I guess it’s my job to know this and if you had emailed me (fide@uschess.org) then I would have been able to inform you. I believe that advice may have already been provided. I am not on these forums much and was alerted to this by another TD. Seeking advice from other folks who are maybe not aware of the intricacies of the FIDE rating regulations is probably not the best way to obtain the official answers. Also, if I do not know the answer, I certainly have a good enough communication channel with the FIDE folks to be able to find it.
As a side note, I am only aware of one such event that has done this in the 2+ years I have been in this position so it is not a common request for tournaments.
Well, to start with the merely silly, you have FIDE’s practice of using mechanical tie-breakers to determine who gets which monetary prize, instead of splitting them among the tied players. Moving up the line you have their governance structure wherein each federation gets one vote, a system that cries out to be abused, and is. There is something fundamentally wrong with a system that gives us Kirsan Ilyumzhinov as the top dog, a man who claims to have been abducted by aliens, who has been personally implicated in the murder of an opposition journalist in his native Kalmykia, and continued to get reelected. You may think this is OK, and you’re welcome to that opinion. I respectfully disagree.
See this is your entire problem. People rarely intend to attack you, or at least much less frequently than you are willing to take offense. I had no particular interest either way, but was trying to help you advance your argument. Everything that people do, or ever have done, has a rationale behind it. A lot of the time that rationale is “Well, we’ve always done it that way,” but of course the first person had a different rationale.
There are almost no ideas that are so obviously superior that everyone will see that at once and switch. It is much more frequently enough to say “Because I’m [the authority figure], that’s why!” When you’re not the authority figure, and only the moderators are here, you can’t use that one. You just need to be able to convince people that your idea is better than, or as good as, the status quo, and saying “I think it would be a good idea to put our shoes on after our socks.” isn’t going to cut it. You need to explain why it is a good idea for all the people who were just fine having socks on the outside to change. (Fewer holes for darning.) If someone asks “Why should we change?”, “Why shouldn’t you change?” is not a compelling answer.
For the record, I care very little about preventing GMs from having their rating change in 90 minute (three hour) games. But when someone offers you the opportunity to make your case, or gently points out that you’re not as convincing as you hoped you were, and your reaction is to lash out, it makes people really reluctant to work with you.
I’ve said my piece. I hope you read it in the sense that it was written, because if you just get offended and ignore it then I will have wasted a good deal of time trying to help you here.
If you want to run a “serious” five round weekend tournament, you have basically three scheduling options:
Longer (five hour or longer) time controls, one round Friday, two each Saturday and Sunday.
Slightly shorter (three to four hour) time controls, three rounds Saturday, two on Sunday.
Hybrid schedule with #1 combined with an option to play two much quicker rounds on Saturday, merging round 3.
Having only #1 might restrict a stronger out-of-town player and who wouldn’t want to start out with a 1/2 bye. #2 appears to be what Micah was intending, but let’s face it, three rounds at a four hour T/C (particularly with an increment T/C) is a painfully long day even if it technically makes the 12 hour FIDE limit. A 3 to 3.5 hour length T/C seems like a reasonable compromise.
Assuming that a person not currently an NA will be one by then and will have enough staff to do a FIDE-rated tournament is another issue from the appropriateness of the schedule.
I think everyone in this thread assumed it wasn’t allowed (it’s not permitted under US Chess rules) and thus didn’t even think to ask. Also, if only one event has done this in the 2+ years you have been in this position, that could be a sign that many people are unaware that this is allowed. Thus, mentioning this in the FIDE FAQ document could help make people aware that this is allowed.
I’m quite certain you don’t. You seem rather resistant to anything other than your own opinions compared to those of far more experienced people. And then you are wounded at the push back.
It has nothing to do with that. Since FIDE allows it and the fact that FIDE rules are generally more strict than US Chess rules, it might not be as bad as some people in this thread have made it out to be. Some people, especially in the US, seem to think everything FIDE does is evil but a lot of what FIDE does it just fine (for example, they actually have a good procedure they go through before endorsing a clock, unlike US Chess ).
Because it’s unnecessarily complicated? Here are three much simpler alternatives:
(1) Set your time controls to be “legal” for all who are eligible to play in the event/section.
(2) Restrict entry to those for whom your preferred TC is “legal”.
(3) Don’t run FIDE events if you’re not willing to conform to FIDE standards.
With any of these, there would be no worries about some games not being ratable. I for one would be highly upset if I travelled to a tournament and then found out that some of my games weren’t going to be rated because my opponent’s rating didn’t qualify. I would be inclined to ask the very reasonable question “Why is he allowed to play in this event/section then?” I would also be inclined to demand a refund of my entry fee and my travel expenses. Why would you want to risk upsetting people when there are simpler alternatives? Instead of looking for loopholes, why not just follow the rules and ensure that all games are ratable (see above)?
