British Chess Championship Pairings Question

[Brian Beattie]

Alex is undermining his point that this forum not the best place to ask questions by responding. I'm not sure if Brian realises this is like complaining about a handball decision at his son's football game and getting a response from Howard Webb.

Well, that is the picture that some continue to try to paint. But a more apt analogy is simply my son had a handball decision and me simply asking a bunch of football aficionados what are the rules that determine a handball are and/or where to find more information. And some people have been quite helpful in that regard. Others seem to be under the impression (probably based on their biases) that I am standing there yelling at the referee.

Now at some point I did ask why the British didn't use a TB system and I was told to take it up with Organizers. And that is fair enough. But that shouldn't preclude talking about pairing systems in general.

The one area where I doubt I will agree with Alex, an eminent FIDE arbiter and Chairman of Chess Scotland, is in the use of English Ratings at the British Championship, It is an entertaining discussion though. If we exhaust it we could move onto the ECF using the Union Flag, whether Scotland have any promising juniors who might be interested in changing federation, and DCMS funding of the ECF.

As a player, I would have queried the pairing before sitting down at the board. Concur with the view at that point only the game matters. But occasionally mistakes occur. In my experience only where a mistake in recording has occurred in a previous round rather than a fault in the pairing itself. But it can happen.

If I was a player I might have queried the pairing before sitting down as well. But as a parent I didn't see how any good would come of me walking into the playing hall. My kid is best served by walking into the playing hall by themselves and getting on with it. Everything else is a distraction.

I'd be extremely surprised if a mistake was made in the pairing methodology itself or if there were easy fixes to pairing systems, particularly those used by a wide variety of events worldwide. Arbiters really, really care about pairings and have done for decades. Possibly only the location of restaurants that are open late is more important to them.

At the time I suspected the pairing system did exactly what is was designed to do and that the arbiters might have had discretion to change the pairings so that both kids played down. But as someone pointed out above that could have impacted 2nd and/or 3rd. In either scenario though the pairings were already done, they weren't going to be changed nor should they, and there is zero benefit to not getting on with it.

As a veteran player, I've come to accept Opens are inherently a bit unfair. There are many more things that can go wrong than in an all play all. I'd certainly be telling my friends about a 3/6 colour sequence over diner and expecting sympathy. But I wouldn't really consider it anything more than bad luck equivalent to walking into preparation or similar.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I think there is more of a sense of unfairness when this happens in a 5-round tournament, as the percentages are higher (for 9 rounds, you have the colour split being 1/3:2/3 - for 5 rounds, it is 1/5:4/5).

i.e. BWBBB

This can happen, usually in small Swiss events. Am not sure if it is statistically less likely to happen than in longer events. I would suggest looking at the mammoth 20-plus-round events, but I think most of those were double-round all-play-alls (APAs).

You could look at 11-round Swisses and see whether the chances increase for 3 colours in a row. I am presuming that four colours in a row would basically never happen.

[Roger de Coverly]

At the time I suspected the pairing system did exactly what is was designed to do and that the arbiters might have had discretion to change the pairings so that both kids played down.

When they are using FIDE pairing rules, the general convention is that they don't tamper. The problem is that if you allow tampering, it can make for unfairness and accusations of bias. One of the points is that in order to be seen to be correct, any arbiter anywhere can download the data and reproduce the published pairings.

As with many computer generated outputs, if the output is seen to be unsatisfactory, the rules may need to be changed. In the comments above, the circumstances in which BBB or WWW is avoided by floats are described.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"When they are using FIDE pairing rules, the general convention is that they don't tamper"

Yes - Roger is right. If you start breaking the rules, you favour one or more players, but you also damage other players. The big advantage of software is it doesn't care what it does. There has been a long history of a manual draw being fiddled to help some players.

I recall Jack Speigel being confronted in round 3 with two players on 2/2 both having gone WW, and two players on 1.5/2 from BB. The computer (not that they had them then) would pair the 2/2s against each other and the 1.5s against each other. He summoned the players and said, "I propose to float all of you so you get the right colours". They all happily agreed. But in the last round, for the leaders, you really have to do the correct if undesirable draw. If you have two tailenders having gone BB, then give them both white and floats, as long as their opponents cannot win prizes due to playing easier opposition (and don't tell FIDE).

With Ratings, it is usual to use FIDE-ratings for a FIDE-rated tournament. If you use a hybrid system, you are being inconsistent to the players. Ratings don't mean much, they mean less for juniors, and even less for speed events.

