I thought this would be a good topic of conversation because some of the worst decisions I have seen made by tournament directors has been because they were more concerned about being “fair” than “just”
according to USCF rules. It is not the role of tournament directors to
be “fair”, for, this is at best, a perception. Just is the standard of the
rulebook. For example:
A TD picks up the clock in which player A has 10 minutes left
and the other 5, and puts down another clock that has 5 minutes
for both, because one having 10 and the other 5 is not “fair”.
2. Player A writes down his move, and makes a different move on
the board, or even picks up the wrong piece. He realizes this
and demands to be able to make the move he wrote down,
because this is only "fair". (I have seen TDs allow this also)
3. A player calls the TD over, and asks that his clock be paused
as his eyes need the ointment he forgot in his upstairs hotel
room, and asking him (the player) to continue when his eyes
are blurry would not be "fair".
4. Having siblings play each other who are in the same score
group is not "fair".
I am confident many of have other examples of "fair".
Rob Jones
I find it amazing that a USCF TD would make a ruling like this without giving any other justification!
I suspect that this is one reason why Rule 15A was modified to state that the standard for scorekeeping is to record the move after it is made. If players are allowed to record their moves before they make them, this can lead to the misperception that the act of recording has some significance (besides producing a complete scoresheet).
A case can be made that this is a situation where Rule 1A could rightfully be applied. But that’s a judgement call, and I’d consider it questionable. While the USCF rules sanction accomodations for players with disabilities, I see no indication in the rulebook that allowing a disabled player to pause his clock while he deals with his disability (particularly because of a failure on his part to properly prepare in advance for an aspect of it that is forseeable) is among those sanctioned accomodations.
Rule 28U does sanction an attempt at accomodating requests of this kind, though it cautions that the degree to which this can be done may be limited.
It’s been done in a couple of situations:
A) early rounds in a 30-player event with one family of six entries having both comparatively high and comparatively low rated players for the single-section event. I put them on a team and set WinTD to avoid pairing teammates if possible. Then after the first or second round (I don’t remember which) I turned off that setting. That avoided pairing siblings or parent/child during the rounds with large ratings-mismatches while keeping those pairings possible once the “money rounds” were reached. That tournament only had trophies for the overall winner and the top junior. There was a late round pairing between high-rated siblings and one or two more between low-rated siblings.
B) final round where a person in the running for a large master prize would have been paired against the parent who was in the running for a large expert prize. I was personally certain that they would play to the best of their abilities (the expert was strong enough to have a legitimate chance of beating the master) but it was virtually guaranteed that there would be some complaints of fixing a result if either one won (or drew with the expert getting more than he would have with a loss). Since there was a very reasonable transposition (less than 20 points, maybe even less than 10 - it was a number of years ago so I’m not sure if it was quite that low) my back room person made that transposition and I accepted it, eliminating the potential of even the suspicion of fixing a result.
If they had played and one had won a significant amount of money then there would have been claims of an unfair pairing not from the parent/child, but from the other players in the group that one of the parent/child won money in.
I’ve had to play my son in the last round (for first) before; I note that GM Yury Shulman and WIM Viktorija Ni had to play in the first round of the Chicago Open this year.
FIDE rules do not give the flexibility that USCF rules do.
Two people playing for first is different from two people playing for different class prizes in a multi-class section, particularly if the prizes are large (an IL Open rather than a smaller local tournament).
I should note that there was a third person tied at the time when we played for first, and that for us to play the middleman dropped. I think I could have argued either side of the pairing at the time. Personally, if I were the 3rd guy - I wouldn’t have wanted the family members to play.
I deleted the first three “fair” examples because those are obviously TD error, absent some highly unusual circumstance. (For instance, in “fair” example number one, perhaps the clock in question was known to malfunction somehow.)
Many TDs generally try to avoid such pairings when they can, as it avoids a possible perception of bias in most cases. If you can follow the transposition rules while changing the pairing, I would suggest it is probably advisable to do so. In general, especially in a larger event, the only time I’ll pair players when they are related is if such a pairing is unavoidable without violating a pairing rule.
There is a reasonable argument that the “natural” pairings should not be changed unless necessary by rule. However, my experience tells me that players who are related would probably rather not play each other in a tournament. If one (or both) of the two players are in contention for prizes, the rest of the field would probably rather not have them play either.
If the TD was doing Harkness pairings then the middle would play the top of the next scoregroup.
If there were significant color issues then the TD may have made the pairings that were done.
Personally I’d see if it was reasonable to change the pairings and groan and accept it if it was not reasonable to make a change.
We once had a TD in Pittsburgh who had his own unique set of pairing “rules.” As often as possible he would pair:
enemies - sworn enemies were given preference over mere rivals.
friends
relatives; preferably father vs. son, then brother vs. brother, then on down through other kin.
people who came in the same car together, especially if the trip was over 200 miles.
elderly vs. elderly and kid vs. kid
If anyone complained about the pairings or tiebreaks, he wouldn’t say anything. He would just let his suit open enough so that the complainant could see the .38 revolver he carried.
Based on the “had” it would appear that this TD is no longer active. The examples listed would lead me to believe that some players decided that there were sound reasons to take their business elsewhere. Bad TDs will have trouble retaining players even if there is no reasonable alternative.
Hmm, his “inactive” status had little to do with chess. He was actually very popular. A funny guy who more often than not did a bang up job running tournaments, sometimes with his girl friend sitting in his lap while he did pairngs. Always wore a vested suit and tie while he directed. Made sure to always pay out the full measure of the prizes even it came out of his own pocket. The last I heard about him was a rumor that the IRS and FBI were trying to find him. Our best guess was that he disappeared into the mists of the witness protection program because of some of his other associations. Chess has a strange and colorful history of characters.
Good post, esp, about the early rounds. In local scholastics, we have
in the past, had an incredible brother and sister (both now NMs), play
in events. To throughout the tournament keep pairing restrictions on
them, can offer an unjust advantage for both, as everyone else close
to them in score had to get through at least one, if not both of them.
The same would apply to relative restrictions in small events as
well.
Understood, and natural, but perhaps not the same opinion if you were the parent of the 3rd guy. Would it really be just if you had to
play one or both, and they were flagged from playing each other??
just asking–
The third guy was in his late 30’s or early 40’s - I doubt that his parents would have cared.
I have no idea what your final attempt at a question meant.
My preference would be to have to play someone with whom I am tied, rather than a person in the lower score group - and I would think that family members might be more inclined to draw, so I would want to face one of them to increase the odds that the games between tied players would be decisive. (So if I were the third person in this situation - I would have rather played one of us.)
There always can be between-the-rules questions which require a judgment call of what is equitable. I think “equitable” is better than “fair” as a word to use because it better implies that one may need to rule in accordance with making sure there is the closest thing to justice we can aim at. (And ‘just’ or ‘equitable’ can be considered on the level of the two players, the rest of a playing room, a whole tournament, or the entire grand and glorious system of tournaments.)
But the rulebook is fairly clear to me on page 1 where the USCF presumes TDs can, “arrive at fair and logical solutions to problems not specifically treated by these rules.” Sometimes I wish the USCF wouldn’t assume that of me. (Now I have to disclaim that was indeed an attempt at a joke. )
Hmm… I suppose I’m starting to aim at the ANTD exam in a year or five.
As specifically to pairing family members… I wonder if scope of the tournament doesn’t play a role. If you have a local scholastic tournament, parents can and do openly wonder about why their children (who play each other all the time anyway) have to play one another. Then another parent wonders if the two siblings playing are really playing their best against one another. Nobody objects to splitting them up, and everybody looks to the TD to know pairing rules well enough to make the call if doing so is fair.
Actually, it’s more than parents. We did have a pair of brothers a few years ago who were paired in round 3 of 4, or 4 of 5 (can’t remember.) They were tied in the highest score group with one or two others. A coach protested. We decided (after calling a referee when we couldn’t find 28U quickly enough) to re-pair, which was accomplished without a headache. Both brothers won their games and became the only perfect scores into the final round. At that point we required them to play. In retrospect, I’d rather they faced each other in the prior round, but I didn’t lose any sleep and wouldn’t have either way.
We also have certain parents who occasionally request variety in the pairings. (i.e. Make the pairings less predictable or violate pairing rules to create more “interesting” games.) I think I understand what’s behind that, but making that happen would almost invariably cause inequity to other players. In our local club we’re not running weekly rated stuff anymore, but I would occasionally run tournaments with 1 v. 2 pairings. Someday I’d like to try Australian Draw.
(Now I have to disclaim that was indeed an attempt at a joke. 
)