Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 46 to 59 of 59

Thread: FIDE SWISS Rules Revisited

  1. | #46
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    689

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Firegoat7 View Post
    It is ridiculous that any ACF official would criticise Box Hill chess club for attempting to repair two juniors who suffered a double forfeit, just so they could play a game. It is absurd, that Box Hill chess club is being told they cannot get the game rated.
    Honestly (like you never are), you are just a clueless goose as you have your facts completely wrong again.

    It was the other way around.
    The game was played. BHCC failed to submit the game for ratings because the assistant arbiter decided it would not be rated because they had already played, although no such indication was given to the players. But for the diligence of the CV state ratings officer, the BHCC assistant arbiter (not the ACF) would have caused the game not to be rated by misreporting it.

    After a long investigation, the game in question has been accepted for ACF and FIDE ratings by the ACF - as it should be, because the players could well have thought they were playing a rated game. The ACF is in fact telling the club not that the game cannot be rated, but the reverse: that a game played under tournament conditions during a tournament must be submitted for ratings!

    You also say they "suffered a double forfeit". No. They were both entitled to win on forfeit and were each awarded a forfeit win. But had they not already played each other, their agreement to play each other would have meant that their forfeit wins would have been cancelled and one may have been punished with a loss for deciding to play.

    I await your apology, or you can sit there with a hundred eggs on your beak being the same clueless frothing angry biased hatred-blinded foulmouthed loon you always are.

    The laws of chess have a spirit that runs through them that is supposed to encourage good will towards competition chess.
    This is nothing to do with the Laws of Chess. Your inability to tell one FIDE document from another is noted. In any case, it is not "fair play" for the arbiter to deceive players into thinking they are playing a rated game and then not submit it for ratings. It is not in the interests of a competition to misreport results or give players one-point byes for turning up late. And so on. All this should be obvious but you are so twisted by hatred that you are incapable of applying basic ethical standards.

    My motive in quoting those standards was to make it clear that FIDE has very strict standards regarding how arbiters behave in running tournaments. There is a low tolerance for fraud and extreme incompetence. There is also little tolerance for pairing practices that are common in more relaxed events, and organisers of FIDE tournaments need to be very careful about this. We saw this before in this country with the St George "unplayed draws" issue for example.

    The guy is a self centred,walking ,talking, over bearing ,public relations disaster for the game of chess, .
    Oh so someone who swears his head off at me in a blustering fashion while having his facts completely wrong is an expert in public relations.

    Whatever.
    Note: I have poster antichrist on ignore. On no account should anyone assume that I agree with, or am unable to refute, any comment by poster antichrist, simply because I have not responded to it. Chances are I have not even seen it. (NB Quoting posts by antichrist to try to get around this issue will mostly be ineffective). I am also sometimes denied the ability of reply to false accusations in the shoutbox.

  2. | #47
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    689

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Firegoat7 View Post
    Look at the way [..] speaks here to a club administrator.
    As I already explained, this club administrator is a person who has frequently made false public accusations about me. His deliberate obfuscation in order to increase his postcount can also be quite tedious. 99.9% of club admins do not carry on like him.

    Then he claims that "....Box Hill failed to submit the game for ratings." , [..]. Why should he help?
    How is anyone supposed to "help" when instead of us being told there is an issue, the Box Hill deputy arbiter conceals the issue from the Ratings Officers by not submitting the game?

    I would have thought that warning someone that what they are doing is the sort of thing that could get them de-licensed might be of some use to them. You it seems would prefer that they not be warned and get themselves banned. So precisely how much "help" are you?

    he is an asshole!
    There's no call for using American spelling on this board. Seems like you only know a handful of rude words and can't even spell one of them!
    Note: I have poster antichrist on ignore. On no account should anyone assume that I agree with, or am unable to refute, any comment by poster antichrist, simply because I have not responded to it. Chances are I have not even seen it. (NB Quoting posts by antichrist to try to get around this issue will mostly be ineffective). I am also sometimes denied the ability of reply to false accusations in the shoutbox.

