Solkoff Tiebreaking system and byes/forfiets?

Running Chess Tournaments
1

Do you count the potential opponent from a forfeitted game in the Solkoff tiebreaking system even when no game was played?

The solkoff tiebreaking system was used in the below tournament and a player(Orton) who had a point via forfeit won the trophy on tiebreaks?

Thanks for your help

Tournament Name = Phillips 66 Chess Classic
Section(s) or Class(es) = Not defined # players = 24
Date = 04/19/08
Played in: Bartlesville, OK
Sponsoring Affiliate = Bartlesville Chess Club ID No. = A5011400
Chief TD: Steve Wharry Level = Senior ID No. = 11409318
ID Player Pre Post 1 2 3 4 5 Total

10383251 1 ORTON III,WILLIAM 2212 2201 W12 X-- W6 D4 D3 4
12590577 2 GRAHAM,SHAUN M 1885 1908 W23 F-- W18 W14 W7 4
12831536 3 MILLER,JULIEN 1725 1789 W15 D7 W5 W8 D1 4
10384885 4 BERRY,JIM 1940 1964 W13 W16 H-- D1 D6 3.5
11409318 5 WHARRY,STEPHEN M 1927 1923 H-- W14 L3 W12 W10 3.5
12766727 6 ZELNICK,DAVID E 1899 1912 W22 W18 L1 W17 D4 3.5
12704397 7 NUGENT,MICHAEL A 1922 1909 W24 D3 H-- W11 L2 3
12435900 8 KLINE,LES 1725 1719 W9 W20 H-- L3 D11 3
12454171 9 PETERS,ROBERT M 1331 1400 L8 L13 W24 W18 W17 3
10386331 10 BERRY,FRANK K 1813 1783 L20 W21 W13 H-- L5 2.5
10307139 11 MC CANN,DAVID R 1774 1744 L14 W22 W20 L7 D8 2.5
10384613 12 BROUKAL,LARRY 1700 1692 L1 D23 W21 L5 W19 2.5
12383820 13 TALBOT,ROBERT LLO 1618 1614 L4 W9 L10 W22 D14 2.5
12497643 14 LANDOLFI,MICHAEL 1436 1497 W11 L5 W16 L2 D13 2.5
13131658 15 MCCANN,SAMUEL JAM 1007 1049 L3 W24 L17 B-- D16 2.5
12515785 16 NEEDLEMAN,MARTIN 1841 1775 W19 L4 L14 D20 D15 2
10383617 17 DEPUTY,LARRY M 1723 1669 L18 W19 W15 L6 L9 2
12756401 18 BAXTER,ROGER E 1539 1542 W17 L6 L2 L9 W20 2
12546558 19 TOBIAS,ROBERT D 1477 1469 L16 L17 H-- W21 L12 1.5
12777197 20 TALBOT,CHRISTOPHE 1444 1465 W10 L8 L11 D16 L18 1.5
12407847 21 RINE,ALBERT FLOYD 1321 1330 H-- L10 L12 L19 W23 1.5
12437813 22 LOBAUGH,DOYLE W 1504 1499 L6 L11 W23 L13 U-- 1
12518019 23 HORTON JR,STANLEY 1489 1457 L2 D12 L22 H-- L21 1
10386918 24 SNAP,CHARLES M 1505 1449 L7 L15 L9 U-- U-- 0
Tied players are listed in order of pre-tournament ratings
Post tournament rating is an only an estimate
L = Loss, W = Win, D = Draw, X = Forfeit win, Z = Forfeit draw
F = Forfeit loss, B = 1 point bye, H = 1/2 point bye, U = Unplayed

2

You’re not supposed to. Are you sure you didn’t have modified median as the first tie break? Orton’s opponents should count as 2.5, 0.0, 3.5, 3.5 and 4.0. Miller’s should count as 2.0, 3.0, 3.5, 3.0, 3.5. (The first and fifth have full point unplayed games, which get adjusted to half points). The Solkoffs should be 13.5 and 15.0. Modified Median should be 13.5 and 13.0. If Solkoff is the first tie break, Miller should be first; if Modified Median is first, Orton would be first.

Tom Doan

3

I had specifically asked the Tournament director what the tiebreaking system was to be used during the final round, and he advised me “Solkoff” Maybe he suddenly changed his mind? but he had stated when he was handing out the trophy that Orton had 17.5, Miller had 15, and Graham had 12.5 on tiebreaks.

4

Said another way, a forfeit win gives you 1 game point but 0 tiebreak points. In this case, it appears that Orton was incorrectly given 4 tiebreak points for the forfeit win in round 2 against Graham.

Michael Aigner

5

Those look like the Solkoffs with both Orton and Graham getting credit for 4.0’s for the forfeit win/loss. I seem to recall that at one point, a player got the lesser of 50% or their own score as Solkoff credit for a forfeit win, but that was later changed to the current rule of giving 0.0. I’m sure it was never to give credit for the opponent’s score (particularly for a forfeit loss!!!). Since the recommended order is Modified Median first, then Solkoff, the 0 would be expected to be thrown out in the first tie break.

Tom Doan