New Player Joins a 3 Rounder By Round 2

Here is another question. . . If we go ahead and start play in a 3 round tournament, and 2 people show up within 5 minutes of the start of round 1, should we go ahead and pair those 2 who showed up or make them wait for round 2? Will that cause any future pairing problems to pair them against each other in round 1? Or should we possibly have them play an extra rated game for round 1?

Insufficient information to answer, how many players total, for example? What’s the time control? Are there other facts that might affect subsequent rounds, such as a time limit on when you have to vacate the facility?

What might seem appropriate in a Game/30 or Game/60 event might not in a blitz event.

In general, I prefer to give tardy players in game expected to last an hour at least 15-20 minutes to show up before taking any steps. Absent of any pre-announced rules to the contrary, they have an hour or until the expiration of the first time control (whichever is less) per the rulebook to arrive.

FIDE rules permit forfeiting players who are not at their boards at the announced time for a round, but IMO that’s a bit harsh, and I think even FIDE has backed off a bit on enforcing that after some highly publicized incidents in which a player was on the floor of the event but not sitting at the board at the start of the round and was forfeited.

I agree with Nolan that there are lots of factors on what is best policy for a tournament.

I run small local cash tournaments and I wind up starting 5-15 minutes late as there is always seems to be someone who said they would play only showing up late (I do not pair folks that have not checked in or have not texted/called me that they are on their way) – if they check in after round starts they are going to have to take half point bye or in the case with 2 late folks it depends on what is fair for tournament. If it is not a good pair then they get 1/2 point byes and they play as an extra rated game if they want – they may need to play with reduced time.

I think your example is two unexpected players show up late so you are in full control of what to do even if you did not announce anything. I’d be trying to get them into tournament for round 1 as if they they showed up on time (if it is a reasonable pair!) – with the worst case is where they would make 2 sections go to odd number of players forcing byes for round two I might not let them join.

Most tournaments that do announce something seem to announce once registration closes late entries are 1/2 byes, but I have seen that announcement broken – I personally joined such a tournament which I was only there to spectate and played 1st round against another late entry (it was a reasonable pair although my wife wasn’t happy my morning spectating turning into a weekend of playing) -
This is why I say may need to take 1/2 point -

1 Like

Is it Required to put in the TLA, the potential use of a House player such as

If there are an odd number of entrants, a House Player will be employed.

There’s no requirement to mention house players in the TLA, and players generally won’t notice it if your house player is a good fit for the event/round.

If the house player comes in because of an odd number when pairing, that’s different than offering the player receiving a bye a chance to play the house player in an extra games section.

Since the bye goes to the lowest rated player, that player IMHO can get a disadvantage in pairing for the next round, especially early in the event, the trick is to make sure that the house player doesn’t cause similar problems.

Shouldn’t everyone that is trying to win money have to play every round to receive prize money. That is my main reason for having a house player. If the house player joins in for Round 1, he will be paired with the upper group vs lower group procedure. Otherwise, he will get the bye for the round. as the odd numbered player.

Nah. Life happens. Not being allowed to play chess in an event you already paid to play in is already a punishment.

I was referring to byes.

Requested byes are a fact of life. Not everybody can make every round. You may want to limit the number of half point byes that can be taken (if announced in advance publicity and on site then zero is a valid maximum for half point byes and note 22C3 for class prizes if you want to vary the maximum half point byes by rating - particularly in single-section tournaments).

Unrequested byes are different. It is not the fault of the player that you were not able to provide a game. The player is willing to play but you prevented it because of the way pairing rules work. There is no reason to penalize a player for that (tie-breaks from byes are not favorable so trophies have a tendency to go to those that played)

Yes, so was I. As Jeff noted, not everyone can make every round (and being the odd person out is even worse).

There is no such requirement in the rulebook and IMHO it would not be a good idea to have that as a local rule, either.

I’ve seen a player who had a half-point bye and two forfeit wins take 2nd place in an event. Life happens, TDs have to be able to deal with it.

If a house player rated 1532 plays an extra rated game against someone rated 764, will that still trip the match filters when trying to send this game in to be rated?

No, it currently takes at least 2 games between two players to be analyzed to see if it should be called a match.

Don’t the match filters look for two players to be within 400 points apart in rating?

Yes, a match must meet several conditions, including the 400 point spread, but just because two players play in an extra games section doesn’t make it a match. If the TD chooses to call it a match, then match rules would apply.

But is this something you would logically want to call a match?

Match rules exist because people were (and still are) playing in matches, often with one-sided results, and that can affect the statistical reliability of the ratings system.

More than a few chess terms are ‘overloaded’, meaning they have different meanings depending on the context.

Master and Match are overloaded terms, there are probably others.

One example of an event that the TD called a match that probably shouldn’t be treated as a match for ratings purposes was a team-on-team event between two chess clubs, where the players on board 1 played two games against each other as did boards 2, 3, etc.

If you watched their online committee workshop, the Ratings Committee had some discussions earlier this year about what the definition of a match should be for ratings purposes. One of the ideas they were looking at was to treat a match that is 3 games or longer as if it was just 2 games for ratings purposes. (For total game count purposes, such as determining when a rating becomes established, it isn’t clear if it would be considered 2 games or however many games were played, that’s an issue that would need to be resolved if this proposal moves forward.)

Suppose A and B are rated 1600 and 1700, 100 points apart, and play a four-game match, with the 1700 player scoring 3.5-0.5

The 1700 player’s expected performance is 2.56 and K would be about 33.32 (per the ratings estimator.)

So barring cumulative match play limits the 1700 player would expect to see an increase of (3.5-2.56)*33.32 or about 31.32 points. Under the RC’s proposal, it would be treated as if it was just 2 games, so the 1700 player’s gain would be 15.66 points. No bonus points would be possible, which is always the case when a player faces the same opponent more than twice in a section.

If it is the only extra rated game then it might. If there are multiple extra rated games, all entered as round one games, then it looks like a multi-player tournament. Only once have I had the single extra player game trigger the match filter. I resolved it by merging the extra games section back into the section for the winner.

Is it okay to put 3 games in 3 rounds when wanting to submit extra rated games for rating? I have to use 3 rounds because one person is playing the 3 opponents. I don’t see how I could merge the games into the regular tournament section unless I would have permission to be a high rated house player to all players rated lower than I am in that section. Being that my rating may be higher than everyone else’s rating would keep me from being a house player to them, right? So, that is why I have to call those games extra rated games rather than house played games, right?

3 games in 3 rounds is fine. When I said merge that meant moving the games AND the new entries into the other section (one player was listed twice with the same ID, once with his standard results including the bye and a second time with just that one extra game against that player - it did mean all games were available for bonus points even though the player was nowhere close to the bonus point threshold).

As I said upthread, the current code for match checking in the validation program only looks at players who had 2 or more games against the same opponent, so a single game in an extra events section would not be flagged as a possible match.

(I have checked this recently, so I know it still works that way.)