  3. | #48
    Siberian Chess Tiger Axiom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,379

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    There's no call for using American spelling on this board.
    Excuse me but The Ozchess Boys in collaboration with The Ozchess Executive Council make those types of calls.
    "Don't let the snow get down the back of your pants" ~ SCT

  4. | #49
    Volunteer MOZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    MOZ* is my main signon; PMs to me should be directed here. Other special purpose signons are used.
    Posts
    4,787

    Default One objective for Clubs should be to encourage games to be played

    Quote Originally Posted by chesschat HERZL thread

    Code:
    No Name                Rtg  Loc  Total  Result   Name                     Rtg  Loc  Total
    
     1 Goldenberg, Igor    2338 2369 [3]      P:P    Morris, James            2455 2509 [3]  
     2 Rashid, Abdulwahab  2010 2084 [2]     P :P    Dizdarevic, Mehmedalija  1897 1881 [2.5]
     3 Kalisch, Tom        1822 1804 [2]      1:0    Schmidt, Simon           2057 2069 [2]  
     4 Lim, Cassandra      1727 1636 [2]      P:P    Zou, Brendan             1971 1796 [2]  
     5 Penrose, Justin     1949 1976 [2]      1:0    Li, Oliver               1583 1105 [2]  
     6 Davis, Tony J       1893 1889 [2]      P:P    Lim, Christopher         1659 1626 [2]  
     7 Kaplan, Alex        1622 1505 [2]      +:-    Narenthran, Tharmaratnam 1865 1855 [2]  
     8 Savige, Colin B     1981 1858 [1.5]    1:0    Soetanto, Brandon        1514 1363 [1.5]
     9 Schulzer, Peter     1675 1675 [1.5]    1:0    Gluzman, Sam             1749 1463 [1.5]
    10 Renzies, Elliott    1462 1328 [1.5]    P:P    Cook, Geoff L            1739 1690 [1.5]
    11 Brodzky, Leonid     1568 1568 [1.5]    P:P    Wang, Kayson             1675 1698 [1.5]
    12 Harris, Anthony     1811 1715 [1]      P:P    Voon, Richard            1665 1696 [1.5]
    13 Chiverton, Fergus   1312 1128 [1]      1:0    Beckman, John            1535 1454 [1]  
    14 Kolak, Tanya        1437 1314 [1]     .5:.5   Gu, Dennis               1335 1019 [1]  
    15 Chiverton, Barnaby  1348 1242 [1]      +:-    Gold, Adam                         [1]  
    16 Wang, Yifan Eva     1364 1049 [.5]     1:0    Perch, Sol                         [.5] 
    17 Wong, ShinWei                 [.5]     +:-    Lamovie, John                      [0]  
    18 Zhang, Kevin W                [0]      1:0    BYE                                     
    19 Dragicevic, Domagoj 2169 2212 [2.5]   .5:0    BYE                                     
    20 Wyss, Felix         1681 1623 [1.5]   .5:0    BYE                                     
    21 Sanusi-Goh, Gavyn   1243 870  [1.5]   .5:0    BYE

    35 players
    7 games played, involving 14 players.
    3 forfeits
    Unrated player gets a 1 point bye from a progressive score of [0]. One of the forfeits (receiver) is on [0.5], but not paired with the BYE (receiver); and the [0.5 was an unearned bye taken by election in round 3].


    I will watch with interest the standards applied to this one by the gatekeepers.


    Moz*
    FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

  5. | #50
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    689

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MOZ View Post
    35 players
    7 games played, involving 14 players.
    But P:P denotes a postponement so there are another seven that should (in theory) be played.
    Note: I have poster antichrist on ignore. On no account should anyone assume that I agree with, or am unable to refute, any comment by poster antichrist, simply because I have not responded to it. Chances are I have not even seen it. (NB Quoting posts by antichrist to try to get around this issue will mostly be ineffective). I am also sometimes denied the ability of reply to false accusations in the shoutbox.

  6. | #51
    Volunteer MOZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    MOZ* is my main signon; PMs to me should be directed here. Other special purpose signons are used.
    Posts
    4,787

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    But p : p denotes a postponement so there are another seven that should (in theory) be played.
    In my view, the folding of the Whitehorse Chess Club was due to a prolonged rash of p:p.
    Games were often played at a Uni campus or even at another Club.
    It was not out of the ordinary to find 11 or 12 games played off-site off-sheduled-time; leaving 3 or 4 games in progress on 'club night'.
    It is hard to maintain the 'sense of Club' when this becomes the norm.

