Worcester Tournament Issue.

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
Ian Kingston
Posts: 1070
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 3:16 pm
Location: Sutton Coldfield
Contact:

Re: Worcester Tournament Issue.

Post by Ian Kingston » Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:22 pm

Michael J R White wrote:
Kevin Thurlow wrote:I would think that anyone who has ever run a weekend event would recognise that the odd mistake might happen as the tournament progresses.
In terms of somebody being left out of the pairings completely, this is the first time I've heard of such a thing, and it doesn't surprise me.
It happened at the Nottingham Open this year. A couple of pairing cards were misplaced prior to Round 4. The mistake was spotted by at least one of the players before play started and the round was quickly re-paired.

User avatar
Lee Bullock
Posts: 188
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2010 3:29 pm

Re: Worcester Tournament Issue.

Post by Lee Bullock » Tue Jul 24, 2012 3:02 pm

Michael J R White wrote:
Kevin Thurlow wrote:I would think that anyone who has ever run a weekend event would recognise that the odd mistake might happen as the tournament progresses.
In terms of somebody being left out of the pairings completely, this is the first time I've heard of such a thing, and it doesn't surprise me.
Well 2 to be exact ;)
2013/2014 and 16/17 U140 Grand Prix Winner! ;)

2015 and 2016 Chess character of the year :)

Its not a failure to lose. Its a failure when you dont try and win.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 19080
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Worcester Tournament Issue.

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Jul 24, 2012 3:23 pm

Martyn Jacobs wrote: Attention was also drawn to this error a number of times before the event, giving ample opportunity to correct it, but because it was a computer error, it was not corrected until humans intervened, when it was too late!
Inputting the 4th seed as the 10th seed isn't a computer error, it's a human one. In a tournament of 19 players, under British pairing rules, the 10th seed gets a bye or a pairing against a filler.

Andrew Farthing
Posts: 614
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 11:39 pm

Re: Worcester Tournament Issue.

Post by Andrew Farthing » Tue Jul 24, 2012 3:35 pm

Lee Bullock wrote:Anyway I am sure it will not affect next year's congress and overall it was a good event. Maybe an improvement on catering would be nice as the vending machines were not working and there was nowhere to get a drink or food before play each day.
The main cafeteria where the vending machines were located suffered a serious power surge shortly before the start of the tournament on Saturday. Apparently, this blew the machinery and prevented the use of the main cafeteria which we had booked for the tournament catering and put the vending machines out of order until lunchtime on Sunday.

The University arranged for alternative catering in the student union cafeteria, which was a reasonable response to an occurrence out of their (and the congress organisers') control. I purchased plentiful supplies of mineral water for the players in the final round when the student union cafeteria was not going to be open.

I've been helping to organise this congress for four years now, and I've come to realise that sometimes, no matter how carefully you plan and confirm arrangements well in advance, sometimes events insist on going their own way. Previously, there have always been vending machines available at the venue for the times when the cafeteria was closed. We had every reason to believe (and had been assured by the venue) that they would be available again this year. But for the power surge affecting the machinery, they would have been.

Alex McFarlane
Posts: 1530
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 8:52 pm

Re: Worcester Tournament Issue.

Post by Alex McFarlane » Tue Jul 24, 2012 3:49 pm

Martyn Jacobs wrote:I seem to remember that in this year's British Championships, there was a major error in the first round, which caused the fourth seed to be incorrectly given a bye
Please note that this was not in the Championship itself.

Initially it was a human error in selectng a player with a (very) similar name. This was corrected but the computer reverted to a previous version and it is this that was missed. The computer also failed to add in someone's FIDE rating but a human check spotted that.

We've had a lot of computer problems this time which now seem to be resolved. At one point web files were refusing to update.

Andrew Farthing
Posts: 614
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 11:39 pm

Re: Worcester Tournament Issue.

Post by Andrew Farthing » Tue Jul 24, 2012 4:11 pm

Lee Bullock wrote:I think stopping 2 games like Alex said would of been a good idea but I dont know how appropriate that is. For me I would not mind too much. And for someone that said it did not effect the prizes. It did. The player who beat my friend then got a full point bye last round and finished 2nd! So knocked some out the prizes I think or reduced for some others anyway.
By the time it had been established that the spare player could not be located, we were at least 15 minutes into the round, and it would have been horrendously disruptive to interrupt games in progress.

Lee's comment about the other player is slightly misleading. It is true that the full point bye took him to a 6-way tie for 2nd place (not 2nd place on his own, as might be assumed from the wording above). Not a single player was "knocked out of the prizes" as Lee alleges, and I adjusted the prize fund to ensure that none of the players tied for second received a reduction in their winnings as a result of the full point bye.

Given the fact of the original error, which could not be corrected without interrupting games already underway for 15 minutes, I do not see what more could have been done. We offered the players affected two possible ways of playing a graded game, so if the fact of having travelled from Oxford for just one game was the primary reason for upset for Lee's friend, he was given the opportunity to have a graded game but turned it down. No one suffered financially from the error except me. Even next year's charity won't suffer from my offer of a half-price entry fee to the player concerned, because I shall donate the equivalent amount to the charity if the offer is taken up.

User avatar
Lee Bullock
Posts: 188
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2010 3:29 pm

Re: Worcester Tournament Issue.

Post by Lee Bullock » Tue Jul 24, 2012 4:18 pm

Andrew Farthing wrote:
Lee Bullock wrote:I think stopping 2 games like Alex said would of been a good idea but I dont know how appropriate that is. For me I would not mind too much. And for someone that said it did not effect the prizes. It did. The player who beat my friend then got a full point bye last round and finished 2nd! So knocked some out the prizes I think or reduced for some others anyway.
By the time it had been established that the spare player could not be located, we were at least 15 minutes into the round, and it would have been horrendously disruptive to interrupt games in progress.

Lee's comment about the other player is slightly misleading. It is true that the full point bye took him to a 6-way tie for 2nd place (not 2nd place on his own, as might be assumed from the wording above). Not a single player was "knocked out of the prizes" as Lee alleges, and I adjusted the prize fund to ensure that none of the players tied for second received a reduction in their winnings as a result of the full point bye.

Given the fact of the original error, which could not be corrected without interrupting games already underway for 15 minutes, I do not see what more could have been done. We offered the players affected two possible ways of playing a graded game, so if the fact of having travelled from Oxford for just one game was the primary reason for upset for Lee's friend, he was given the opportunity to have a graded game but turned it down. No one suffered financially from the error except me. Even next year's charity won't suffer from my offer of a half-price entry fee to the player concerned, because I shall donate the equivalent amount to the charity if the offer is taken up.
I did not actually say it knocked someone out the prizes. I said I think and then or. So it was not a certain statement. And the only thing I think should of been done was on the day both players offered half price entry next year as a token of apology. Not after. But as its now been offered its better than nothing and I am sure he will be ok with that.
2013/2014 and 16/17 U140 Grand Prix Winner! ;)

2015 and 2016 Chess character of the year :)

Its not a failure to lose. Its a failure when you dont try and win.

Post Reply