WCL 2019: Rules

this is a city competition and all teams MUST have city name in their gtoup naming

if it's not a must and if it's not rule please change the wording... rules can't be ignored

So far you're the only one who's really set on this. Would making a "should" vs "must" definition explicit as many standards documents do appease you? Or are you trying to force name changes on groups who may not wish to change their names?

I think this is my last 2c on the topic; it's dead, although the questions are asked sincerely. I merely won't comment on your answers. You may have the last word.

@pancho2015 in a PM on 2019-01-07:

About this rule: 6. Multi-team players Each player is only allowed to play for one team during one season in one league. A player who has played at least twice for each of more than one team is considered an irregular multi-team player and his game results are corrected according to Appendix D. Why is needed a double participation in two teams to consider a multi-team player? Should not be just ONE in each team? The rule as is now allow a player to play at leats one game for another team. This could be unfairly be used for some teams to share players in critical matches! Is there any good reason for this?

There are several reasons for this:

• Most importantly, it's a good idea in general to have some leeway in the rules. Not all admins, leave alone all players, are fully aware of the rules. Not all admins and/or players are frequently online. This produces many opportunities for mis-coordination, to which we should not immediately react with sanctions. We prefer to give the admins and players enough time to sort the issue out.
• Admins are not in full control of multi-team players. If a player registers shortly before the match, the multi-team player issue might even not be picked up by chess.bounceme.net (due to the delay in updating).
• We know of no cases in which the multi-team player rule has been abused in critical matches. If we encounter cases of that sort, we might reconsider the rule.

Thanks, RainPiper, for your explanation.

On the topic of closed accounts:

What happens to the points in a situation if the victim team player times out and should of moved when an account of their opponent has been closed for Fair play during their game? 

Games of closed account players are counted as 0-2 irrespective of any time out issues. (See Appendix D of the rules.)

Thanks for the confirmation RainPiper

Would like to see the number of boards increased.  So that cities with a couple of high rated opponents cannot defeat cities which can provide many more.  We are supposed to represent a city not a family.  

@Kookaburra (minimum number of players):

Setting the player minimum is always a difficult task. While there are always some teams (like Adelaide, apparently) that easily pass the minimum, there are other teams that are seriously struggling with it. The minimum will always be a precarious compromise.

Given the reduced size of the higher leagues, we plan to increase the player minimum slightly next season to 20 (Div 1), 15 (Div 2), 10 (Div 3) and 5 (unchanged, Div 4).

Good idea.  Thanks.  I understand on the bottom division it needs to be low.  Makes it tricky when you represent a city properly and are light at the high rating end and can’t get to the higher divisions to play proper matches with a decent number of opponents and get defeated by cities which only provide a small number of opponents.  We’d have a better chance in a higher division than division 4.  IMO 

Adelaide got to the top 16 in the CWC. We can provide many players.  Just have a few problems with the really high rated players.  We represent a city and most cities only have a few.  And many lower rated players.  

@iksnicamod (25% foreign flag player maximum):

Contrary to matched players, registered unmatched players are not recorded after the match start. This information is lost. So if we wanted to implement a rule that applies to all registered players (including those that are not matched), this would require that each team makes a screenshot of the registration immediately before the match. This is infeasible precisely for the reason you give: Not everyone can be online always.

So, admittedly, the 25% rule may in a few cases lead to debatable harshness, but there seems to be no feasible alternative. (Except of dropping the foreign flag restriction altogether.)

I checked yesterday and in the top 12 boards Adelaide had 3 forfeign flag bearers.  I didn’t take a screen print.  And I wasn’t awake when it started.  Next time I will take a screen print.  The rules do state each incomplete group of 12 boards anyway.  

• The number of foreign flag players is limited to 25% in each cumulative (possibly incomplete) block of 12 players (i.e. max 3 players on boards 1-12, max 6 players on boards 1-24 etc. and max 25% in total).

As it stands, the rule does apply to the active players in the match. And given the reasoning in #35, this is unlikely to change. The grouping in slices of 12 is for large matches (preventing that a team has all its foreign-flag players on the top boards). In any case there is a 25% limit on the total number of players in a match. (So for a 7-player match, this is one single foreign-flag player.)

That is different to what I understood from previous conversations here. 

And as the match starts at 3.30am my time I am not here and I checked yesterday and I didn’t know how many players our opponent would have joined before it started.  So I think the rule needs to be 3 in each group of 12 joined so it is practical.  

So you are now saying it is 1 in 4 not 3 in each group of 12.  This rule needs to be much clearer.  

And I don’t think we should be penalised and I’d like the rule much clearer please.  

And I don’t see why we should be penalised because our OPPONENTS couldn’t provide 12 players. Surely that is not our fault and beyond our control.  

And it doesn’t say active players in the rules.     I checked who had joined yesterday and it was OK and didn’t know how many Misurata would have in the match.    Wish I had taken a screen print but can contact some of the players who were joined and get them to confirm this   Didn’t expect any problems   Especially from Misurata who only provided 7 players and their top 5 players out rate Adelaide anyway   So not sure why they are complaining   

• The number of foreign flag players is limited to 25% in each cumulative (possibly incomplete) block of 12 players (i.e. max 3 players on boards 1-12, max 6 players on boards 1-24 etc. and max 25% in total).