[Alex McFarlane]

Since I seem have have offended Mr Beattie, I will keep the points general.
Any questioning of pairings should be done at the event. If a satisfactory answer is not received then by all means bring it to a forum. Indeed if the answer is interesting and not generally known that too would be worth bringing here.

In the days of manual pairings I had an IM who would regularly query his pairing. It got to the stage where I would predict when he was going to question it and have the answer ready for him, even written if I had time. Guessing when he was going to 'debate' his pairing became an amusing aside.

As a slight digression, three colours in a row is less likely to occur if the CAA system is used than the FIDE one. Unfortunately FIDE will only consider programmed pairing systems and the CAA system is only manual. I still claim it has much to recommend it over the FIDE system. Roger highlighted one.

The suggestion that there should be a new pairing system where the seeding changes with each round is not new. The Dubov system uses that to some degree.

Although this would normally only apply to tournaments where norms were available, FIDE has the right to check results submitted for rating and to reject any where the pairing system has not been approved in advance.

The current FIDE approved Swiss pairing programmes could not be used even if the player order was changed manually as the programmes do not allow player order to be changed after 4 rounds. I hate to think how long the gap between rounds would need to be to accommodate a non-recognised system.

As I say at every arbiter seminar I do, other than a play-off with the same time control, there is no tie-break method that is totally satisfactory. All tie-breaks will favour some players above others. Buchholz, for example, has the disadvantage that it depends on the performance of your opponents against others, something that the player has no control over. It gets even more complicated when players withdraw. (Dealing with unplayed games has recently changed in tie-break calculations, just to add to the problems.)

I have known players register for arbiters' courses, not with any desire to become an arbiter, but in the belief they would then be able to argue with arbiters having gained some additional knowledge. It seldom works and they often finish on a low score!

I repeat my suggestion that the best way to understand what happens at a tournament is to volunteer to help. It can be an eye opener.

[Matt Mackenzie]

I am presuming that four colours in a row would basically never happen.

Actually, *has* it ever happened? I would certainly be intrigued to hear of an actual example, and how it came about.

[Kevin Thurlow]

I am presuming that four colours in a row would basically never happen.

Actually, *has* it ever happened? I would certainly be intrigued to hear of an actual example, and how it came about.

Yes - a friend of mine once got BWBBBB, but the controller didn't like the player. I was outraged on the player's behalf, but player said, "It's ok - I quite like the black pieces!"

[Kevin Thurlow]

"As a slight digression, three colours in a row is less likely to occur if the CAA system is used than the FIDE one. Unfortunately FIDE will only consider programmed pairing systems and the CAA system is only manual. I still claim it has much to recommend it over the FIDE system. Roger highlighted one."

yes - I agree.

"In the days of manual pairings I had an IM who would regularly query his pairing."

I was once woken from my pre-round sleep by an arbiter saying that a GM had complained about his pairing, and could I go and check. I went to look and asked the GM what he thought the pairing should be. He moved the cards around, and I said, "So, instead of black against the highest-rated player on your score-group, you think you should have white against the lowest-rated player on your score group?" A friend of his said, "WHAT!?", dragged the player away, then came back to apologise! I will not identify the player, but he was a regular complainant, who was not "ENG" then, but is now...

[Brian Beattie]

Since I seem have have offended Mr Beattie, I will keep the points general.
Any questioning of pairings should be done at the event. If a satisfactory answer is not received then by all means bring it to a forum. Indeed if the answer is interesting and not generally known that too would be worth bringing here.

In the days of manual pairings I had an IM who would regularly query his pairing. It got to the stage where I would predict when he was going to question it and have the answer ready for him, even written if I had time. Guessing when he was going to 'debate' his pairing became an amusing aside.

As a slight digression, three colours in a row is less likely to occur if the CAA system is used than the FIDE one. Unfortunately FIDE will only consider programmed pairing systems and the CAA system is only manual. I still claim it has much to recommend it over the FIDE system. Roger highlighted one.

The suggestion that there should be a new pairing system where the seeding changes with each round is not new. The Dubov system uses that to some degree.

Although this would normally only apply to tournaments where norms were available, FIDE has the right to check results submitted for rating and to reject any where the pairing system has not been approved in advance.

The current FIDE approved Swiss pairing programmes could not be used even if the player order was changed manually as the programmes do not allow player order to be changed after 4 rounds. I hate to think how long the gap between rounds would need to be to accommodate a non-recognised system.

As I say at every arbiter seminar I do, other than a play-off with the same time control, there is no tie-break method that is totally satisfactory. All tie-breaks will favour some players above others. Buchholz, for example, has the disadvantage that it depends on the performance of your opponents against others, something that the player has no control over. It gets even more complicated when players withdraw. (Dealing with unplayed games has recently changed in tie-break calculations, just to add to the problems.)