    And in the case of WHCC, they folded even they had a couple of really good administrators.

    I note you made no comment on board 17 even though board 18 is available.
    And, both players were on zero earned points.
    FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

  7. | #52
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    689

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MOZ View Post
    In my view, the folding of the Whitehorse Chess Club was due to a prolonged rash of p:p.
    Games were often played at a Uni campus or even at another Club.
    It was not out of the ordinary to find 11 or 12 games played off-site off-sheduled-time; leaving 3 or 4 games in progress on 'club night'.
    It is hard to maintain the 'sense of Club' when this becomes the norm.
    That's a problem for the organisers. Nothing to do with the rating of games.

    I note you made no comment on board 17 even though board 18 is available.
    Pairing was published and final days earlier so cannot be changed to re-pair a forfeit. This is also a FIDE-rated event.
    Note: I have poster antichrist on ignore. On no account should anyone assume that I agree with, or am unable to refute, any comment by poster antichrist, simply because I have not responded to it. Chances are I have not even seen it. (NB Quoting posts by antichrist to try to get around this issue will mostly be ineffective). I am also sometimes denied the ability of reply to false accusations in the shoutbox.

  8. | #53
    Volunteer MOZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    MOZ* is my main signon; PMs to me should be directed here. Other special purpose signons are used.
    Posts
    4,787

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    That's a problem for the organisers. Nothing to do with the rating of games.
    Post #41 in this thread highlighted that the broader objective of encouraging chess to be played should be on an organiser's radar always.
    Without a Club there is no rating of games.
    Your view is too narrow.



    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    Pairing was published and final days earlier so cannot be changed to re-pair a forfeit. This is also a FIDE-rated event.
    One player came from Mt Waverley (by car probably), and the other came from Toorak (by car probably), we are fortunate the Greens are not measuring games-achieved/miles-travelled.

    Why you would defend a non-combative outcome where two people travelled to play chess, were virtually on the same score, were both ready to play, is a source of wonderment for me.
    I don't think it ethical to organise a tournament where this occurs.

    And now one of the players is on 1.5 points and has yet to earn any of it.

    Your view is too narrow.
    FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

  9. | #54
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    689

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MOZ View Post
    Post #41 in this thread highlighted that the broader objective of encouraging chess to be played should be on an organiser's radar always.
    Without a Club there is no rating of games.
    Your view is too narrow.
    No, you brought ratings into it with your comment "I will watch with interest the standards applied to this one by the gatekeepers." It is not the business of a rating system to be determining whether tournament designs are in the interest of clubs. If you wanted to start a discussion about whether this sort of tournament design is in the club's interest you should have done so on a separate thread unrelated to this one.

    Why you would defend a non-combative outcome where two people travelled to play chess, were virtually on the same score, were both ready to play, is a source of wonderment for me.
    I don't have a choice about defending it (other than to say nothing or lie); it is compulsory:

    Quote Originally Posted by FIDE General Handling Rules For Swiss Tournaments
    10 The pairings once published shall not be changed unless two players have to play the second time.
    Indeed as I have already noted, fiddling pairings in a FIDE tournament is a disciplinary offence even when it is done before the pairings are finalised.

    I don't think it ethical to organise a tournament where this occurs.

    And now one of the players is on 1.5 points and has yet to earn any of it.

    Your view is too narrow.
    What you think is ethical or narrow is neither here nor there. I was just pointing out the rules.

    But it is easily enough defended. Many players value being able to play in a tournament where they are able to prepare for their next-round opponent in advance based on released pairings, knowing that there is only one specific player they can play. A downside of this advance certainty at club level is the possibility of forfeits. It is for players to decide whether they wish to play in this kind of event or prefer to play in one where provisional pairings are used to reduce the risk of forfeits, at the cost of a player knowing their opponent at very short notice. It is not for the rating system to decide how far from the next round the organisers will release the final pairings.
    Note: I have poster antichrist on ignore. On no account should anyone assume that I agree with, or am unable to refute, any comment by poster antichrist, simply because I have not responded to it. Chances are I have not even seen it. (NB Quoting posts by antichrist to try to get around this issue will mostly be ineffective). I am also sometimes denied the ability of reply to false accusations in the shoutbox.