Agreed. Option 2 is legal, but a bit problematic; you’re going to tick off the strong players who can’t enter. I want these players in my tournament, so I’m loathe to design a format that excludes them.
We just ran the GA State Championship with a time control of G/90, inc.30. for all rounds of the three day schedule, and shorter Saturday morning first round in the two day schedule that was advertised as not FIDE rated. That worked well, and the TC let all players enter irrespective of rating. The players who wanted five FIDE rated games played Friday night. Those who didn’t want to play Friday night either took a first round bye if they couldn’t stomach the shorter time control on Saturday morning or played the full two day schedule and got four FIDE rated rounds. We didn’t have to start unusually early in the morning, and we finished before midnight both Friday and Saturday.
First of all, I am following the rules. You can demand a refund of your entry fee and travel expenses all you want in this case but you won’t get it. You knew upfront that if you played a player with a FIDE rating of 2400+, the game wouldn’t be FIDE rated (not sure how this is unnecessarily complicated). In a FIDE rated tournament, if you play a player without a FIDE rating, that game generally doesn’t affect your FIDE rating either.
If I did number 1 in your list above, the time control would have to be expanded and thus it would only be reasonable to have 4 rounds with 2 rounds each day. In my area, 5 round tournaments have generally gotten better attendance than 4 round tournaments. Adding a Friday night round to keep it at 5 rounds could incur an extra day of hotel costs and would have round 1 be right after work/school for a lot of people which a lot of people wouldn’t like.
If I did number 2 in your list above, I would have to say that those rated 2400+ FIDE are not allowed to play in the event but this is a state level event so it would be weird to not allow top players to play and why should I not let them play if they want to?
Since FIDE will be allowing games played at G/90 to be ratable for those under 2400 instead of those just under 2200 starting January 1, it seems like they are encouraging more of the types of tournaments that I described to be FIDE rated. Therefore, I don’t see this as trying to find a loophole or not conforming to FIDE standards.
I wouldn’t know that unless it was very explicitly stated in pre-tournament publicity (including the TLA). You can’t just assume that everyone knows about this obscure loophole. You didn’t know about it until just recently
Any scenario in which some games are rated and others aren’t – and the difference is determined by who you happen to be paired with – is unnecessarily complicated. When I come to the tournament, I have no way of knowing whether all my games will be rated, or which ones will be. That’s unacceptable to me, and would be to many others as well. You indicate being worried about things that might hurt your attendance. Making it absolutely clear that some games wouldn’t be rated would also hurt your attendance. Not making it clear would be dishonest.
All kinds of things (in any tournament) can hurt attendance. It’s your job as organizer to balance those factors as best you can. Holding a tournament in which some games aren’t rated doesn’t strike me as a reasonable way of doing so.
They might be OK with their games not being rated (although I doubt that very many of them would be), but you don’t have the right to make that decision for their opponents as well – opponents who have no way of knowing whether or not any of their games will be affected by this bizarre policy, and no control over any of it.
There are “rules” and there are standards. They are not the same. The standard is what has been quoted several times earlier in this thread – what the TC limits are for different rating classes. What you want to do is to take advantage of an obscure loophole that allows you to circumvent that standard in a way that disadvantages the players. I don’t see how that can be a good thing for anyone but you. Of course, if you don’t care about anyone but you, no problem I guess. But don’t be surprised if some of the attendees who didn’t know about this policy and are unpleasantly surprised by it decide to never again attend one of your events.
I got the very clear impression that now that he knows the rule he was planning to mention it in his advance publicity, so I don’t see “breaking the rules” as a fair criticism of his plan. Whether you are over or under 2400, you know the score. For me, that would be a factor. I believe you have to play an event with five FIDE-ratable games to get your initial FIDE rating, so knowing that if I do well enough to get paired with a 2400 would disqualify me from getting that first FIDE rating would be a downer
Similarly, while I don’t think I agree with his choices, as organizer it is up to him to decide what he thinks his players will accept in structuring his event, and in his judgment that is what he’s done. Agree or not, he is doing his job. Players will vote with their pocketbook. If he discovers it worked badly, he won’t make that mistake again (probably).
Those aren’t the only two options. I gave you two additional ones. The point is that you can’t design a tournament that will be 100% approved by anyone and everyone. No matter what you do, there will be some who choose not to attend because of one or more of your decisions. You have to make choices between this thing that might hurt your attendance or that thing which might hurt your attendance. You can’t avoid all of them. I think you are making a bad choice. That’s all.
).