9583 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
I played in a small local event recently and the Open section had only 9 players entered . The Reserve section ( below 1600 ) had an odd number also . One of the TDs decided to ask one of the reserve players to " play up " so that byes wouldnt be necessary in either section . He did this by starting with the highest rated in the Reserve section and asking them directly if they would play in the Open . After a few declined one accepted and said he would play up . This player had a chance to win money in the Reserve section and now has no chance to win anything in the Open and he promptly loses 3 games and manages one draw . To add insult to injury this player is assigned 3 blacks and one white during the 4 round event . ( I detest events with an even number of rounds because of this possibility ) I think this was an injustice and wont be surprised if he never comes back to our local tourney .... what do you think ?
I think he was probably tickled with that draw.
If he's a regular tournament player, then it probably isn't a big deal as he would be aware of what he was agreeing to up front.
If he's not a regular tournament player, then it should have been explained to him in detail what he could reasonably expect. In either case, I've always been of the opinion that a player changing their section at the request of the organizers (which isn't that uncommon in small tournaments) should have their entry fee wavied. They are basically functioning as a house-man, and in my club, house-men play free.
I think the TD should not have asked - just said to the" highest either you are in the tournament and play up or you are out."
That's absolutely an abuse of the TD's authority. I would not attend any tournament where the TD arbitrarily forced people to register in sections they did not wish to register in on penalty of removing them from the tournament.
in denmark we are not in rating based groups and it is entirely up to the TD. we don't have rating floors or something similiar. you don't know what group you are entering. it depends on the number of people entlisting.
Ah, but the question here is specifically about sections based on rating. And in section tournaments, there are prizes within those sections as well.
I think there is nothing wrong with what he did. He tried to make both sections even by "Voluntarily" moving to the upper section. If nobody agrees to do it, you deal with the byes. You don't force the issue.
Another solution with small 1-day tournaments would be not to do sections of "Open" and "U1600", but rather, charge $20, return 75%, and do 10-man sections for $100 and $50 for 1st and 2nd with the bottom section being 6 to 12 players with proportionate payout. If the remainder is 4, you take the second from the bottom section and shift it to 8, and make the bottom 6, and they play for $80-$40 and $60-$30 respectively.
At that point, it's strictly based on rating. If you have 28 players, sort them in order by rating, 1 to 10 make up the top section, 11 to 20 make up the middle section, 21 to 28 make up the bottom section.
The Director acted properly. If nothing were done, then every player would potentially lose a game to a bye - there would be a total of eight unplayed games in the two sections. That is very bad for the competition and for the players who came to play.
As long as the choice was completely voluntary, I see no objection. It would have been a nice gesture to comp the entry fee for the player who agreed to play up.
I assume the "3 blacks & a white" came about by the Swiss pairing rule that when both players are due the same color, the higher ranked (by score first, then rating) gets his due color. So it was a pairing of players with "B-W-B" in their first three games, the lower ranked gets the 3rd Black.
If both had received "W-B-W" in the first games, the lower player would get the 3rd White, so it works out in the longer run.
Is stonewall really viable?
by pfren 2 minutes ago
7/27/2014 - Mate in 2
by WasOnce 5 minutes ago
2014 Chess Olympiad (Tromsø)
by Synaphai 7 minutes ago
GM Robert Byrne (White) to move: Mate in ????
by lenslens1 14 minutes ago
I Don't See the Point of the Touch-Move Rule
by SmyslovFan 16 minutes ago
New Logic for Auto-pairing and Seek Graph!
by overseaer1 19 minutes ago
Nameno1had, AKA Nemo, Neemo, and Nameeno, is gone! Account closed.
by RonaldJosephCote 23 minutes ago
is it harder to be a positional master then a tactical master
by Chesscoaching 24 minutes ago
Rate my latest miniature brah
by pfren 25 minutes ago
Gruenfeld defense draw (black)
by Fady1998 26 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2014 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!