents had already satisfied the requirements of 1.44?
I didn't look at Bodhana's WIM calculation. Was that a fully valid opportunity up to round 8?
-
- Posts: 4830
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
- Location: Bideford
Re: 2nd Cambridge International Open
Fava needed to have played at least four players who weren't Italian (he did), three players who weren't English (he didn't), and players from two non-Italy nationalities (he didn't).
-
- Posts: 7265
- Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:13 am
Re: 2nd Cambridge International Open
Yes, (according to the Cambridge International Chess Open Facebook page).
-
- Posts: 21322
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: 2nd Cambridge International Open
Jonathan Rogers wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2024 5:26 pmOn the link you highlighted yesterday, it did speak of a tiebreak system, whilst also saying that money would be shared equally. I don't pretend to understand ...
There was a physical trophy on display at the start of the final round as well as a few medals.
-
- Posts: 1212
- Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 11:35 am
Re: 2nd Cambridge International Open
Your eyesight must be good if you could see the trophy from the lowly board you were sat at.Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2024 7:55 pmJonathan Rogers wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2024 5:26 pmOn the link you highlighted yesterday, it did speak of a tiebreak system, whilst also saying that money would be shared equally. I don't pretend to understand ...
There was a physical trophy on display at the start of the final round as well as a few medals.
Last edited by Tim Spanton on Sun Feb 25, 2024 5:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 8839
- Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
- Location: London
Re: 2nd Cambridge International Open
I do feel a bit sorry for Fava (not too sorry as he may well get the rating and norms later) as I am not entirely sure that rule was designed to prevent this sort of performance counting.IM Jack Rudd wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2024 7:03 pmFava needed to have played at least four players who weren't Italian (he did), three players who weren't English (he didn't), and players from two non-Italy nationalities (he didn't).
What sort of situations are or were those rules intended to prevent?
-
- Posts: 4830
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
- Location: Bideford
Re: 2nd Cambridge International Open
I'm guessing they're there to prevent or lessen the likelihood of contrived "tournaments" where the results are carefully managed to as to ensure the maximum possible number of norms.Christopher Kreuzer wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2024 8:45 pmI do feel a bit sorry for Fava (not too sorry as he may well get the rating and norms later) as I am not entirely sure that rule was designed to prevent this sort of performance counting.IM Jack Rudd wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2024 7:03 pmFava needed to have played at least four players who weren't Italian (he did), three players who weren't English (he didn't), and players from two non-Italy nationalities (he didn't).
What sort of situations are or were those rules intended to prevent?
-
- Posts: 8475
- Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm
Re: 2nd Cambridge International Open
No. You are including one player who never arrived and another who was missing from three rounds.Christopher Kreuzer wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2024 6:47 pmI count 9 non-English IMs and GMs. Am I right that if there had also been a non-ENG WGM or WIM that would have met the requirements?
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.
-
- Posts: 8839
- Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
- Location: London
Re: 2nd Cambridge International Open
Well spotted:NickFaulks wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2024 12:55 amNo. You are including one player who never arrived and another who was missing from three rounds.Christopher Kreuzer wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2024 6:47 pmI count 9 non-English IMs and GMs. Am I right that if there had also been a non-ENG WGM or WIM that would have met the requirements?
Bogdan Borsos is the Ukrainian IM who was missing from three rounds.
Khamparia Akshat is the Indian IM who didn't turn up.
My question still stands, if they had been present for all nine rounds, would a non-ENG WGM or WIM (or indeed another non-ENG IM or GM) have meant the exemption requirements were met?
And what exactly was the reasoning behind the 20 and 10 figures? Plucked out of thin air, or were there reasons.
It does seem a bit harsh that a clearly valid IM-level performance is not counted. For what reason?
-
- Posts: 8475
- Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm
Re: 2nd Cambridge International Open
Yes.Christopher Kreuzer wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2024 1:39 amMy question still stands, if they had been present for all nine rounds, would a non-ENG WGM or WIM (or indeed another non-ENG IM or GM) have meant the exemption requirements were met?
I used to call this the "Aeroflot rule", from back when that tournament might have seventy GMs and you could play nine of them and by bad luck they were all Russian. There was felt to be a need for some exception for a "big Swiss" and these numbers seemed reasonable.And what exactly was the reasoning behind the 20 and 10 figures? Plucked out of thin air, or were there reasons.
The hope was that they would in most cases they would be comfortably exceeded but we were fully aware that some organisers ( the usual suspects! ) would organise their events around them. This is why they are enforced with no latitude, and claims based on "18 or 19 plus a sob story" have been rejected.
The excerpt quoted leaves out
"For this purpose, players will be counted only if they miss at most one round (excluding pairing allocated byes)."
This is important, since it invalidates the "tag team" approach to the crucial players which had been exploited in some cases.
People don't talk about this much, but the reason must be a fear that players from your own federation will be more likely to help you out in your search for a title. I suspect that is less true than it may once have have been.It does seem a bit harsh that a clearly valid IM-level performance is not counted. For what reason?
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.