  10. | #55
    Volunteer MOZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    MOZ* is my main signon; PMs to me should be directed here. Other special purpose signons are used.
    Posts
    4,787

    Default The first cherry of the season?

    Quote Originally Posted by MOZ View Post
    Post #41 in this thread highlighted that the broader objective of encouraging chess to be played should be on an organiser's radar always.
    Without a Club there is no rating of games.
    Your view is too narrow.





    One player came from Mt Waverley (by car probably), and the other came from Toorak (by car probably), we are fortunate the Greens are not measuring games-achieved/miles-travelled.

    Why you would defend a non-combative outcome where two people travelled to play chess, were virtually on the same score, were both ready to play, is a source of wonderment for me.
    I don't think it ethical to organise a tournament where this occurs.

    And now one of the players is on 1.5 points and has yet to earn any of it.

    Your view is too narrow.
    I have had an OUTLOOK mail from Bill where he cherry picks one sentence in my post ^ and gives half a page of comment. Now, I regard this as a private mail from Bill, so I will not paraphrase or even hint what he said; privacy is important to be observed. But, I did not want Ozchess post-count to be short-changed by the fact that Bill used OUTLOOK instead of an Ozchess for his comment on a cherry picked sentence.
    So, for the record, add 1 to the Ozchess post-count.

    Thanks Bill ...
    FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

  11. | #56
    Volunteer MOZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    MOZ* is my main signon; PMs to me should be directed here. Other special purpose signons are used.
    Posts
    4,787

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    No, you brought ratings into it with your comment "I will watch with interest the standards applied to this one by the gatekeepers." It is not the business of a rating system to be determining whether tournament designs are in the interest of clubs. If you wanted to start a discussion about whether this sort of tournament design is in the club's interest you should have done so on a separate thread unrelated to this one.
    Thread titles on Ozchess are not aimed at Dewy Classification standard, so as you may have noticed we do thread drift a bit.



    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    I don't have a choice about defending it (other than to say nothing or lie); it is compulsory:



    Indeed as I have already noted, fiddling pairings in a FIDE tournament is a disciplinary offence even when it is done before the pairings are finalised.



    What you think is ethical or narrow is neither here nor there. I was just pointing out the rules.
    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    But it is easily enough defended. Many players value being able to play in a tournament where they are able to prepare for their next-round opponent in advance based on released pairings, knowing that there is only one specific player they can play. A downside of this advance certainty at club level is the possibility of forfeits. It is for players to decide whether they wish to play in this kind of event or prefer to play in one where provisional pairings are used to reduce the risk of forfeits, at the cost of a player knowing their opponent at very short notice. It is not for the rating system to decide how far from the next round the organisers will release the final pairings.
    Good point. Except in this case there was little notification of tournament conditions in the advert for the event.




    Quote Originally Posted by MOZ
    "I will watch with interest the standards applied to this one by the gatekeepers."
    Still no comment from the gatekeepers on the Round 4 Published pairings (see http://www.chesschat.org/showthread....l=1#post417156) where KZ gets a half-point bye, but in the results (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread....l=1#post417298) he gets a full-point bye. How does that happen?
    FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

  12. | #57
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    689

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MOZ View Post
    Thread titles on Ozchess are not aimed at Dewy Classification standard, so as you may have noticed we do thread drift a bit. :Wink:
    Normally thread titles on Ozchess are either not aimed at any standard or completely fail to achieve any standard. However you have tried to set a standard of topicality in this case by copying posts deemed to be "useful", although you have since betrayed even the most generous interpretation of this putative standard by posting #55 and failing to delete #48 (and preferably the account posting it as well).

    Good point. Except in this case there was little notification of tournament conditions in the advert for the event.
    So? The way the organisers appear to be running the pairings side of the event is a normal way to run a FIDE-rated swiss in that final pairings are released some time in advance of the round. Contact details were given for anyone wanting to ask questions. Your club has had some idiosyncratic ways of handling pairing issues and it should not be expected that every club will bother to advise its players that it doesn't think your standards for running an event belong at the centre of the universe.

