Should the TD of a RR championship determine pairings “by lot” in private or openly?
If the view of the organizers or local tradition is that it’s best to give the players notice of their pairings so they can prepare, does that mean it’s acceptable for the TD or organizer to just go off by himself and assign pairing numbers in whatever random way he chooses with no witnesses and then announce the pairings? Doesn’t that leave the door wide open for impropriety or at least the appearance of it? Shouldn’t a TD, especially a TD who has a students or close friends or family in the event, arrange to have an unbiased witness or two when he randomly assigns pairing numbers? If a TD goes off alone and randomly pairs with pairing software, he could just re-pair till he sees the pairings he thinks are best for whatever reason. It’s no different than throwing an even number back in the hat for a player because you wanted them to get odd and have 2 whites 1 black. The temptation may be too great for some businessmen who stand to gain by directing the pairings toward their student(s).
Even if it’s not required that the “by lot” be witnessed, it’s just good sense and best practice to me. It avoids putting all involved in the awkward position of questioning your integrity when the pairings come out in the best possible way for pairer’s favorites.
Is it possible to appeal quad pairings by lot done in secret or do you just have to trust the TD/Organizer even when there are indicators he might not be trustworthy.
Shirley Herman
Local TD/Affiliate Organizer
Scholastic parent of 3
State Affiliate Treasurer and Board Member
If there’s indication the TD isn’t doing things properly, why go to his/her tournaments? On the other hand, if you suspect a cheating TD, you should report him to USCF.
I don’t see any reason why a TD would do as you describe. Pairing numbers are by lot, with players drawing a number from a hat, or whatever. I suppose there’s other ways to do it, drawing from a deck of cards, for example? But I don’t see any reason why the lot should be done in secret.
If this is an actual case, has anyone approached the TD to as why?
EDIT: Perhaps, if pairings are decided early so that players can prepare Round 1, the TD could simply do the drawing him/herself at home and upload the pairings. Maybe using WinTD to assign pairing numbers randomly? Here, you simply need to have trust in the TD, and if you don’t, and there’s no way of proving bias, then simply don’t play.
It’s just that when the pairings are done randomly in private with pairing software, the possibility exists that the TD could just repair till they get the pairings they like randomly. If nobody even knows they did that, the pairings are still randomly drawn even if on the fourth try and it’s hard to define what the wrongdoing is. It’s not like they threw a number back in the hat and re-drew, or is it exactly that? I see it as wrongdoing to re-pair till you get the pairings the way you like them and still call it random, but I’m not sure every other TD would see it the same. Some might have no problem doing that if they think they’re making better competition or something.
This is an actual case. I agree with you normally you just wouldn’t go if you thought the TD might not do things on the up and up. This is a State Championship and qualifier for Nationals with a monetary expenses scholarship that is worth playing for. Players shouldn’t have to forego competing for State scholarship money and title because the TD has some questionable history and conflict of interest issues and personal conflict with your family.
Yes, someone has spoken with him. The consensus seems to be similar to what you have said, Mr. Winchester, we simply have to accept the TD’s word whether we trust him or not because bias cannot be proven. We cannot prove his student got the best possible pairings and her strongest competition got the worst possible pairings because of wrongdoing because it is a possible random pairing. This TD was asked to have the pairings numbers drawing witnessed and he went ahead and did it in private with SwissSys anyway and yes he wanted to announce the pairing in advance. I understand it is an easy way to do it. But doing it with witnesses keeps one above reproach. Refusing to draw numbers with witnesses causes reproach.
In a RR, each player plays every other. Colors are as even as possible, but a few players will get one more Black than White. Are you asserting the possibility that the TD seeded the players so that “his” player received favorable colors against particular opponents? How do you know which color is the more favorable? Some players play better with Black as they have more thought out repertoires. Some feel more comfortable playing White. There are certain opponents you really want to have a certain color to play. How is the TD to know this?
How many players were involved in the tournament? In some RR brackets, it is possible to get White twice in a row. Some might see that as too advantageous, but it is difficult to run a RR where that does not occur.
Are you asserting that he seeded the players to have the top players face each other in the later rounds? Or have potential rivals face each other early to knock each other off? That would take some serious clairvoyance on the part of the TD.
In quad tournaments, I seed by when their entry came in after breaking them up by groups by rating. I could seed them just by rating order, but I find that randomness makes sure that the top players don’t get the same colors all the time. This happens when the same players show up all of the time. In a RR that I ran, I picked the order with the players watching at a soiree the evening before the tournament began. It is not necessary to use a computer to draw lots. The charts in the Rulebook are fine. As I recall, the players would forget every round who they were playing or what color they had until they came to the site and looked at the pairing sheet.
And there is a formal step by step way to do that. Make sure it is followed when you make your report/complaint to USCF. The short version:
Send a $25 good faith deposit–typically returned if the report/complaint is not frivolous.
The USCF has no staff to do investigative work–evidence must accompany the complaint.
The TD will get a chance to respond–this might take some time.
A committee will review the case and issue their recommendations, if any. This can take a long or short time.
Both parties involved may appeal the committee’s recommendations.
This complaint process is not like the TV show Law & Order; i.e., crime-capture-trial-resolution all in sixty minutes with commercials.
Or consider getting the organizer to change the selection process–this is probably the best bet.
IMHO: Of course a true cheating TD can use a lot of tricks borrowed from the magician’s world to make something appear public and fair when in fact it is not. The USCF runs on the backbone of trust. Occasionally someone abuses that trust. When we make it harder to abuse that trust (check out how fat our rulebook has become!?) we also create a lot more work that may dampen the enthusiasm of our honest officials and volunteers. It is a tough call either way.