I have known players register for arbiters' courses, not with any desire to become an arbiter, but in the belief they would then be able to argue with arbiters having gained some additional knowledge. It seldom works and they often finish on a low score!

I repeat my suggestion that the best way to understand what happens at a tournament is to volunteer to help. It can be an eye opener.

Thanks. This is more inline with the information I was looking for.

[Brian Beattie]

"When they are using FIDE pairing rules, the general convention is that they don't tamper"

Yes - Roger is right. If you start breaking the rules, you favour one or more players, but you also damage other players. The big advantage of software is it doesn't care what it does. There has been a long history of a manual draw being fiddled to help some players.

I recall Jack Speigel being confronted in round 3 with two players on 2/2 both having gone WW, and two players on 1.5/2 from BB. The computer (not that they had them then) would pair the 2/2s against each other and the 1.5s against each other. He summoned the players and said, "I propose to float all of you so you get the right colours". They all happily agreed. But in the last round, for the leaders, you really have to do the correct if undesirable draw. If you have two tailenders having gone BB, then give them both white and floats, as long as their opponents cannot win prizes due to playing easier opposition (and don't tell FIDE).

With Ratings, it is usual to use FIDE-ratings for a FIDE-rated tournament. If you use a hybrid system, you are being inconsistent to the players. Ratings don't mean much, they mean less for juniors, and even less for speed events.

From what I've seen over the last few years ENG children that are playing 40+ games per year via a variety of tournaments (junior and non-age restricted) are now at a point that their ECF ratings are now fairly inline with their real performances. As such I'd say that nearly all the top half of the juniors at the British in the U12 all have fairly accurate ECF ratings. And that overall performance at the tournament was largely inline those ratings. FIDE ratings are not nearly as accurate. I can see an argument for FIDE rankings for adults but not so much for kids where an ECF/FIDE hybrid would be better suited if we are trying to be fair to the players.

[Adam Ashton]

I agree that ECF grades are probably more accurate for lower rated players generally.

I'm still firmly against hybrid rules. To use one rating in the pairings and another for rating purposes just can't be correct. The games will be FIDE rated, so FIDE ratings should take priority and be used wherever possible.

As more and more tournaments are FIDE rated these days, hopefully they should move closer.

[Alex McFarlane]

I was once woken from my pre-round sleep by an arbiter saying that a GM had complained about his pairing, and could I go and check. I went to look and asked the GM what he thought the pairing should be. He moved the cards around, and I said, "So, instead of black against the highest-rated player on your score-group, you think you should have white against the lowest-rated player on your score group?" A friend of his said, "WHAT!?", dragged the player away, then came back to apologise! I will not identify the player, but he was a regular complainant, who was not "ENG" then, but is now...

Is there a prize for identifying this player?

I think he used to complain about his pairing to every arbiter and always along the same lines as you describe. He was once threatened with physical violence by a normally mild mannered Scottish arbiter when he, from memory, demanded a downfloat rather than the upfloat he was given.

He complained to me once about being given an upfloat. His logic seemed to revolve around the belief it shouldn't be him but with no indication of who it should be. I am still waiting on his reply to my question of "Why didn't you query the pairings last round when you were given the downfloat?" He walked away at that point.
He was also one that I warned at Hastings that if I had to pull him up for talking one more time I would be throwing him out of the tournament.

[Paul Cooksey]

He once tried to persuade me to object to something because a condition of his appearance fee was that he did not complain

[Brian Beattie]

I agree that ECF grades are probably more accurate for lower rated players generally.

I'm still firmly against hybrid rules. To use one rating in the pairings and another for rating purposes just can't be correct. The games will be FIDE rated, so FIDE ratings should take priority and be used wherever possible.

As more and more tournaments are FIDE rated these days, hopefully they should move closer.

My kids FIDE classical rating is probably 150 points below his playing ability. In another year he will probably be playing at a level 50-100 points higher. To gain 200-250 points in a year is going to take probably somewhere around a minimum of 45 classical rated games. Zero chance he is going to get anywhere near that number with FIDE rated games. In fairness he'd have a similar ECF climb and at best he'll probably get in 30 games and probably get 75-80% of the way there. That stated in the British with FIDE he will be almost guaranteed to start playing harder players a round sooner than kids of similar abilities and if performs up to expectation will be more likely to have to switch colours which is nearly certain in a 9 round tournament.

[Ian Thompson]

Is there a prize for identifying this player?

нет.

It would either be far too costly if every correct answer was a winner, or we'd need a new tie-break method to decide who the sole winner was.