Northumbria Masters

[Nick Burrows]

Starts this evening:

http://chess-results.com/tnr330966.aspx?lan=1

https://chess24.com/en/watch/live-tourn ... 2018/1/1/1

[Ian Thompson]

Starts this evening:

http://chess-results.com/tnr330966.aspx?lan=1

https://chess24.com/en/watch/live-tourn ... 2018/1/1/1

Considering the entry form said "Players rated <2200 must contact the organiser and will be placed on a waiting list to enter. This is to ensure that the event meets international title norms criteria", I'm surprised to see that 40% of the field are under 2200 and 20% are under 2000.

[Nick Burrows]

To begin with they accepted all entries. When it started to fill up they raised the entry criteria, they also had a few players drop out and then I think offered to the waiting list.

[Paul Dargan]

Regardless of the comments above - I think we should recognise and appreciate the efforts involved to get a new event off the ground and a have a significant number of titled players turn-up for an event in the North East. Let's hope it's not 20 years until the next one!

Well done to Tim and his team.

Paul

[JustinHorton]

Blimey, they're playing at the Chillingham Arms. I used to drink there. In fact I can remember sitting there with a pint and Graham Burgess's book on the Slav.

[LawrenceCooper]

It does seem a bit of a waste having Bogdan on a live board.

[Alasdair MacLeod]

Round 3 and the only player on 2/2 is on board 11...

http://chess-results.com/tnr330966.aspx ... d=3&wi=821

This pairing system is surely nonsense isn't it?

[Alex Holowczak]

Round 3 and the only player on 2/2 is on board 11...

http://chess-results.com/tnr330966.aspx ... d=3&wi=821

This pairing system is surely nonsense isn't it?

I'm debating whether or not I should try to explain the reasoning, process and diligence that came up with the pairing system. But on balance, it sounds like your mind is already made up, so I'll leave it to someone else.

[Alan Walton]

On paper it looks reasonable because of the accleration being employed

I personally don't understand this fixation in English/British events of using acceleration all the time; this tournament seemed strong enough not to have it (less than a quarter of the field are below the 2050 threshold for IM norm uplifting, and half for GM 2250), so people going for norms were very unlikely to have met more than one of these players

[Alasdair MacLeod]

Round 3 and the only player on 2/2 is on board 11...

http://chess-results.com/tnr330966.aspx ... d=3&wi=821

This pairing system is surely nonsense isn't it?

I'm debating whether or not I should try to explain the reasoning, process and diligence that came up with the pairing system. But on balance, it sounds like your mind is already made up, so I'll leave it to someone else.

Oh don't worry, I do know it's the Baku Acceleration method... And that the 'purpose' here is to maximise norm chances.

And yes, you're right - I prefer the Swiss system. I don't think I'm on my own here..

[NickFaulks]

It does seem a bit of a waste having Bogdan on a live board.

I see what you mean.

[NickFaulks]

I don't think I'm on my own here..

You're not. I don't believe norms are at risk here from playing unduly low rated opponents. They are at risk from failing to beat them, but that's a risk you take.

[Richard Bates]

It seemed to work quite nicely at Hastings last year, but they limited it to 3 rounds. This year where they extended to five rounds (apparently a FIDE requirement) it was a bit of a disaster from a tournament perspective because it was creating “silly” pairings late in the tournament near to the top of the draw when it was therefore having a potential impact on prizes. It didn’t obviously benefit norm seekers either when they could put together a string of good results in the first 5 rounds only to find themselves paired against very low rated players in rounds 6-7. The merits of all accelerated pairing systems inevitably depend to a great extent on the specific ratings profile of the tournament itself.

[NickFaulks]

This year where they extended to five rounds (apparently a FIDE requirement)

What??? If tournament organisers want to experiment with something strange they have the right to do so, provided that it does not demonstrably favour some players, but they should take responsibility themselves and not invent "FIDE requirements" to hide behind.

[Roger de Coverly]

but they should take responsibility themselves and not invent "FIDE requirements" to hide behind.

I would suggest that you Google for Baku pairings which confirms that the FIDE ruling is that it's a phantom point for the first three rounds and a phantom half point after that for rounds 4 and 5.

https://www.fide.com/component/handbook ... ew=article

Accelerated pairings were a British (Reuben) invention , but in the context where there were more players (>64) than a six round Swiss could be expected to cope with.

If you want accelerated pairings untainted by arbiter discretion, phantom points is the way to go. but why it should extend beyond the first three rounds is an open question.