Default Times

[Sean Hewitt]

I am really making the point that ratings will change quite rapidly and will go up.

The first part of this statement is correct, whilst the second part is incorrect.

Doubling the K factor means that the rate of change for everyones ratings will double. It doesn't change the calculation of W-We so it will have no inflationary or deflationary effect (although any pre-existing inflationary or deflationary factors will be doubled). So (as now) just as many players will lose ratng points at a given event as will gain them (although they will lose double the number of rating points as they do now).

Matthews point that you can gain easy rating points smashing up much lower rated opposition is absolutely correct, but as Stewart rightly points out, you can do that now ; the change to the k factor will simply double the effect. It is worth remembering though that FIDE will only rate whole events, so I think it would be difficult to engineer such an event with enough games to make it worth while. Unless the event was completely ficticious of course.

The important point is that players ratings should, under the new k factors, closely match the players current form. Juniors will increase more rapidly than at present, achieving their "true" rating far more quickly. Players who are declining in strength will equally see their ratings fall to their correct level twice as fast as they do now. In general terms, this must be a good thing. Increasing the frequency of publication of the rating list reduces the effect of players taking advantage of a low rating as it will be corrected more quickly - and I assume that monthly rating lists will follow at some point.

[John Saunders]

I just assumed my views would express everybody's.

If that isn't a quotable quote, I don't know what is. Chess's own answer to Sir Thomas Beecham. Wonderful!

[Stewart Reuben]

Since the maximum rating difference is going up to 400, it means the gain against a much weaker opponent will go down from 0.11 to 0.08. Until July you multiply by 10. Thus the gain is 1.1 Rating points. From July you multiply by 20. Thus the gain will be 1.6 rating points. In Matthew's case, he can play an opponent as strong as 2100 and he would still be more than 400 points below him. I doubt Matthew regards it as a rating bargain to play weak opponents above 2000. Indeed, the chairman of the QC thought we should do away with this rating floor of 400 points. He was persuaded otherwise because top players would be even lesser attracted to open tournaments. But 400 points has no statistical validity, only social. While the average was taken for tournament, it certainly did have statistical value.
Of course, as you gain points, so do your opponents lose them. Their k factor is increasing to 30 from July. Before it was 15 for an established player. Thus the loss will be 2.4 rating points. The system is only symmetrical for players under 2400.
A player 2400 or over will gain (W-We) x 20 if he wins. A player who has never been over 2400 will lose (W-We) x 30. Of course, if the lower rated player wins or draws, then he gains more than the player 2400 or higher.

There was a general desire to make the rating changes more dynamic. Also having the list every other month means it is more difficult to make a big leap forward, much as Sean pointed out.

John Saunders commented as follows:
Stewart Reuben wrote:
I just assumed my views would express everybody's.
If that isn't a quotable quote, I don't know what is. Chess's own answer to Sir Thomas Beecham. Wonderful!

I thought that was the purpose of being a director. To direct. As I wrote, nothing said by anybody since has led me to doubt that the views I have expressed are those virtually universally held by English administrators. Of course, John chose to take it out of context and to mean that I always thought I was absolutely correct and had no need to consult anybody ever. But I was only considering the matter of zero default time.
Stewart Reuben

[John Saunders]

Not having a go you, Stewart, honestly - nor do I disagree with anything you have said in this context. I just love the way you boldly express yourself in ways that others would not dare. Perhaps more Captain Kirk than Thomas Beecham. Carry on directing... I humbly withdraw from the scene.

[Ben Purton]

I pray the 4NCL dont put this 2pm Rule in, where by we cant be later or we lose. Otherwise this means you have to leave an hour earlier if you travel from north or south.

Seems a bit too serious. I mean if we ever want to be a recognised "sport" can you imagine it on the TV:

"And the game is over, the player was 30 seconds late in to his 90 minutes"

[Ben Purton]

Also John , Stewart et al . maybe we can discuss the ramifications of the rating effect , when we have enough tournaments in England for this to actually matter!!!!!!!!! The only way you can play more than 20 games in almost any list(excluding perhaps the summer). Is by going abroad. Whilst this might get more FIDE rated players, its hardly a woohoo for having more FIDE rated games. Sean Hewitts tournaments seem a great idea, maybe if every section has FIDE players in they would consider moving to the system?


