New Tie Break System

  

New Tie Break System


Back to forum


Garvin Gray    (2024-12-07)
New Tie Break System

Currently Ficgs uses TER as its first tie break if two or more players are tied for first in a round robin group.

I have thought for a long time this is rather unfair and gives way too much advantage to the player with the highest rating in the group.

The practical effect of this rule can be thus:

7 players in a group:

The difference in ratings between the players can be less than 100 points and seeds 1 and 2 can be as little as 2 or 2 rating points.

But with using TER as the first tie break, the top seed only needs to have score the same as everyone else to advance, which with engines nowadays, can quite often mean that all games in a group are drawn.

What I propose is to change the tie break system to the following:

1) Number of wins
2) Sonneborn–Berger
3) Direct Encounter
4) TER

A second option is to stop using such small groups where possible. This would then at least increase the likelihood of a positive result in the groups as more games are played.


Thibault de Vassal    (2024-12-11 03:09:53)
New Tie Break System

Hi Garvin,

I can only say: Yes, this tie break system is good (probably better even if it remains subjective) & interesting.

But I don't think that changing this rule would be so good, it would lose in coherence & simplicity, and complexify the understanding of past tournaments... So, I'll go to the 2nd option, let's make 9+ players round-robin groups (as far as possible).


George Jempty    (2025-11-26 12:55:16)
New Tie Break System

Thib, couldn't some sort of change be made and be instituted (and communicated) by Jan 1 2026? Because yes, based merely on highest TER, in my opinion does NOT constitute a fair system.


George Jempty    (2025-11-26 13:19:19)
New Tie Break System

I still like my idea of using it based on performance rating FIRST, I don't see how it gives the lowest entrant an advantage if the tournament ends in a tie between all players.

But lets say two players tie, and one of them has a higher performance rating because they beat a stronger player than the other, that ALSO does not give an advantage to the lower rated player that I can see. Rather, that player must have beaten a higher rated player than the other in order to have a higher performance rating. So if the higher rated player beat a higher rated player rated player than the lower rated player did, the higher rated player would advance.

Perhaps Garvin can weigh in a little more specifically about how being lower rated gives an advantage. But, under his idea, my proposed order would be, 1) Number of wins, 2) performance rating, 3) Sonnen-berger, etc.


Garvin Gray    (2025-11-28 04:17:09)
New Tie Break System

Sorry, but I don't really want to participate in these discussions.

I have been through them before, even to the point of full on arguments with Thibault.

And also as National Delegate for Australia at ICCF, I have been involved in so many proposals on this topic that I have had enough of these discussions.

ICCF already has a set system and this is because it has been hashed out by all the ND's and the ICCF executive board over a number of years.

I see no point in trying to re-invent the wheel.

Talk of using different points for black wins or other criteria have also been debated in ICCF proposals and been defeated as they are unfair in the group as the player could get the win through an ETL.

And player mass resigning games without punishment is a topic that has recently been complained about on here again.

See why I don't want to discuss this topic. I have been going over these topics for almost two decades.

I am done


George Jempty    (2025-11-28 10:04:30)
New Tie Break System

Ok, good point, so essentially you just want it the same as ICCF, and that makes very good sense!