Hall of fame
Back to forum
Andrew Stephenson (2008-08-22)
Round Robin qualification
"Round-robin tournaments are groups of 5, 7, 9, 11 or 13 players. The winner of each group is qualified for the next stage. In case of equality, the player with the strongest tournament entry rating (TER) is qualified for the next stage." Thibault these are the rules upon which I entered the tournament WCC 3. I have spent an enourmous amount of time sweating blood to beat Janos Helmer so that I won my stage 2 group and qualified for the Round Robin Final now this tournament has started you have 1)placed 6 persons in the tournament which breaches the rules 2) You have placed Miranda Marcus in the tournament even though she did not win stage 2 group but tied on 4 out of 6 and had a lower TER. If I had known you were going to arbitrarily change the rules like this I would have agreed a draw with Janos a long time ago and Marc Lacrosse and I could have both gone through. We have 5 winners and I request you to comply with the WCC rules for this tournament and place the 4 stage 2 winners and and 1 stage 1 group M winner in the Round Robin final. I will wait for your decision before continuing. Thanks. I would like to know other players views on this. I have no objection to the rules being amended for future WCC but I want to know what the rules are when I start a tournament.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-08-22 23:19:03)
I realise there are 7 players in the round robin final ie 2 extra tied players. My point remains why 7 rather than 5? Why did I have to spend that time trying to beat Janos when I could go through on a tie?
Thibault de Vassal (2008-08-23 00:03:38)
Round Robin final WCH 3
Hi Andrew, I understand your point of view, on one hand rules specify : "If necessary, a player could be invited to complete a group or to replace a forfeiting player" which does not exactly fit to this case (2 players have been invited). On the other hand, rules give administrators the final decision in all cases - also rules may change whenever necessary - and of course the aim is simply to make it well. As it has been discussed in the past, WCH tournaments with 5 players give tournament entry ratings a too big importance and such a tournament lose some interest, 7 players should be a minimum (I may change the WCH rules this way, to be discussed)
5 players in this tournament won their group, 2 players have been invited and tied for first in their group. This does not mean : "Two players tied for first then have been invited." .. Maybe this was a mistake and we'll discuss it. Once again I understand your point of view, I think it wouldn't be acceptable to change it now but I'll accept all comments on this choice and I'll make the rules more accurate while taking account of this.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-08-23 09:07:33)
I understand the point about 5 players being a small group but I used up my holidays trying to beat Janos what would have happened if the game was a draw who would have been invited?? Janos twice offered a draw and frankly the only reason I did not accept was because I followed the rules and believed I needed to win to qualify for the final. How were you going to determine who to invite?? You knew that this situation was going to arise from the moment stage 2 started as there were only 4 groups and 1 M group there could only be 5 winners. Not only that but when I raised the issue of Marcs earlier partcipiation in round robin final I actually stated that this time as we will have 5 winners then the sitaution would not arise the group is complete so no invitations arise and in your reply you agreed I do not see why it is too late please comply with the rules as you have no right to invite other players in the rules do not allow it. Saying the administrators decision is final is saying you can suddenly change any rule at any time for any reason. I now face 6 opponents instead of 4 without any vacation time.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-08-23 11:40:09)
Not wasted time
"what would have happened if the game was a draw who would have been invited??" : that's the real question. I think about it after the result, not before - this is how invitations must be done. A player with a strong established rating who did not play in this cycle may have been invited as well. I understand that is 2 games more, the cycle is hard to play already but definitely 7 players give less chances to chance, so most probably more chances to you according to your result. It is too late to change this (imo) because many games started and I'm still not sure it would be a good choice. "Saying the administrators decision is final is saying you can suddenly change any rule at any time for any reason" -> that's true, and I think this rule is absolutely necessary but I would replace "for any reason" by "if best" which is technically the same... The aim is to do it well only. And of course I'm not error free, that's why I often discuss rules changes in this forum. "(...) the group is complete so no invitations arise and in your reply you agreed", true : my only fault. Obviously I changed my mind and created some confusion, I'm very sorry about that but now I really think that's a better choice.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-08-23 11:43:19)
All members are invited to comment on these points :
1) "Should all groups in WCH tournaments consist in 7 players at least, several players being invited if necessary at the tournament director's discretion" ? I'll change the rules this way if a majority agrees. In all cases the 3rd round-robin final must continue this way IMO but I may add a new rule :
2) "Referees are not error free and are not supposed to change the rules anytime they estimate it is a better choice, players accept the view that a tournament should be modified or any error corrected in all cases." (this is not irony, I'm not sure such a rule wouldn't bring some problems but we may try it if a majority agrees with that).
Andrew Stephenson (2008-08-23 17:59:14)
still a mystery
I know understand that you had decided (I dont know when??) that you would not allow 5 person round robin finals. So you were going to "invite" two players to make up the numbers in WCC 3 final. Nobody knew this only you. Second you are reserving the right to invite anyone according to make up the numbers according to your own preferences . It may be some all of those who tied for 1st place or you may choose to invite some other highly rated players who did not enter the tournament. Nobody knows! Firstly lets reduce the "invitations" as follows: 1) WCC tournaments will be made of at least 7 players. 2) Any shortfall will be made up of the best losers from the previous stage 3)Best losers will be selected from those who tied for place in a group in the previous stage ranked by tournament entry rating and /or from those who came 2nd ranked by tournament entry rating. Under these rules everone knows where they stand and its transparent fair and consistent with existing rules.
Wolfgang Utesch (2008-08-24 09:06:56)
Andrew, stop scathing criticism
on Thibault. Maybe he did some controversial decisions. But everybody who have to do decisions can be out in his calculations. In summery Thibault do a very good job and we all have to be thankful to him for all his work on this site.
Marc Lacrosse (2008-08-24 10:02:03)
I fully agree with Wolfgang
"In summary Thibault does a very good job and we all have to be thankful to him for all his work on this site."
I could not say it better.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-08-24 11:52:22)
separate criticism from suggestion
Whatever decisions Thibault made are past and I never doubted his good intentions. However I made a suggestion for the future which is in itelf not a criticism but a response to his invitation to comment on his proposed rule ammendments. I suggested a system for adding to numbers based on the best losers (those tied for 1st place, those placed 2nd etc) and if necessary to rank the best losers by tournament entry rating so if there were 2 slots to be filled and 3 persons who tied for first place in the groups (ie they were 2nd in their group because of lower TER than the winner) the top 2 by TER would qualify. I would also like to suggest an Ajuducations process 1) having indicative finish dates in WCC 2)if the Tournament director feels a game needs to be adjuducated (ie finish date reached)requesting both players to submit their views with analysis 3)having an adjudication commitee who will agree on the result within a set time period. These are just thoughts for possible improvement perhaps they are unnecessary. Anyway they are not intended as criticism scathing or otherwise!
Thibault de Vassal (2008-08-26 21:26:09)
To be continued...
Hi Andrew & all, sorry for the delay, I'll try to respond in a few days ! My best wishes, Thibault
[Chess forum] [Rating lists] [Countries] [Chess openings] [Legal informations] [Contact]
[Social network] [Hot news] [Discussions] [Seo forums] [Meet people] [Directory]
FICGS is also a social network including seo forums, a hot news & buzz blog, a free web directory and discussion forums to meet people from all over the world. Discuss the last events, improve your search engines optimization, submit your website, share your interests...
Feel free to link to FICGS chess server, register & win Epoints :