Unfortunately, despite telling players to withdraw if they are going to leave, we still see forfeits pretty often. I saw a lot of forfeit wins at Chicago this weekend, which is a bummer considering how much you are paying to get 7-9 games of chess. As far as I know, there is no penalty for forfeits, other than some tournaments charging you additional money if you do it. Do you think it would be too harsh to suspend a player’s membership if they have say 3 forfeits? It may also simply be enough to list the number of forfeits a player has in their USCF profile. I would think that may be quite embarrassing.
You can add a fine, and suspend people until they pay the fine for such problems, but I’d think that with the EF of the Chicago Open, not playing would be punishment enough. Certainly an EF would not be refundable without prior notice, and once the pairings have been completed.
Many TDs routinely clean up forfeits so that only the existence of a forfeit win remains without stating who it was against. The scholastic nationals are one example of where this is done. The ID of the player that actually forfeited would not reach the USCF systems.
The only times forfeits really hurt is when someone is trying to get a norm or sufficient games to get a published FIDE rating. Those happen so rarely that it is not something to worry about.
If you are playing a meaningless game for prize purposes in the last round, and your opponent does not show up, you just have to shrug it off. Your opponent probably had a long drive home after a disappointing tournament. You now get to go home early, too.
Sometimes, it was not the opponent’s fault. I have “earned” a number of forfeits in the first round of an event because of opponents missing plane or bus connections. In last rounds, messages to the TD can sometimes get lost or forgotten. At one tournament I was directing a player came up to me in the middle of a round say he forgot to tell me that his friend withdrew after the previous round. Gee, thanks.
When a player loses his zip and decides to go home, it is a courtesy to the TD and the players that you inform them you are withdrawing. Chess players are not as courteous as they used to be, especially at the big money tournaments. Would you prefer they stay and turn their King over? Have seen that happen. I don’t think you want to earn rating points that way, but YMMV.
Unfortunately, an all-too-common situation is where the opponent fails to withdraw, but then doesn’t show for the morning round on the last day of a tournament like the Chicago Open. Then you have six hours to kill before the final round.
The problem is simply that there are many out there who play to get experience, or just play someone new (in a tournament setting). Those morning forfeits not only mean the player is not getting a game, but that they suddenly have unattached time until the next round. For anyone who travels any distance to a tournament it is annoying to get the unexpected forfeit, when what they wanted was a game of chess. Also, the morning forfeit means that the player receiving the forfeit had to get up and prepare for a game that never happens.
Years ago I pointed out to Bill Goichberg that the USCF allowed a fine up to the amount of the entry fee for any withdraw without notification. His reply was that nobody would pay a $200 fine just to be able to play again in the event. I believe [not certain] that he settled on a $20 fine for withdraw without notification that had to be paid in order to enter the same event in the future.
I think the question being put forth by the OP is if the USCF should have something from the head office that can be imposed on habitual offenders. Suspension of USCF membership would appear to be a little too much even for repeat offenders. Possibly you could have a fine from the USCF, as well as the organizer, that would have to be paid. Generally, the repeat offenders are well known to at least someone in the area where that player often plays. Maybe the USCF should work to compile a list of the repeat offenders for general use by all TDs. Ask around for TDs to supply name(s) of any players they know of who regularly withdraw without notification.
Larry S. Cohen
When I was Treasurer of the Washington Chess Federation we instituted a $5 fine for forfeits without notice. It was applied exactly once. The offender was himself a state officer, the Tournament Coordinator no less! It’s not that no one ever forfeited games, but there was no will to enforce it. I don’t think enforcing such a penalty is how USCF should spend its time either. I’m not minimizing the offense, I just don’t think it warrants national enforcement.
Forfeits are a headache. When we run local events and see a pattern of forfeits by the same player we charge that player a fee upfront at registration. That fee is returned only if he completes the schedule or withdraws properly.
The MetroWest Chess Club (Natick, MA) runs monthly events with one round each Tuesday night. The club’s policy imposes a $10 forfeit penalty, and the player is not allowed to play at the club again until the fine has been paid. (The opponent is also paid $10 as compensation for having to wait for the no-show and not getting a game that round.)
The club also tracks forfeit history. After one year of having a clean record of no forfeits, the player’s history is wiped clean. If the player forfeits again within a year, however, the fine is doubled and the one year clock starts over. The record fine to date is $80.
I don’t see the point of creating disincentives to play in tournaments. Disappointment leads to snap decisions to leave rather than go back to the site. A phone call home becomes more important than a phone call to the TD, if the player even has the TD’s phone number. Have seen players leave after a disastrous penultimate round and forget to take their chess bags with them. One guy left a tournament forgetting he was the ride home for two other people! Is it discourteous to leave without telling the TD? Yes. But I see no point in piling on and giving the player a reason to never play in your event again.
Usually when a player fails to show, I have a talk with them and point out all of the consequences for other players and for their own reputation for not staying to play the last round. They are usually surprised that the TD cares about them that much, apologize, and play in the next event. It is bad PR to assess penalties. I cannot emphasize the following enough. Less than half of the job of being a TD is the technical stuff of doing pairings and enforcing rules. The most important part is public relations, making sure the environment is good for play, making players feel welcome, and seeing to it that they leave wanting to come back. An old mentor, Ed Dollard, told me to make sure to shake the hand of every player when they are leaving, ask them how they liked the event, and put a flyer into their hand. That personal contact is important. When you make the tournament only about winning and money rather than having fun, you end up with players who are less than respectful to the staff and to each other. Establishing a penalty regime is a negative way of promoting tournament play. Novices don’t feel welcome and stop coming back. Your veteran players will comply, but they don’t like it and will not tell you how to make things better.