My guess is that one or more of the parents will suspect cheating or collusion even if a totally honest TD does the lots in the presence of the entire state board. Dealing with overly suspicious parents can be a pain (I still remember the parent who said that another parent was signaling to a kid 50 feet away, and when it was pointed out that the kid lost the parent said the kid was signalled to lose to throw off suspicion).
Sort the players alphabetically. Find a state that has mid-day and evening 3-digit or 4-digit lottery drawings (like IL) or use drawings on successive days. Look at the first drawing and divide by 8. Look at the remainder after the division (0-7) and the first player (alphabetically) gets seeded as 1 plus the remainder. Look just at the whole number from the division, divide by 7 and use the remainder (0-6) to determine the remaining seed (1-7) for the next player alphabetically. Keep on going until you’ve done all of the players, switching to the next drawing when necesssary to still have even chances.
Example
pick-4 =4183.
4183/8 = 522 with 7 remainder. The first player alphabetically is seeded 8.
522/7 = 74 with 4 remainder. The second player is seeded 5.
74/6 = 12 with 2 remainder. The third player is seeded 3.
12/5= 2 with 2 remainder. The fourth player is seeded 4 (with three already used the seeds are 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 with 4 being the third in that sequence).
pick-3 = 247
247/4 = 61 with 3 remainder. The fifth player is seeded 7 (1, 2, 6, 7 has 7 in the fourth spot).
61/3 = 20 with 1 remainder. The sixth player is seeded 2.
20/2 = 10 with 0 remainder. The seventh player is seeded 1.
The eighth player then is seeded 6.
You can announce in advance which sequence of yet-to-be-drawn lottery numbers from which date/time will be used. Even overly paranoid parents are unlikely to claim collusion with lottery officials in a different state and you can still announce pairings prior to gathering the players together for an in-person lot drawing.
Is the question specifically about quads, or is the question about round robins with more than four players? For quads, please kindly review rule 30G. Pairing numbers are assigned for quads in rating order, not randomly. Toss for colors in the last round unless there is a withdrawal.
When I do RR events, whether scholastic or master level, I don’t do the drawing of lots myself, nor do I allow a computer to randomize because of these issues. I’ll either have them done at the time of the event or have a dis-interested third party do them.
The argument for a scholastic player to need the exact colors he/she is playing against an opponent, in my opinion, is silly at best. Even when we get to stronger Youth (like Denker qualifiers, etc) it’s still silly at best. I used to do to provide them to appease parents but stopped do it this year and made the players draw their lots.
For masters I can understand, such as preparing for a norm event. That’s why I get a dis-interested third party to do it.
There are enough complications in the organization and arbitering of events. Anything you can do to lessen it by one is extra sanity you get to keep.
When we give out door prizes, we randomly select prize winners by pulling the completed registration slips from a box. We have a three year old do the picking. So far, he has not picked his Dad’s name! I guess you can do the same thing drawing lots for pairings.
I was told a long time ago that it was important for a TD to build up a reputation for fairness and objectivity from the very beginning of his career so that the players always trust his actions and judgment. If the TD in question has had his integrity questioned because of things he has done in the past, that is bad and hard to remedy no matter how good he is now. There are always suspicious players and overly zealous parents looking out for only their own interests who do not mind making trouble as long as they get their way. Some can be ignored, others have to be dealt with more firmly if they get out of hand with their accusations. They can always appeal and lose their deposit; most do not follow through the process.
We just held our Northern California Denker Qualifier last weekend. Eight player round-robin. We put the numbers 1-8 on the bottoms of eight white queens and had the player choose in a ceremony 30 minutes before the start of the first round. Not only did it eliminate any conspiracy theories, but I think the players enjoyed it.
We did consider that having the players know their pairings earlier would allow them to better prepare for the first round. The first round was Friday evening, then 3 on Saturday and 3 on Sunday. They each did leave Friday night with a complete wall chart so they could prepare for the upcoming future rounds if they wanted too. I did not think eliminating pre-game prep for the 1st round was silly simply because it was a scholastic players. The average rating was around 2300.
Honestly, the players did not seem too interested in pre-game preparation. However, this may have been due to the fact that several of them have become quite familiar with each other! In one game, the players repeated a previous game to the point where they had made the first 28(!) moves in less that 4 minutes total time!
In the second to last round, with one player leading by a full point, and gone for lunch, the other 6 players did help his next opponent by looking up some lines. Did it work? He did win, tying the score, but I asked him after the game if the prep helped much and he admitted it didn’t help much. He was one of the top 3 rated players, winning with a nice piece sacrifice for a strong attack.
I “copied” this from something I posted on FACEBOOK … … …
Just to shake things up a wee bit, for a twelve-player Round Robin once, I had the players draw for their pairing number as usual, BUT (and using the USCF tables) each round number was drawn just before the round was to start, so no one knew who they were playing until it was time to play! To preserve color alternation I still had them draw “odd numbered round” followed by “even numbered round, then “odd,” then “even,” etc.” but, until the last couple of rounds it was "I wonder who I am playing? … and all the players liked it!
Of course, Carol Jarecki reminded me “Might work for a strictly USCF RR but not for FIDE or any norms.”
To which I replied " … oh, of course … see that word “FIDE” and it is strictly “by the book” … or, FIDE website (LOL!! … when are they going to print a new “FIDE Rulebook?”).
The FIDE Handbook is online and is updated. ‘Rules and Regulations’ are found in different areas based on what you’re looking for such as the Laws of Chess, Regulations for International Titles, Regulations for Arbiter Titles, etc.