London Chess Classic FIDE Open

[Roger de Coverly]

This starts this afternoon.

I gather it may start with some unhappy players. Apparently an email went out last night asking players in the Open to confirm their participation. If they didn't reply, they wouldn't be included in the pairings for the first round. It may be news to the organisers, but not everyone checks their email 24/7.

Needing to establish exactly who is playing 24 hours ahead of schedule is caused by a clash of two rules. One being the rather stupid FIDE one forbidding re-pairing and the other a self imposed London Classic one of promising the first round pairings for the Open by midnight.

It's standard UK practice not to require pre-registration in any shape or form, whether this is 24 hours or one hour ahead of the first round. Any tournament departing from this should endeavour to ensure that deviation from the standard practice is well publicised in advance.

It is in fact on the entry form.

http://www.londonchessclassic.com/downl ... y-Form.pdf

Those entering on-line may have missed this even though it appears on the website.

Registration: Players must register in advance of the FIDE Open, in one of the following ways:

- In person, at the venue between 12:00 and 20:00 on Thursday, 8th December, or

- By e-mail, sent to [email protected] on Thursday 8th December before 20:00

[Leonard Barden]

The rules state that such players may be paired against each other, in a cross pairing with a player from another section, or against a filler.

[Nigel White]

There are actually 247 players in the Open, of which about 13 appear to have requested a first round half point bye. So the number affected by not registering is probably about 20 (8% of entrants).

[John McKenna]

A large iternational open that doesn't require some kind of confirmation of players being present for the first round may risk a number of disappointed participants due to their opponents not showing up.

As stated, above, that problem is circumvented in most, if not all, other English tournaments by re-pairing. However, players suffering such a fate may ask - why should we have to play a game with reduced time through no fault of our own?

The losers of such games, in particular, and even those who draw may feel they have been unfairly penalised by the absence of their expected opponent. Such "no-shows" create an uneven playing field, no matter how they are handled.

The organisers are trying to ensure that every board will have two players seated at it when the metaphorical gong sounds at 16:30 today.

My conclusion is that for a premier international event , such as the Classic Open, re-pairing is out. A full point should be given to the player present if the opponent does not show by the default time.

BUT, any such point must be counted as a half-point for the purpose of distribution of prizes.

I have seen an outright winner of a tournament who received both a full point for a default and a half-point bye!

[Reg Clucas]

BUT, any such point must be counted as a half-point for the purpose of distribution of prizes.

That doesn't seem fair, since the default is not that player's fault, and he/she has been denied the opportunity to gain a full point over the board. Also, that player is likely to receive tougher opponents in subsequent rounds due to having scored a full point.

[John McKenna]

I agree, Reg. Trouble is that there is no fair way out of the problems created by players entering a tournament and then not playing in all rounds, for one reason or another.

I think that the organisers could compensate a player who lost out on a prize, or part of one, due to receiving points or half points for games where no actual play takes place. I believe that players who win prizes by having such points should receive a reduced prize plus some such compensation.

[IM Jack Rudd]

A reasonably sensible way of doing that sort of thing is to have Sum of Opponents' Scores as a tie-breaker where one is needed.

ETA: Also, if I'm playing in a title-norm Open, I really want to play games rather than win them by default, especially if the tournament is only 9 rounds long.

[Roger de Coverly]

A large iternational open that doesn't require some kind of confirmation of players being present for the first round may risk a number of disappointed participants due to their opponents not showing up.

I don't think requiring registration the day or evening beforehand actually solves that problem. You may have every intention of playing but be thwarted by traffic or other travel difficulties on your way to the event.

[Michael Farthing]

It would, however, quite posibly reduce the problem by dealing with cases of casual and rude failure to notify the organisers of intentional withdrawal.

[John McKenna]

A reasonably sensible way of doing that sort of thing is to have Sum of Opponents' Scores as a tie-breaker where one is needed.

ETA: Also, if I'm playing in a title-norm Open, I really want to play games rather than win them by default, especially if the tournament is only 9 rounds long.

Jack, all I can say is that you are too sensible. John

[John McKenna]

It would, however, quite posibly reduce the problem by dealing with cases of casual and rude failure to notify the organisers of intentional withdrawal.

That sounds very sensible, Michael.

Airlines used to ask for confirmation, by telephone, a few days in advance of a flight to ensure minimisation of empty seats. Now they invite people to check in online.

Any player who arrives within the default time bears the time lost on the clock and that's fair enough.

A player who knows in advance that he will not be able to make it before the default time can, in these days of mobile comms, inform the organisers and allow them the chance to conjure up a new pairing before the round begins, perhaps.

[Nick Grey]

There is a very good reason for confirming participation in all tournaments. That is that on Saturday and Sunday the venue tournaments have been sold out for a while. Hence the option of a very late entry with 1/3 score as byes.

They have done very well including no tie breaks for the prize funds.

Enjoy live coverage & say hello to me when I turn up for the Weekday part of the festival.

As for those seeking titles & norms - not having a grading prize other than U2200 seems to me a good way to go. The player also has the option of taking the full 1 point default win.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"It's standard UK practice not to require pre-registration in any shape or form, whether this is 24 hours or one hour ahead of the first round. Any tournament departing from this should endeavour to ensure that deviation from the standard practice is well publicised in advance.

It is in fact on the entry form."

It's on the printed entry form as well in bold print, so I think the organisers have publicised it quite well.

It is normal procedure in non-English tournaments to register beforehand - I have encountered a number of non-English players who anxiously ask where to register, and they seem quite puzzled when you say it's not necessary!

[NickFaulks]

One being the rather stupid FIDE one forbidding re-pairing

The problem is not the re-pairing per se. The problem is that title events require all games to be played to the same time control. I don't think that is stupid.

[David Robertson]

Chess Alert

FIDE Open Rd 1

Check out Sucikova-Bogner for a 24-point evaluation swing-on-a-move!