I'm not going to Google anything. The regulations for titles are found in the Title Regulations ( oddly enough ) and Sergey Brin has nothing useful to add on the subject.
Northumbria Masters
-
- Posts: 8475
- Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm
Re: Northumbria Masters
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.
-
- Posts: 5249
- Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
- Location: Croydon
Re: Northumbria Masters
The Baku Acceleration Method is currently the only FIDE approved Accelerated Pairing System.NickFaulks wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2018 11:47 pmWhat??? 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.Richard Bates wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2018 6:56 pmThis year where they extended to five rounds (apparently a FIDE requirement)
Organisers who follow it ought not to be accused of doing "something strange" or of "inventing FIDE requirements".
You seem to take the view that the only sections of the FIDE Handbook which have any validity are those for which you are responsible. That view is not widely shared.
-
- Posts: 21322
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: Northumbria Masters
As can be established by a Google search, it awards a phantom point to the top half for three rounds and a phantom half point for the next two.David Sedgwick wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2018 1:22 am
The Baku Acceleration Method is currently the only FIDE approved Accelerated Pairing System.
Controversies over pairings are such that even British arbiters are now prepared to use methods where there is a widely used computer program in place. This should avoid any accusation of cooking in favour of or against particular players.
Whether it's an appropriate method for relatively small tournaments such as Northumberland or even Hastings is another question.
-
- Posts: 8475
- Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm
Re: Northumbria Masters
It depends what you mean by validity. The Title Regulations say what they mean and mean what they say. They could include "all norm tournaments must follow any and all recommendations as and when someone inserts them elsewhere in the Handbook", but they don't.David Sedgwick wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2018 1:22 amYou seem to take the view that the only sections of the FIDE Handbook which have any validity are those for which you are responsible.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.
-
- Posts: 9085
- Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
- Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Re: Northumbria Masters
It isn't an open question anymore. It was an open question until 2016, when at the end of the process the SPP went through, they came up with this system. They did the numbers and presented them, and the world voted to approve the system.Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2018 12:19 amIf 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.
David Sedgwick phoned me last Friday, and we expressed mutual surprise that we agreed on something. At the risk of causing him some sort of traumatic shock injury, I'm going to agree with him again.David Sedgwick wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2018 1:22 amThe Baku Acceleration Method is currently the only FIDE approved Accelerated Pairing System.NickFaulks wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2018 11:47 pmWhat??? 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.Richard Bates wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2018 6:56 pmThis year where they extended to five rounds (apparently a FIDE requirement)
Organisers who follow it ought not to be accused of doing "something strange" or of "inventing FIDE requirements".
You seem to take the view that the only sections of the FIDE Handbook which have any validity are those for which you are responsible. That view is not widely shared.
Given that SPP has produced a set of accelerated pairing rules, which at the time the project was launched had the stated aim of meeting the QC regulation that permits acceleration in titlenorm events, organisers can hardly be criticised for using them when they want to have an accelerated pairing system in a titlenorm event.
-
- Posts: 21322
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: Northumbria Masters
That doesn't make it a closed question for all time. In particular the suggestion above is that it can distort the pairings for those in the running for prizes. Organisers have the option not to use acceleration, the ECF scrapped it for the British Championship, the London Classic FIDE Open and Gibraltar don't use it either.Alex Holowczak wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2018 11:44 amThey did the numbers and presented them, and the world voted to approve the system.
-
- Posts: 5249
- Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
- Location: Croydon
Re: Northumbria Masters
It's time to return things to normal.Alex Holowczak wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2018 11:44 amDavid Sedgwick phoned me last Friday, and we expressed mutual surprise that we agreed on something. At the risk of causing him some sort of traumatic shock injury, I'm going to agree with him again.
I didn't phone you last Friday. You phoned me.
-
- Posts: 9085
- Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
- Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Re: Northumbria Masters
I phoned you at 14:34 for 1 minute 45 seconds. The phone call ended when your computer went a bit wrong, and vowed to call me back when you'd sorted it.David Sedgwick wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2018 12:00 pmIt's time to return things to normal.Alex Holowczak wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2018 11:44 amDavid Sedgwick phoned me last Friday, and we expressed mutual surprise that we agreed on something. At the risk of causing him some sort of traumatic shock injury, I'm going to agree with him again.
I didn't phone you last Friday. You phoned me.
You did just that, at 14:42 for 27 minutes 2 seconds, which included a wide range of topics, and ended at the point where we agreed on something.
Sorry to drag the Northumbria Masters thread off-topic.
-
- Posts: 1734
- Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 12:15 pm
Re: Northumbria Masters
Fascinating; maybe you can phone each other again to verify the length of your calls privately..
-
- Posts: 9085
- Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
- Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Re: Northumbria Masters
Insofar as questions are ever open or closed, it makes that question closed. The numbers presented dealt with the aims of the system. If you change the aims, you might well get a different system.Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2018 11:53 amThat doesn't make it a closed question for all time. In particular the suggestion above is that it can distort the pairings for those in the running for prizes. Organisers have the option not to use acceleration, the ECF scrapped it for the British Championship, the London Classic FIDE Open and Gibraltar don't use it either.Alex Holowczak wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2018 11:44 amThey did the numbers and presented them, and the world voted to approve the system.
I was keen to stop it for the British Championship because:
- Players and people on here always complained about it
- I complained about it because it was used as a reason why we still had to pair manually
The Baku system addresses my concerns, since it is a dummy points system that Swiss-Manager can handle. The problem is that players and spectators have an emotional reaction to accelerated pairings that says it's bad, even though SPP produced numbers saying this system was fine. Numbers could be produced forever, but people's instinctive gut reaction will be that acceleration is bad.
So do organisers use an accelerated system supported by numbers that people have an adverse emotional reaction to, or use the Dutch system for which an improvement has been found but people are more familiar with and accepting of? That's the dilemma for organisers.
-
- Posts: 8475
- Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm
Re: Northumbria Masters
For the record, I'm not saying that this Baku Acceleration is necessarily a bad system. I just can't imagine why anyone would think it appropriate for a nine round event with 51 players and a median rating of 2255.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.
-
- Posts: 8475
- Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm
Re: Northumbria Masters
I don't believe I ever saw this document. What were their stated objectives?Alex Holowczak wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2018 12:54 pmeven though SPP produced numbers saying this system was fine.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.
-
- Posts: 5249
- Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
- Location: Croydon
Re: Northumbria Masters
No thank you. I have just had my monthly bill.Nick Burrows wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2018 12:49 pmFascinating; maybe you can phone each other again to verify the length of your calls privately..
-
- Posts: 4662
- Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:26 pm
Re: Northumbria Masters
I guess it must be connected to the pairing system that no one seems to have more than 3/4!!
-
- Posts: 1758
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 8:52 pm
Re: Northumbria Masters
More likely the two rounds per dayJonathan Rogers wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2018 2:35 pmI guess it must be connected to the pairing system that no one seems to have more than 3/4!!
Acceleration was decided and advertised when a less strong event was envisaged but sponsorship especially that from Capital helped strengthen the event.