Tie Break Rules

[Robert Dale]

Not sure if I'm in the right place for this (still new to the forum), but can someone help me with a technical point?

I have just arrived home, utterly exhausted, from running an U18 tournament in Lincoln (a 5 round rapidplay Swiss) It went well, until the last minute, when announcing the prizes.

We had a four way tie on points for 1st place (4/5), and 3 trophies to award.
Scores were:
Player A WWWWL
Player B WWLWW
Player C WWWLW
Player D WWWW.... withdrawn
(he had to go to work - Morrisons wouldn't let him have the time off!)

Applying sum of progressives (or so I thought), I awarded 1st to Player A, 2nd to Player D in absentia (both on 14 sop, but Player A was still there, so I gave him 1st place!) 3rd to Player C on 13 sop, and Player B on 12 sop missed out. I would add that player D had actually beaten Players B and C in rounds 3 and 4, so this result seemed just.

However, after the prizes had been given out, the teacher who had brought Player B came up and informed me very bluntly (with numerous people around us), "I think you're wrong about sum of progressives. If a player withdraws, his results are cut off at that point, so [Player D's] sop should be 10, and Players C and B should receive 2nd and 3rd respectively." He added that it was "too late now", and I apologised for my ignorance, and apologised to Player B, who smiled and seemed quite relaxed about it. (The prize in question was only a tiny trophy
worth £4.99, but I suppose it's the principle!)

Now I am sure he is right. It seems logical (though in this instance it would have been unjust). But it set me thinking - is there a FIDE rule anywhere on this? I have searched the FIDE Handbook online, and cannot see a specific ruling on this point.

Someone, I am sure, can put me right on this.

[LozCooper]

Hi Robert,

Without having a rule book in front of me I would say his score should carry forward otherwise he would be penalised for being honest and announcing he would be absent from the last round as opposed to allowing himself to be included in the draw and defaulting which is less satisfactory for the tournament as a whole.

Although there were no tie-breaks involved I shared 2nd= with a player who had withdrawn before round 5 at a weekender in Heywood in 2009. I know at the time the arbiters were unsure if he should be eligible for a prize although I tended to think he should otherwise he would be penalised for notifying the tournament of his absence in advance as opposing to defaulting.

[Robert Dale]

Hi Robert,

Without having a rule book in front of me I would say his score should carry forward otherwise he would be penalised for being honest and announcing he would be absent from the last round as opposed to allowing himself to be included in the draw and defaulting which is less satisfactory for the tournament as a whole.

Although there were no tie-breaks involved I shared 2nd= with a player who had withdrawn before round 5 at a weekender in Heywood in 2009. I know at the time the arbiters were unsure if he should be eligible for a prize although I tended to think he should otherwise he would be penalised for notifying the tournament of his absence in advance as opposing to defaulting.

Thanks Loz. You are quite right about the honesty dimension.

If my Player D had stayed another 10 minutes, allowed himself to be put in the draw, resigned on move 1 and then gone, he would definitely have come 2nd! And then everyone would have complained about the unfair advantage his opponent had in being gifted a point!

It may be the rule books ignore this problem because it is rare for a leading player to withdraw on the verge of winning a prize.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I think Morrison's should be castigated for not giving player D time off!

But in all seriousness, I actually think that someone withdrawing before the end of the tournament shouldn't get anything, regardless of whether they informed the organisers before doing so. Informing the organisers should be done regardless of whether it affects final standings and prizes or not.

Possibly it would be different if a player had won with a round to go.

[Alex Holowczak]

However, after the prizes had been given out, the teacher who had brought Player B came up and informed me very bluntly (with numerous people around us), "I think you're wrong about sum of progressives. If a player withdraws, his results are cut off at that point, so [Player D's] sop should be 10, and Players C and B should receive 2nd and 3rd respectively." He added that it was "too late now"

This makes sense. Why point it out at the time when something can be done about it when you can use it to cause a fuss afterwards?

He could quite easily have dropped a subtle hint by asking at the time of D's withdrawal "How do sum of progressives work if a player withdraws?" Even if he knew perfectly well what the answer was, it would have at least made the organisers think about it long before this situation arose.

I don't know the SOPS rule, but I think the logic Loz explained (i.e. he could have not informed and withdrawn, scoring a default and hence 4 points anyway) seems a reasonable enough solution.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I don't know the SOPS rule, but I think the logic Loz explained (i.e. he could have not informed and withdrawn, scoring a default and hence 4 points anyway) seems a reasonable enough solution.

Some organisers would reserve the right to with-hold prize money if someone defaulted in the last round even if they were in the running for a prize. Personally, I wouldn't enter a tournament if I knew I couldn't play in the last round.

[Robert Dale]

Lots of interesting angles here! Thanks to all who have commented so far.

