U.S. Open Round 8

Running Chess Tournaments
1

GM Boris Gulko (2656): W B W W B B W

IM Alex Lenderman (2477): B W B W W B W

 Win TD gave Gulko White.  Although this is counter-intuitive, because Gulko, the higher-ranked player, is getting a color which un-equalizes him, it does actually adhere to USCF Rule 29E4 (Equalization, Alternation, and Priority of Color)., Paragraph 4 (strangely, the 5 rules on pairing players due for the same color are not listed in the Rulebook by numbered subsections, which would then be easily referenced in discussions such as these. Instead, these rules are only referenced by paragrpah number): 

"If both players have had an equal number of whites and blacks, or both are equally out of balance, and if they had different colors in one or more prior rounds, priority for assigning color should be based on the latest round in which their colors differed (in this case, their color histories

diverged at Round 5, when Gulko got Black and Lenderman got White)."

 I have to admit I don't think this makes sense in a 9-round tournament, having the likely winner (Gulko) being virtually obligated to get black in the last round.  If his forced opponent in Round 9 had a similar history, there would be a forced 6 Whites vs. 3 Blacks in 9 rounds.  Under the old rules, Gulko would have gotten Black (the higher-ranked player was assigned the equalizating color).  If he were to win, as he would be expected to do, he would not be going into the last round already short one color.
2

Are you sure Gulko got White? The Monroi “live feed” shows him having Black. (I agree that he should have had White under the current rules, and that this leads to an undesirable situation. But the TD should still have followed the rules.)

3 
  I think Lenderman complained, and the colors were switched.  But evidently Gulko must have thought he was due Black, too, as he didn't complain about the resulting change.

 I don't think I agree with the rationale for the rule which blindly alternates the players' colors at the price of creating a bigger problem next round.
4

Then they were both wrong, and so was the TD. A TD can’t ignore the pairing rules just because he doesn’t like the result. It’s not a very long step from this case to “I don’t want to pair those two leaders because they always draw.” (Saw this happen once, but the lynch mob of players persuaded the TD to change his mind.)

5

I also thought my color against Hikaru made little sense:

My colors were: WBWBWWB

Hikaru’s were: WBWBWBW

So we both have had 4 white’s and 3 black’s. We are both due black. I had more points than Hikaru, so thought I would get the due color (black). Instead I was given white. In either case, one of us would have 5 whites and 3 blacks.

I guess we both alternated the way the pairings were made, instead of neither of us alternating!

Ben Finegold

6

The pairing was correct. As the rules now read, “higher ranked player” is at the very bottom of the list, and comes up only if the players have identical color history. The short way to put is is: equalize if possible, alternate if possible, color history (drop rounds starting with the first until you can equalize or alternate), higher ranked gets his due color. In your case, the program only had to go to #2.

7

Correct. “higher ranked” matters only when all else is equal.

8

And that’s exactly as it should be. The higher ranked player has no more automatic right to his due color than anybody else. The “higher ranked” rule is last on the list because it is only a last-resort tiebreaker when nothing else decides the issue.

Unfortunately, it’s also the only rule that most players (and even some TDs, apparently) seem to know. They’ll shout “higher ranked gets due color” to the rooftops (actually, they usually say “higher rated gets due color”, which is even more incorrect), thinking it applies in all situations.

I once had an expert argue with me about his 4th-round pairing, because he had had bye-WB vs his lower-rated opponent’s BWB. He claimed he should get white because he was higher rated!

Bill Smythe

9

That’s exactly why I never direct a tournament without my rulebook close at hand.

Alex Relyea

10

I’m new to the forums. I only started because of the election, but now I am a true convert. Since the issues forum is getting boring, I wandered over to this forum.

I was surprised that a decision I made during the U.S. Open was said to be wrong by a number of my fellow directors. Well, I thought I’d try to defend myself.

USCF’s ORC, 5th ed., p. 103, 25. Introduction

…Players should understand, however, the last-minute circumstances can sometimes force revisions of earlier plans…

There is no question that 29E4, Pairing players due the same color: #4 is the normal example of the color allocation for Gulko and Lenderman. This is if this was a normal tournament of a regular duration of four to possibly six rounds.

However we have limited experience in USCF using this method in 9-round or longer events (a few World Opens, “Insanity” events, and a couple of U.S. Championships) since this edition has been used.

Clearly the last U.S. Championship, with a much more smaller attendance than a U.S. Open, had tricky pairing situations in later rounds due to the smaller score groups, and trickier color allocations. Yet even U.S. Open score groups get smaller after seven or so rounds. In these later rounds Variation 29E4a seems to be the more apprepriate. (It might have been easier for the US Championship if the variation was used. I have not researched what was actually used in that case.)

The change in color allocation was prompted by a question of one of the players involved just before, or possibly during the start of the round. I felt 29E4a was reasonable, considering the goal of the pairing as stated in the rule.

Was the rule used universally in the round? No. It should have been. That was only due to the inexperience of the staff with events of such long duration, or the pairing program in use. I did not find with a quick preview of the higher group pairings where a similar result happened. I wasn’t going to prevent the timely start of the round.

Any other discussion?

All the best, Joe Lux

11

I don’t find the “nine-round” argument very convincing. A nine-round tournament with 400 players is going to have about the same problems as an 8-rounder or 200, a 7-rounder or 100, or (back to the real world) a six-rounder of 50.

There was certainly an argument for switching Gulko’s and Lenderman’s colors, despite what the rule says. Gulko was a heavy favorite and would clearly be in contention for first, so balancing his colors seems like it should be more important than early-round color history. My problem with this is that the TD should not change the rules in the middle of the tournament, and should not apply different rules to different players.

My real problem with the switch, however, has to do with why it was made. If the TD thought the matter through and made an informed decision to change the pairing, that’s one thing. I don’t agree with his choice, but it’s certainly defensible. A much more common situation, however, is this: A few minutes before the start of the round, a player finds his pairing and complains about it to the TD. The TD looks at it and sees that there is some superficial plausibility to the complaint. His choices are a) give the whiner what he wants, b) delay the round by half an hour while he analyzes the pairing to prove it was right in the first place, or c) tell the complainer to go pound sand. All of these have serious drawbacks.

12

Your examples of common reactions to common situations might be true for average tournaments. I did not use any of your three choices, nor would I expect those reactions from any NTD at any national event. I was most impressed with the number of ANTDs and NTDs whom I never met before, but was able to exchange war stories with, during Cherry Hill.

I still hold that in lengthy events 29E4a is the more appropriate variation. Certainly it should be used in the future at swiss US Championships.

All the best, Joe Lux NTD, TDCC

13

Joe,

Please see post #48022. Do you think we made a mistake at this year’s U.S. Championship? Note that the pairing also involved Gulko, and that time was not an issue as there were approximately fifteen hours before the round was to start when the problem was brought to my attention.

Alex Relyea

14

I make no criticism of this year’s US Championship. I mentioned that I haven’t researched it, nor should I, unless you wish to discuss a pairing.

Once as a younger man doing pairings by hand at the National High School Championship, I had missorted the cards. I paired a 4-0 with a 0-4. It wasn’t discovered until far into the round. As any top-notch director would say, I made the right pairing!! The 0-4 won!!

Once I learn how to look up a post, I’ll read #48022. Any suggestions on how to do that?

All the best, Joe

15

Does the “Search by post #” function still work? I have a vague recollection of that case. What I remember is that initially I thought your pairing was wrong, but when I studied it more closely I decided it was correct.

In terms of pairing logic, I really can’t see much similarity between the U.S. Championship (nine rounds, 36 players) and the U.S. Open (nine rounds, 400+ players).