So, these two players (brothers), have played the same game to a draw the last six times they have met. They are adults (25 and 29), and Grandmasters.
As a TD or Arbiter, would you do anything about it?
This last event was a round-robin tournament, so not pairing them was not an option.
Sounds like the Kosintseva sisters and the forced-draw sac in the Open Ruy Lopez. Organizers know what to expect if they invite them both.
My remedy would be to invite only one brother/sister per event, unless it was something for which they both qualified. In that case, it would be fitting if one or both missed winning/qualifying from the event by a half-point.
Brothers, not sisters. Both qualified for the tournament.
And yes, one did miss tying for first by a half point!
You’re right, though – the sisters DID play that same game SEVEN times in a row!
If there is this sort of history between the two players, it would be appropriate to refuse to pair them and award a zero to each. It strains credulity to believe that the same game consecutively is anything other than a pre-arrangement. What do the rules say about such things? Now if the players involved agree not to cheat by pre-arrangement, perhaps they would be worthy of a round Robin spot.
And this is justified by which article in the rules?
I only judged from an examination of what I read in this thread. According to this thread, organizers knew what to expect. Now if the organizers knew what to expect and it happened multiple times I would be tempted to blame the organizers. Because the tournament is a round robin, I would pair this couple and if the eighth identical draw occurred not only would I award both players a zero, I would seek to suspend their memberships.
You are absolutely correct in assuming that the rules do not have a provision for clairvoyance but if two characters are cheating in this brazen a manner, a draconian punishment is called for. The eighth identical draw would be my evidence. Isn’t the evidence of computer cheating similar? It is based on probability isn’t it? I apologize for not being more clear earlier and not having my Sixth Edition firmly in hand when I wrote my last comment or this one.
This isn’t what I was asking about. You stated that you would both refuse to pair them, and issue a double forfeit. How can we issue a double forfeit without pairing them? Maybe it’s semantics, but perhaps your intention was simply to deny them entry? If you allowed them to play the field but not allow them to play each other, I don’t see where that is justified. I don’t see where we can make preemptive decisions in a case such as this.
Actually, I never said anything about a forfeit from in my initial post. I said I would refuse to pair them and award each one of them a zero. This decision would be wrong because I did not allow the players to provide me evidence of cheating which I would have if they had the temerity to play the same game for the nth time with the same result. I say temerity because considering the past history of the two players involved, I would warn them of the consequences of repeating the same game for the nth time. I am basing my opinion on what I have read in previous posts in this thread. And if my suggestion was flouted by the repetition, I would feel empowered to take the strong action of suggesting suspension for these players. This is as clear as I can express my opinion concerning this topic. If I am wrong, I defer to you as a Senior TD. and will just try to learn something. Thanks for the feedback.
In poker that would be called collusion…
This doesn’t offend me as long as the result is a draw. Some of the openings I play have forced drawing lines, and I can easily see people not wanting to deviate from those lines to play worse moves. If I have a pet opening, and my opponent has a pet defense, who is the TD to tell one of us that we have to play what we consider an inferior opening, or at least one that we don’t know as well. Also, how does he decide which of us must deviate? If the game is decisive, I would expect the losing player to improve his play at some point.
Alex Relyea
It is interesting that those brothers have the same pet opening and defense (the game is the same no matter which of them has White), and that the two sisters would also have that same pet opening and defense.
It would be interesting to see how often they play that line against other opponents.
As an organizer of a round robin tournament, you might decide not to invite these players knowing their history of playing the same “game” over and over again. There is no rule that says you must invite them to play in your event.
In a Swiss System event in the US, under USCF rules, you may not deny entry to players without due cause. You may have a 30 move draw rule. However, if two players are inclined to draw, they will find a way. There are a number of historical “games”, forced drawing variations in some openings, and repetitions of position techniques that fit the bill. They can change the “game” they play. You might try not pairing them, but then you skirt the possibility of not following the pairing rules which might hurt other players in the tournament. Messing around with the pairings really ticks off the players.
Often as not, a draw in a Swiss does the players little good, especially when there are a number of strong players competing. A draw might knock the players out of the prize money. A friendly draw can be a bad tournament management strategy when there are many aggressive players in an event. It works only when there are a few and they all know each other; then they all satisfice and split the pot.