Ben

[Matthew Turner]

Sean,
The whole of my statement is correct. The FIDE system is inflationary, because it is a truncated distribution. Increasing the K-factor allows ratings to change more quickly and hence increases the inflationary impact.

[Stewart Reuben]

Ben you have not clarified what you mean by
Also John , Stewart et al . maybe we can discuss the ramifications of the rating effect , when we have enough tournaments in England for this to actually matter!!!!!!!!! The only way you can play more than 20 games in almost any list(excluding perhaps the summer). Is by going abroad. Whilst this might get more FIDE rated players, its hardly a woohoo for having more FIDE rated games. Sean Hewitts tournaments seem a great idea, maybe if every section has FIDE players in they would consider moving to the system?

Perhaps you don't know that I am greatly in favour of more FIDE Rated chess. All open FIDE Rated tournaments now qualify one player for the British. I applaud Sean Hewitt's initiatives.
Britain is not an island concerning the rating or title system. The regulations are formulated, often partly by me, to be of maximum benefit to the whole chess world.
Carl Hibberd this string has become bifurcated. It started out discussing zero time and has now veered off to FIDE rating regulation changes.

Two things, most players would regard it as rude if you and your teams are habitually considerably late. Forfeiting games in any team event without adequate notice is extremely inconsiderate.
Stewart Reuben

[Richard Bates]

Laws which will inevitably penalise perfectly innocent players should not be written to combat perceived "rudeness".

In fact to cite rudeness as an argument for shortening default times is an argument for Ilyumzhinov's proposal. Those who deliberately set out to insult or offend by lateness are those who are habitually 5-10 minutes late for games. I would think that those who are 30minutes + late are generally those who make misjudgements about travelling times, or suffer from unfortunate circumstances on the day. Unless you shorten the default time to zero, you catch the latter but do nothing to combat the former.

As for letting people know of forfeits "without adequate notice". Well it goes both ways. A team captain may feel that by delaying the decision as long as possible will maximise the chances of getting a player. In principle (although admittedly not always in practice ), I would rather every effort is made to find me an opponent in preference to knowing several days in advance that i have no game.

[Stewart Reuben]

My last comments were not aimed at furthering the discussion of what the rules should be. I am convinced that one hour is too long and 30 minutes is about right. I may have to learn to live with 15 minutes and that is OK by me, provided the arbiter and organizers have discretion.
My comments were aimed at pointing out to Ben that many people consider players turning up late for no good reason is rude. It is possible he does not even realise this.

Kirsan was affronted by the fact that Samaranch was kept waiting. We have surely established by now that nobody has posted in favour of zero as a general rule. Nothing wrong with it in a World Championship, provided again there is arbiters' discretion.

As to pre-warning of defaults. It is a complex matter and there are many ways to go.
Stewart Reuben

[Richard Bates]

My last comments were not aimed at furthering the discussion of what the rules should be. I am convinced that one hour is too long and 30 minutes is about right. I may have to learn to live with 15 minutes and that is OK by me, provided the arbiter and organizers have discretion.
My comments were aimed at pointing out to Ben that many people consider players turning up late for no good reason is rude. It is possible he does not even realise this.

Kirsan was affronted by the fact that Samaranch was kept waiting. We have surely established by now that nobody has posted in favour of zero as a general rule. Nothing wrong with it in a World Championship, provided again there is arbiters' discretion.

As to pre-warning of defaults. It is a complex matter and there are many ways to go.
Stewart Reuben

I would rather FIDE voted for zero minutes than fifteen. (What does "discretion" mean? I assume the power for local organisers to exercise different default times, rather than to disregard in individual cases. In which case why write it into the FIDE rules at all?)

If they're going to vote for an, IMO, absurd and destructive rule better it be as absurd and open to ridicule as possible IMO.

I think 15 minute default times would lead to a significant increase in player and arbiter conflict. (and of course, due to the increase in defaults, dissatisfaction and dillusionment). Issues that are easily fudged with the 1hr default time (eg. 1hr from the published start time, or 1hr from the moment the clocks are started?), due to the rarity that they need to be enforced, would become live.

The day that i am forced to accept a win in a FIDE rated game due to my opponent being 15 minutes late is the day i seriously consider giving up all non-local league chess for good.