The simple solution is one that will never happen. Make the games rateable. But wait what about the purity of the rating system? I would respond the rating system will take care of itself. It can handle of few blips.
Now if someone leaves without properly withdrawing they are only punishing themselves.
Although years and years ago I had player that was a beginner that lost their first round game and left because they thought they were done. Things happen.
Forfeits are never good. A no-show for the morning round on the last day can ruin the entire day for the opponent, who probably already checked out of his hotel room and has to decide whether waiting 6 hours until the final round is even worth it. A forfeit in the last round can impact the prize allocation, especially if a lower rated player gets a free point against a much stronger opponent who left without notice. Often overlooked are the forfeits on lower boards, where players simply want to play chess without any real hope of winning a prize.
I would certainly hope that a local organizer would, at minimum, talk to regular players who drop out without notice. That is hardly practical at bigger events. I understand that assessing a penalty to a future customer makes no sense, but the alternative is leaving another customer with a bad experience.
I like the idea that USCF should track a player’s forfeit count in some way. Yes, this might require a change in how directors submit tournament reports. An isolated forfeit might be acceptable for someone who plays frequently. Unfortunately, a few people make a habit of not telling anyone they’re leaving after a particularly bad loss. If forfeiting actually results in a consequence, then the forfeit count will drop as well.
Michael Aigner
No, no, a thousand times no. The rating system should never be used as a form of reward or punishment. It is supposed to measure playing strength, not character. (To be more technically correct, the rating system is supposed to estimate playing strength by measuring results.)
Subtracting rating points punishes the player’s future opponents, by understating the player’s strength.
Not true. Don’t forget about sandbaggers. Forfeiting without notice would provide a really convenient way for sandbaggers to reward themselves.
Bill Smythe
FWIW, I only sanitize forfeits when one exists due to administrative error (i.e.: when a player gives sufficient withdrawal notice, but gets paired anyway).
What constitutes a sufficient notice? At the Chicago Open (the tournament that was the catalyst for this thread), when marking my Round 6 result about 4 hrs into the round, I circled my name and wrote w/d next to it. Yet, I was paired for the last round (round 7). This was my first ever forfeit in over 1900 rated games played. (Edit: Not the best turn of phrase - I do understand that the forfeits are not rated)
Michael Langer
There are two standard ways to report dropouts at CCA events, as advertised on the CCA website.
- Stop by the tournament office and advise of intent to withdraw. This is the most popular method. The office is continually staffed from about 8:30am to at least midnight throughout the tournament, especially at major events.
- Email dropouts[at]chess.us. The pairing directors (for the Chicago Open, that was me and Bill Goichberg) always checked the dropouts email before pairing each round.
For many CCA events, it’s also possible to call the hotel directly; the tournament office is often equipped with a house phone. This was the case at the Chicago Open. Even if the tournament office does not have a house phone, the front desk will generally run messages to us.
Writing on the pairing sheet, wall chart, etc., is strongly discouraged. It’s far too easy to miss such a note - as it appears happened in your case. In fact, these methods are often specifically discouraged in late-round announcements at CCA events. I do believe this was included in most late-round announcements at the Chicago Open. In fact, I can guarantee that players were instructed to come by the tournament office and tell us about withdrawals at least before round 7, as I made that particular announcement myself.
I must have missed this memo.
The “memo” is printed on a lot of CCA paraphernalia, including pens. The procedure is also on the CCA website. Finally, it’s announced onsite.
I’m sorry that you were marked as a forfeit - but I also don’t consider it “administrative error”, as none of the vehicles I outlined in my last post were used by you.
When using WinTD I enter the results in using the white column and then go back and enter them again using the black column (and reversing the result because the entry is white - a 1 in the black column translates to entering an L for white - unlike SwissSys, in WinTD a discrepancy between the two entries stops the entry process and requires verification, so that type of double-entry is a good way of finding the differnce between l and 1 or D and 0 in the white column because the corresponding w or D in the black column would mismatch with the 0 or 1 that would have accidentally been assumed). That gets me looking at both results columns unstead of just the left hand side of the results sheet, but even with that additional review I figure I’d see a WD/withdraw notation no more than 20% of the time and possibly quite a bit lower percentage if I had to do a quick turn-around of the round (such as between rounds six and seven with long games and a tight schedule).
Generally, not just at CCA events, one should assume that writing messages on wall charts is almost a sure-fire way for the message to be missed. Even when writing messages on the pairing sheet on which results are recorded is not a reliable practice. True, a director is likely to look at the pairing sheet to enter results. However, especially with a large event (such as a CCA event), it is also likely the director will enter all of the results and not stop in the middle to record your bye or withdrawal. Then, it is almost guaranteed no one is going to recheck the pairing sheets to make sure all the byes or withdrawals have been recorded properly.
Directors will (or should) carefully check the official bye sign-up/withdrawal sheets before making pairings for each round. That’s why the safest way to request a bye or to withdraw is to write the request on the sheets specified for that purpose. The absolutely worst way to do so is to tell a director in person and expect the director will remember to take care of it. “If it isn’t written down, it didn’t happen.”