Arbitration question
-
- Posts: 5852
- Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm
Re: Arbitration question
"And what can arbiters do during this time where no tournament is possible?"
Eat whilst they have the chance...
Eat whilst they have the chance...
-
- Posts: 4552
- Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:04 pm
- Location: writer
Re: Arbitration question
What do arbiters do when there are no organisers? That is why I was always puzzled there was an arbiters organisation before organisers.
-
- Posts: 3148
- Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:24 pm
Re: Arbitration question
What should an arbiter do if a player, instead of completing his K-side casting, just moves his king to g8 and press the clock?
-
- Posts: 3576
- Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
- Location: Awbridge, Hampshire
Re: Arbitration question
Treat it in the same way as they would any other illegal move. Tell the player the move was illegal, put the king back on e1/e8 and tell the player he has to play a legal move. If the king has any legal moves he has to move it. He can castle if he wants to, but doesn't have to.soheil_hooshdaran wrote: ↑Sun Oct 11, 2020 6:52 amWhat should an arbiter do if a player, instead of completing his K-side casting, just moves his king to g8 and press the clock?
-
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2020 9:20 am
Re: Arbitration question
A question for Soheil - I've read this thread and the scenarios in it for about a year and always wondered - are these issues that have come up in tournaments you have run, or are they theoretical?
-
- Posts: 3148
- Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:24 pm
Re: Arbitration question
Some occurred to me as a player/arbiter, some are asked by my seniors in exam and telegram/Whatsapp groupsJacob Ward wrote: ↑Sun Oct 11, 2020 3:59 pmA question for Soheil - I've read this thread and the scenarios in it for about a year and always wondered - are these issues that have come up in tournaments you have run, or are they theoretical?
-
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2020 9:20 am
Re: Arbitration question
Thanks for indulging my curiosity. I'm glad you aren't actually having to deal with all these issues!
-
- Posts: 1420
- Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:31 pm
Re: Arbitration question
Ian,Ian Thompson wrote: ↑Sun Oct 11, 2020 10:26 amTreat it in the same way as they would any other illegal move. Tell the player the move was illegal, put the king back on e1/e8 and tell the player he has to play a legal move. If the king has any legal moves he has to move it. He can castle if he wants to, but doesn't have to.soheil_hooshdaran wrote: ↑Sun Oct 11, 2020 6:52 amWhat should an arbiter do if a player, instead of completing his K-side casting, just moves his king to g8 and press the clock?
have you considered FIDE laws 4.7 and 4.7.2 ?
EMW
-
- Posts: 3148
- Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:24 pm
Re: Arbitration question
At my 6-round swiss-system Lichess weekender, I have 3 5-point players (each 5 wins and a loss. C won A and lost to B.B won C and lost to A. My regulations only mentioned Bokh-holtz as the pairing system.Bokh-holtz of player C is very bad as he played me (a new way of taking revenge from the opponent?!)
What should I do?
The tournament table is at
https://lichess.org/swiss/sZmCqmMD
What should I do?
The tournament table is at
https://lichess.org/swiss/sZmCqmMD
-
- Posts: 4840
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
- Location: Bideford
Re: Arbitration question
You should say that Alizooo and BlibberingHumdinger are equal first, because you did not include sufficient tie-breaks to break that tie. Then, in future tournaments, you should include more tie-break methods if you want them.
-
- Posts: 3148
- Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:24 pm
Re: Arbitration question
But, how many tie-breaks and what tie-breaks are sufficient?
-
- Posts: 4840
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
- Location: Bideford
Re: Arbitration question
You'd have to be extraordinarily unlucky for TPR to not break a tie, so put that one somewhere in the list.
-
- Posts: 3576
- Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
- Location: Awbridge, Hampshire
Re: Arbitration question
Why do you need to break the tie? What is the problem with having joint winners if there is no, or negligible, difference in the players' performances?soheil_hooshdaran wrote: ↑Sat Oct 31, 2020 4:05 pmBut, how many tie-breaks and what tie-breaks are sufficient?
-
- Posts: 3148
- Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:24 pm
Re: Arbitration question
We almost never have joint winners in Iran, and always use tie-breaks
-
- Posts: 4552
- Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:04 pm
- Location: writer
Re: Arbitration question
All tiebreak systems are defective; at least according to Professor Elo in 1964.
If you must have tiebreaks, and have no time for playoffs, I recommend Ra. That is the average rating of the opponents.
If one opponent is unrated, that can be ignored. More than one unrated, that system does not work.
The only merit of Bucholz is that it is not quite so silly as Sonneborn-Berger.
If there are just two players involved, then their result against each other counts. But often that is a draw.
SOP, Sum of Progressive scores is quite good. I think FIDE dislike it because it is too simple. One player went 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5. SOP = 20.
Another 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. SOP = 15. The drawback is that the second player probably met the first in the last round. That is why you need personal encounter to come first.
You can also use Greatest number of wins. Advantage it encourages more positive play. Disadvantage, the player winning the tiebreaks will have LOST more games.
Anybody who wins a game by default goes to the bottom of the score group. Again FIDE loathe it, because it is too simple.
If you must have tiebreaks, and have no time for playoffs, I recommend Ra. That is the average rating of the opponents.
If one opponent is unrated, that can be ignored. More than one unrated, that system does not work.
The only merit of Bucholz is that it is not quite so silly as Sonneborn-Berger.
If there are just two players involved, then their result against each other counts. But often that is a draw.
SOP, Sum of Progressive scores is quite good. I think FIDE dislike it because it is too simple. One player went 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5. SOP = 20.
Another 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. SOP = 15. The drawback is that the second player probably met the first in the last round. That is why you need personal encounter to come first.
You can also use Greatest number of wins. Advantage it encourages more positive play. Disadvantage, the player winning the tiebreaks will have LOST more games.
Anybody who wins a game by default goes to the bottom of the score group. Again FIDE loathe it, because it is too simple.