[Stewart Reuben]

The Law proposed by the Rules committee to take effect from 1 July 2009 is as follows:
6.7 Any player who arrives at the chessboard after the start of the session shall lose the game, unless the arbiter decides otherwise. Thus the default time is 0 minutes. The rules of a competition may specify a different default time.

It could read 15 minutes, 30 minutes or 1 hour. You should note, it is the start of the session, not the scheduled start. This is because so many events are started late. Why the arbiters or organisers are not forfeited I don't know.

Thus the London League can stipulate 45 minutes as currently. English Congresses often stipulate 30 minutes in order for games to be re-paired.
A player turns up late with a perfectly good explanation, in the view of the arbiter. He is then allowed to exercise his discretion.
Neither of these has ever hitherto provided any problem. There are over 20 examples in the Laws where the arbiter has discretion.
There have already been occasions at the Olympiad where the player wanted to play the game, but the arbiter ruled this was not allowed. I allowed Jim Plaskett to play in the Lloyds Bank Masters, although he was 50 minutes late and his excuse was very lame. His opponent wanted to play the game.

Zero time does not work with arbiter's discretion. A player is present and his opponent not. He thinks he has won and the opponent now turns up with an excellent reason. The arbiter decides the game should go ahead. But the player has left, or, even if not, now has a psychological problem. Sadly I did not think of this argument at the meeting.

As far as I know only Ilyumzhinov wants the rule to be 6.7 Any player who arrives at the chessboard after the start of the session shall lose the game.

The London League can continue as before. It is not FIDE Rated. It was tried for the First Division for a couple of years, but not successfully. Of course there is always a difficulty when local rules apply. There may be misunderstandings. The USCF does not care and simply ignores the FIDE Laws. They use their own home-grown version. As far as I know, it is the only federation to do this.

Stewart Reuben

[Richard Bates]

Thank you Stewart. I get the impression, from this that you are pretty strongly opposed to 15 minute default times (without arbiter's discretion).

The reason i said i would rather FIDE voted for the Kirsan proposal is because it is far more likely then that it would just be ignored by most tournament organisers. They are far more likely to go along with the "moderate" 15 minute suggestion, which i find just as indefensible, even with supposed "arbiters discretion" which would be very difficult to implement in practice for such a small default time. As the example with mobile phones showed, any such discretion would soon IMO become the exception.

If you are going to allow local organisers discretion on what default time to use then the question remains: why write it into FIDE regulations at all? The 1hr time (pre Fischer timing, perhaps) made sense to ensure that every FIDE rated game met the minimum standard of "no of moves in minimum 1hr + extra time". A 15 minute default time contains no such justification. It is a proposal that's only virtue is that it is better than Kirsan's proposal.

[Stewart Reuben]

The FIDE Law used to say the default time was precisely 1 hour.
Thus, if you chose anything different, it had to say: Contrary to the FIDE Laws of Chess as it did for many English events. But they were not FIDE Rated.
Many people asked for there to be a time other than one hour.
Thus the law was written that gave the discretion to the Rules of the Competition. The only change for July (apart from Kirsan's suggestion) is that the norm should be zero rather than 1 hour. Arbiter's discetion remains even for zero time.
I rather think 15 minutes would work.
I think people will not simply flout the Law as you suggest. They will give up playing FIDE Rated chess, which will be greatly to the disadvantage of the game. It is never good to have a rule that people simply flout.

Perhaps you have not read the mobile phone rule. No exception is allowed, if a player's mobile phone rings he loses. It does not state 'unless the arbiter rules otherwise'. The London League is not FIDE Rated. It has a local rule that the first time a player's mobile phone rings he is given a warning. This cannot work properly with no arbiter present. But that presumably was what was intended.
Stewart Reuben

[Roger de Coverly]

I think people will not simply flout the Law as you suggest. They will give up playing FIDE Rated chess,

But what will tournament and league promoters do when no-one enters their events?

There is or was a feature in the FIDE laws that allows local variations - this was used to permit re-pairing after one hour in FIDE rated British events. In the event of the Kirsan rule change, what happens if a federation or an organiser decides to reinstate one hour defaults as a local variation? Would FIDE play hard-ball and deny rating services and title chances?