But is there a rule? The nearest I can find is an Annex to the FIDE rules on http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/ ... ew=article (how do you get a hyperlink?)

"1. Handling of unplayed games

For tie-break purposes, the result shall be counted as a draw against the player himself. This has no effect on the Sum of Progressive Score or Koya System. In such systems only the result counts." -
which I don't understand and probably isn't relevant!

[Robert Dale]

Oh, I see, it puts in a hyperlink for you - excellent!

[Alex Holowczak]

Lots of interesting angles here! Thanks to all who have commented so far.

But is there a rule? The nearest I can find is an Annex to the FIDE rules on http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/ ... ew=article (how do you get a hyperlink?)

"1. Handling of unplayed games

For tie-break purposes, the result shall be counted as a draw against the player himself. This has no effect on the Sum of Progressive Score or Koya System. In such systems only the result counts." -
which I don't understand and probably isn't relevant!

Well, it wasn't an unplayed game - it was a withdrawal. He had no game scheduled which he could, or could not, play. An unplayed game presumably refers to tournaments played as an APA where A has won the event already, and a game against another player wasn't played.

(a) Sum of Progressive Scores
After each round a player has a certain tournament score. These scores are added to determine the total Sum of Progressive Score.

After round 5, the player in question had scored 4 points, so you should add 4 to his score. This suggests that you were, in fact, right.

At the very least, there seems to be no rule here that would warrant the blunt response you received. It doesn't seem obvious at all.

[Robert Dale]

Thanks Alex. I feel a lot better about it now! At the time I thought I must have made an elementary blunder!

[LozCooper]

Thanks Alex. I feel a lot better about it now! At the time I thought I must have made an elementary blunder!

I think you made an honest decision and probably the right one. Hope the event was a success. I'm sure it's for obscure things like this that most entry forms add a clause that the organiser's decision is final etc

[Kevin Thurlow]

It doesn't seem clear whether the player knew he would have to miss the last round when he started? Was the event running late? That's not intended as a criticism - it is frequently very difficult to keep on time, especially if there are disputes to settle. On the other hand the player is being attacked for withdrawing, and that may be unfair. If he did know in advance, then maybe he shouldn't have played...

Our local Morrisons is attracting unwelcome publicity for closing at 8pm, then fining people huge amounts for daring to use the car park afterwards. Morrsions appear not to have noticed that all the other local supermarkets don't have this attitude!

[LozCooper]

If Player D is good enough to score in four rounds what the other three managed in five rounds it doesn't seem unreasonable for him to be eligible for the same prize. To penalise him for being honest enough to say in advance that he would have to miss the last round appears to encourage him to be dishonest and default the last round. I would also think that organisers should encourage anyone to play even if they can't play every round provided they can inform the organiser well in advance of the draw being made.

I once requested a half point bye in a French tournament as it was a race against time if my flight would connect in time to allow me to arrive before the default time. My second preference was to be put in the draw if the bye wasn't authorised. Needless to say they refused and defaulted me although I turned up in time to have only lost about 30 minutes on my clock. Hence I was penalised for being honest, had I said nothing I would have appeared in the draw and had a chance to beat someone about 400 points below me even with a time disadvantage.

My feeling is that organisers should encourage players to be open and honest and do their best to help where possible. It seems that they succeeded in the tournament that this thread is about and failed miserably in the tournament I played in.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

It doesn't seem clear whether the player knew he would have to miss the last round when he started? Was the event running late? That's not intended as a criticism - it is frequently very difficult to keep on time, especially if there are disputes to settle. On the other hand the player is being attacked for withdrawing, and that may be unfair. If he did know in advance, then maybe he shouldn't have played...

I don't think anyone here has been attacking the player for withdrawing, though I've said what I think would have been better options. One scenario that hasn't been mentioned is tournaments where the tie-breaks don't involve SPS. How are other tie-breaks affected by someone not playing in one of the rounds and being defaulted? Can the player defaulting unintentionally get an advantage this way?

Our local Morrisons is attracting unwelcome publicity for closing at 8pm, then fining people huge amounts for daring to use the car park afterwards. Morrsions appear not to have noticed that all the other local supermarkets don't have this attitude!

Like I said in my first post in this thread, Morrison's are clearly to blame here!

[IM Jack Rudd]

One scenario that hasn't been mentioned is tournaments where the tie-breaks don't involve SPS. How are other tie-breaks affected by someone not playing in one of the rounds and being defaulted? Can the player defaulting unintentionally get an advantage this way?

Sum of Opponents' Scores and related methods are massively affected by early withdrawals, less so by those of players who might still win prizes if they withdraw.

The tie-break that's most susceptible to gaining an advantage by withdrawing is actually using raw TPR - if you have lost points to defaults, you're likely to have a higher TPR than the people on the same score who've lost points to actual players.