What’s unfair about it? The top-rated player is no longer concerned about the now-withdrawn pairing # sharing any prizes, is he?
Player X enters a 4-day schedule, plays three rounds, and scores 1.5 points. He then re-enters a 3-day schedule. He scores 1 point in the first three rounds. With what score is he paired in round 4? Under 28S, it should be the 1.5. What if the merge isn’t until round 5? What if he re-entered twice? What if he plays in two schedules at once (which some organizers allow)? Keeping track of all this in a large tournament with multiple schedules would be impractical in the extreme.
He’s getting to keep the benefit of his abandoned entry (carrying forward the better score), without the penalties (opponent history). He can get a second chance to beat someone to whom he (or his previous incarnation) has already lost.
Empirical evidence shows … re-entries are small … only a very small percentage of players ever re-enter into the tournament. Even with a large number of re-entries … at best around one percent … at worst close to two percent … with a with a category B tournament or better.
If a player that wants to re-enter, most want to play only stronger players for rating points. Most final results with re-enter players, empirical evidence shows a poor final result after they re-enter the tournament. If re-entries did work to win a prize, why do we see a small percent of players that re-enter?
If re-entries do work, point out the tournaments of 100 players or more, that the re-enter player won the tournament. There could be very few players that came back as a re-enter, just to win the under 1600, under 1400, ect. The majority of players I see that come back as a re-enter, are over 1600 in the first place.
Re-entries want to play stronger players. If they re-enter to win a prize … that is a foolish gamble.
I don’t believe that’s true, but obviously there is not way to test it.
Agreed.
Good post Doug.
This is used so little in practice that it’s not worth it to overregulate. Besides, there’s no potential for abuse, even if you think it’s slightly unfair.
It can lead to complications? Well, last I knew TDs were allowed to pick their own poisons. You plan it, you enjoy it (or suffer it). As long as you report the correct stuff to the USCF, what’s the big deal?
Also, something no one has mentioned.
It’s possible that some players that do use re-entry are doing it just to get the most rated games out of a tournament, rather than for greed. It makes sense for busy people with very few weekends of the year in which to build up their rating.
For the player that withdraws, than re-enters … its their pride not the gamble to win the prize. For the chess players … their rating is important when they are not in a tournament. They can say my rating is at the master level … or the expert level … or a class A player. During the tournament, rating is fine … the board number you have during the tournament is more important than the rating. More so if your the higher rated player on the board.
Strong players can get upset if you tell them during the first round they are on board 6. Had a master call me during the 1980’s, wanted to make sure he was going to be on board 1 during round 1. There are very strong players that will not come to a tournament if they know they are going to be on board 2 on the first round. For the class player, the ones at the lower ratings. The assignment of the board number during the first round does not matter that much … for the stronger players its the pecking order.
The re-enteries, for the small amount of players that would re-enter the tournament. The ones that lost the first round, withdraws than re-enters for round 2. As that is the only type that has a chance for a prize. The re-entries that would do this the most, would be in the rating range of 1600 - 2000. The players over 2000, if they lost their first game … withdraw and re-enter for round 2 … could happen but know their ego. The players under 1600, in a tournament that grants re-enteries would not see a positive reason. If you are a under 1200 player looking to win the under 1200 prize. If you lost your first game, why withdraw and re-enter just to play a stronger player in round 2? If you lost to a 1500 player in round 1, do you feel you have a better chance to win round 2 with a player stronger than 1500 in the second round? So if you lost rond one, withdraw than re-enter is a stupid gamble.
So, in practice and in theory … the rating range of 1600 - 2000 are your best chance to have a re-enter. If you do have a strong tournament with more than 100 players. For the player that re-enters, its more about pride … the pride not to be in the bottom half of the boards. The pride to have a better board number, and the chance to play with players in your rating class. For some players they can stand to be on the boards of 10 - 20, but if you told them on round 2 they are on board 65 … that would hurt their ego way to much. If they win, on round 3 they can be on board 40. If they withdraw, than re-enter, they have a better board number going into round 2.
OK, now I see your point. He would have to be paired in the 3-day version of round 4, because the 4-day version has already happened. But he would want his 4-day score to be used.
I remember hearing of a U.S. Open several years ago which had gazillions of different schedules. I don’t think re-entries were even allowed, but it still got to be a mess, because NTD Walter Brown bent over backwards to accommodate players who wanted the evening schedule for round 1, the morning schedule for round 2, the evening again for round 3, etc. Sometimes Walter is accommodating above and beyond the call of duty.
Bill Smythe
28S1 and 28S2 cover this. A re-entering player should not face the same opponent again, in order to be fair to the opponent. But if BOTH players have re-entered, then it’s OK.
Bill Smythe