Determination of player for full-point byes (28L2)

Running Chess Tournaments
1

To quote the USCF rules, 5th ed.:
“In the first round, the bye is given to the player with the lowest USCF rating but not to an unrated player or a late entrant. In subsequent rounds, it is given to the lowest-rated player in the lowest score group but not to an unrated player.”

1.) Didn’t it used to be the highest rated in the lowest score group?

2.) What is preferable about giving it to the lowest rated player?

I agree that it should be assigned to someone in the lowest score group. There are several UNdesirable results of giving it to the lowest rated, though-

A. When there are Uxxxx class prizes available, the lowest class can often be won with a very low score, such as 1.5 or even a tie at 1.0. That gives the player who got a “free point” a real chance of winning money because of it. A higher rated player with a low score is less likely to qualify for such prizes. (my main point)

B. Just assuming that there wasn’t an odd number, and everyone played a regularly paired game, the higher rated player is the one who would be more likely to come out of the round with a point, not the lower rated one.

C. When roughly the same group of players tend to play regularly in tournaments at a club, the same lowest rated player or players end up getting odd-player-out byes too often, in event after event.

Now, I agree completely that it would be wrong to give a full-point bye to the highest rated player in the first round (!) because that player has a good chance of winning the whole section, and should have to earn all of it themselves over the board. But it also seems to me that always making it the lowest rated player out of the qualifying group who gets the bye is not the best solution. Especially in the final round, if they are in contention for money! Is this rule just a simplification to avoid confusion, TD work, and arguments about the ‘proper’ determination?

Please advise me, -a new Club TD.

2

  1. I’ve never seen a version of the rule giving a bye the the highest rated player in the bottom score group. If you can find citation for this, I’d be interested in seeing it.

  2. The reasoning behind the rule is that, as far as possible, everyone should be paired “normally” by the Swiss System rules. Whoever is left over when you are done gets the bye.

  3. It is true that giving a full-point bye to the bottom player can occasionally let him back into a class prize. I suspect that an analysis would show that giving a bye to the top-ranked player in the bottom scoregroup would make this more likely, but that’s a quibble. The important points are a) The rules were written for an “idealized” Swiss System, without the albatross of class prizes; and b) There is really no sensible alternative (aside from avoiding the problem altogether by finding a house man). A rule which allows the TD to determine the bye based on which players are “in contention” for a class prize is a really, really bad idea.

3

It is sort of an artificial rule because, where possible, you want a rated player to received the bye even if you know that the unrated players are much worse. But that tends to even itself out in the later rounds.

In my experience it tends to work out fine if there are exactly the same number of players vying for the class prize as there are rounds. If there are too few then oh well … don’t have a class prize that low next time! If there are too many then they will be playing each other more and someone will probably rise to the top.

If the same people tend to get byes each time - and you tend to have an odd number of players each time - then try to arrange for a house man, or get some extra games in by trying cross-round pairings. It is a little easier with the lower rated (kids - which I usually direct) since their games tend to end more quickly.

Good luck!

4

Very sure it has been the lowest rated player in the lowest score group. Not sure how they did the byes back in the 1970’s.

Having a bye is not great for any tournament. The smaller the tournament, the greater problem with the byes. Since “UNR” will not get a bye, the bye is the major reason to only use official ratings for the roster then the MSA rating. If you do use the un-offical ratings, someone could be forced into a bye.

The problem with the bye becomes very clear, if the section only has 9 players with 4 rounds. Players are not happy campers if they get a bye. This is the reason why you got to make sure you understand the official ratings of the players. If you mix un-official ratings and official ratings, it can change the roster line up; this can change the order of the byes from one round to the next, or one player going to get a bye and the other not.

There is a clear rule I have. If you always have a even number of players (no forced byes), the players do not care about the roster line-up; if you have a odd number of players, the players do care about the roster line-up. There are a number of directors seeing the un-offical rating of a player in the 900’s. Be very clear how you use the ratings in the roster.

The problem with the forced bye is this (4 round event).

8 players = 4 boards = 4 points each rounds.
4 points each round plus 4 rounds = 16 points.
8 players into 16 points = 2.0 as the average.

9 players = 4 boards plus a full point bye = 5 points each round.
5 points each round plus 4 rounds = 20 points.
9 players into 20 points = 2.22 as the average.

If you change the average of the players from 2.0 out of 4.0, into the new average of 2.22 out of 4.0. Then you will have more players in a tie with the final score group of 3.5, 3.0, 2.5. This is not great for the organizer or the players.

Myself, would do anything not to give a forced bye. Get a house man if you have too or be the playing director.

5

In my tournaments, If I’m up to it, I’ll offer to play the players so they can get a game AND award the bye. In my experience, players pay to play not to sit out. I have also paired players with players with a bye in another section. Both players still get the bye for the tourney, but they also get to play a game.

I don’t think it is fair to the 800 or 1100 player to have to play the 1900 tournament director (or other high-rated house player) and have this result count for the tournament when he would have been paired with a 1200 player in his score group or awarded a bye.

6

It’s better to pair the TD or house player normally (i.e. against the opponent he would have played if he had been a regular paid entrant) rather than against the player who would otherwise receive the bye.

If a high-rated TD or house player jumps into the tournament in a late round, he can be assigned a “pairing score” for pairing purposes. For example, a TD whose rating puts him about in the middle of the pack can be given half-point byes for each of his unplayed games.

Bill Smythe

7

The director could have an extra rated game. It should be for the final round, with the house player only having one rated game in the event. The player in the tournament would get a full point bye, only to play for rating points in the special section. The question that is up to the director, how much difference between ratings for this special section called extra rated?

8

That sounds like an interesting solution Bill. The only drawback I see in pairing the strong TD like this is it’ll probably be more difficult for him to play a stronger player than a player who would have been awarded a bye.
As tournament director, you are playing at a disadvantage because people will interrupt you and you can lose a lot of time on your clock responding to situations. I think I may try your solution at my next tournament…if I’m really up to it!

9

It seems to me that if this is possible, than it is the desired solution. If you want a strong player to play the player with the bye, it is easier to give the player a bye, and put the game in an “extra rated” section. I’ve done both.

I do object to giving a house player multiple full point byes, no matter what his relative strength, to give him a more suitable pairing. See my previous post(s) on that subject.

Alex Relyea

10

That’s true, and I have often had poor performances when I play in my own tournaments.

But it can work the other way, too. An opponent may feel intimidated when paired against the director. The opponent may, for example, fail to claim a draw by triple occurrence even when his claim would be correct. So a playing TD needs to bend over backwards to be fair to the other players, even at the expense of a few rating points every now and then.

When I direct small tournaments (30 players or fewer), I always include myself on the wall chart. Then, in each round, I either pair myself or don’t, depending on whether the total number of players that round is even or odd. This avoids the house-player problem altogether.

I pair myself according to my score, rather than against the player who would otherwise receive the bye. Generally, I give myself half-point byes for missed rounds, although this can get tricky if my rating puts me near the top of the wall chart. In that case, to be fair to the other players I guess I should give myself an occasional full-point (instead of half-point) bye, but I hesitate to do so because it looks funny and could raise questions among players who don’t realize why I am doing it. Ah, well, such is the life of a playing TD.

Bill Smythe