    Still no comment from the gatekeepers on the Round 4 Published pairings (see http://www.chesschat.org/showthread....l=1#post417156) where KZ gets a half-point bye, but in the results (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread....l=1#post417298) he gets a full-point bye. How does that happen?
    Well perhaps had you not foolishly got yourself banned from Chesschat you would be able to ask them about that yourself. The most obvious explanation is a simple clerical error by whoever was doing the draw, because there were a number of players below that player with half-point byes. Correcting an error in setting the proper point value for a bye pairing does not count as changing the pairings, as it is still a bye.

    PS for my monitoring of comparative CC-Ozchess metrics I am sorely tempted to classify #55 as spam and deduct it or even count it as -10, but I won't. I will be deducting the posts that you needlessly duplicated as they obviously do not count.

    And since you are implicitly threatening that if I respond to your emails by email you may respond by spamming this forum, I feel it's necessary to point out here that I completely disagree with your second criticism of the tournament organisers' practices in your most recent email (as well as the third as explained above while the first is simply a matter of opinion.) If pairings are posted with no indication that they are provisional, and no overarching ruling on provisional pairings, then they are clearly not provisional.

    Moreover given your artificial postcount inflation in #55, all future emails you send me, including via CC or BCC, are public domain until you agree to desist from such postcount inflation practices. If you don't like this then don't email me. This also applies to PMs.
    Last edited by HydraTED; 29-11-16 at 01:22 PM.
    Note: I have poster antichrist on ignore. On no account should anyone assume that I agree with, or am unable to refute, any comment by poster antichrist, simply because I have not responded to it. Chances are I have not even seen it. (NB Quoting posts by antichrist to try to get around this issue will mostly be ineffective). I am also sometimes denied the ability of reply to false accusations in the shoutbox.

  13. | #58
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Heading of thread
    One objective for Clubs should be to encourage games to be played
    Hi MOZ

    In my case (postponed game vs Mr Geoff L. Cook) Last Sunday, I phoned the organiser Mr Tom Kalisch earlier on the day to let him know
    that I was forfeiting my game being unable to play due to an injury I sustained during my recent trip to Launceston, Tasmania and aggravated at the
    9 round MCC Allegro Championship a day before.

    Mr Kalisch called me back to let me know that Mr Geoff L. Cook, a prominent member of the BHCC, being the gentleman he is, offered his intention not to accept the forfeit and proposed to postpone the
    game for tomorrow - Wed, November 30th at the Herzl Club. I accepted thankfully!

    I see you at the club, hopefully before the end of the year.

    Cheers and good luck!

    Elliott Renzies

    PS BTW A question irrelevant to the topic. Is the BHCC membership fee payment time still around April?

  14. | #59
    Volunteer MOZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    MOZ* is my main signon; PMs to me should be directed here. Other special purpose signons are used.
    Posts
    4,787

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JaK View Post
    Hi MOZ

    In my case (postponed game vs Mr Geoff L. Cook) Last Sunday, I phoned the organiser Mr Tom Kalisch earlier on the day to let him know
    that I was forfeiting my game being unable to play due to an injury I sustained during my recent trip to Launceston, Tasmania and aggravated at the
    9 round MCC Allegro Championship a day before.

    Mr Kalisch called me back to let me know that Mr Geoff L. Cook, a prominent member of the BHCC, being the gentleman he is, offered his intention not to accept the forfeit and proposed to postpone the
    game for tomorrow - Wed, November 30th at the Herzl Club. I accepted thankfully!

    I see you at the club, hopefully before the end of the year.

    Cheers and good luck!

    Elliott Renzies

    PS BTW A question irrelevant to the topic. Is the BHCC membership fee payment time still around April?

    hi JaK

    The three gentlemen involved (TK, ER, and GC) are salt of the earth; no doubt.
    Postponements ...I have facilitated many in my time. When we were at Rochester Rd and had 7x24 access, we would have a few each week; even from Clubs like MCC and NPCC, and CCC.
    The change of venue to Ashwood has brought a complete halt, except on Sunday or Friday when we get games from other Clubs using our fixed session times. And very welcome they are. Even to the point where we feature some of their blockbusters on the DGT display.

    I look forward to a catch-up.

    BHCC SUBS due in April.

    regards
    MOZ*
    FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Members who have read this thread : 7

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •