PDA

View Full Version : 14. CYCC Tie-breaks Motion (Ken Jensen) Motion 2012-B



Lyle Craver
09-30-2011, 03:52 AM
I have received the following from Ken Jensen:

=== beginning of e-mail ===

The current rule states:

"1010. Tie Break:

Should two or more players finish the tournament with the same number of points then in order to determine an outright winner, a tie-break based on the result of a shorter game using a sudden death time control of 15 minutes per player shall be used.

In the case of two players tying, there will be a single game tie-break with colours being chosen by lot. If the game is a draw colours will be reversed until one game is won.

In the case of 3 or 4 players tying, there will be a single round robin with a further playoff by the winners of the round robin in the case of a further tie.

In all other cases the tournament organizers shall decide the format for breaking the tie."

I propose 101 be replaced by the following wording;

"1010. Tie Break:

Should two or more players finish the tournament with the same number of points the following tie-break systems are recommended.

(a) Swiss Sections
• Direct encounter
• Sum of progressive score
• Buchholz
• Playoff
• Sonneborn-Berger
• Won games
• Games played with Black

(b) Round Robin Sections
• Direct encounter
• Playoff
• Games played with Black
• Koya
• Sonneborn-Berger
• Won games

It is recommended that playoffs only be arranged to determine the official Canadian representative to the WYCC.

If playoffs are planned adequate time must be set aside for a conclusion to be reached.

=== end of e-mail ===

(ed. comment - I am undecided at this time on the merits of this motion vs. the alternative but in the interests of having a full Governor discussion, I will second this motion - Lyle Craver, Secretary, Chess Federation of Canada)

Ken Jensen
10-01-2011, 12:43 PM
This proposal addresses the problem raised by Michael where currently 1010 specifies play off game format for all ties at the CYCC. This was deemed a problem because;

a) Not all ties require resolution.
b) Play offs can and did cause the last CYCC to run overtime, creating schedule conflicts with the CO.
c) Some feel the prescribed playoff games are too short.
d) Some feel the prescribed playoff games are too long.

The proposed wording opens the door for computer tie breaks at the CYCC as well as differnt time controls on the playoff game. It also puts emphasis on organizers to allow enough time for play offs when scheduling the event.

The recommended tie break methods are open to debate, but are meant to provide guidance and consistency without being too restrictive.

The motion attempts to reflect the reality of the CYCC, where organizers regularly select non conforming tie break solutions that better suite the situation.

Ken Jensen

Egidijus Zeromskis
10-01-2011, 01:44 PM
I'm missing the note that the tie-breaks are set before the tournament.

Pierre Dénommée
10-02-2011, 04:35 PM
This is mandatory because otherwise, the arbiter could choose tje winner by choosing the tiebreak method at the end of the tournament.


I'm missing the note that the tie-breaks are set before the tournament.

Ken Jensen
10-02-2011, 08:06 PM
I do not not argue against the merits of establishing the tie break before the event, although that was not a requirement of 1010 previously.

In practise Tie breaks have been announced before the start of the last round, if not before. This removes the potential for TD selection of winners as you describe and gives fair warning to participants before ties are created. They do not have months to practise their Armageddon skills or otherwise prepare for a specific tiebreak scenario.

Egidijus Zeromskis
10-03-2011, 09:45 AM
It is recommended that playoffs only be arranged to determine the official Canadian representative to the WYCC.

The direct encounter (play-off) should be set for all first three places.
See:
1012.Participation in the World Events:
...
Top 3 finishers in each section are qualified to become official representatives for:
1) World Youth Chess Championship (WYCC);
2) Pan American Youth Chess Championship;
3) North American Youth Chess Championship.

Thus I move a motion to append the quoted sentence as:

The playoffs are arranged to determine the official Canadian representatives for the World Events.


This would be a change from the current status as it required play-offs only to determine a winner. ("to determine an outright winner")

Ken Jensen
10-03-2011, 12:20 PM
The direct encounter (play-off) should be set for all first three places.
See:
Thus I move a motion to append the quoted sentence as:
The playoffs are arranged to determine the official Canadian representatives for the World Events.
This would be a change from the current status as it required play-offs only to determine a winner. ("to determine an outright winner")

The purpose of this amendment is to open the door for computer tie breaks and to help organizers stay on schedule. Proposing play offs for all WYCC qualifying positions is exactly the opposite, and the reason for the recommmendation to limit it to top spot. Play offs have Never been applied for third place, but have been for second in cases where the number one is clearly not going. The practise has been that all players tied for the second or third places qualify to WYCC. Breaking those ties eliminates a lot of qualified players and is not in their best interests.

Furthermore the ties can involve many players. I have seen 8 or 9 rounds required for a full set of play-offs. This would literally require additional days to complete at CYCC. The playoff could have more games than the tournament itself.

While I appreciate the intention if your motion I would be inclined to vote against the initial motion if the change was included.

Ken Jensen

Valer Eugen Demian
10-03-2011, 07:16 PM
The purpose of this amendment is to open the door for computer tie breaks and to help organizers stay on schedule. Proposing play offs for all WYCC qualifying positions is exactly the opposite, and the reason for the recommmendation to limit it to top spot. Play offs have Never been applied for third place, but have been for second in cases where the number one is clearly not going. The practise has been that all players tied for the second or third places qualify to WYCC. Breaking those ties eliminates a lot of qualified players and is not in their best interests.

Furthermore the ties can involve many players. I have seen 8 or 9 rounds required for a full set of play-offs. This would literally require additional days to complete at CYCC. The playoff could have more games than the tournament itself.

While I appreciate the intention if your motion I would be inclined to vote against the initial motion if the change was included.

Ken Jensen

Actually play-offs for 2nd and 3rd places were held in the past, if only to remember CYCC 2005 in Victoria. The purpose of those play-offs were to determine who got the respective trophies. I know it well since one of my students played in one for 3rd place! Now even if he had already qualified for WYCC, he was still much affected when he lost the play-off game... It was played right after the last round, late at night, tired, etc. Given the situation it should have not been any play-offs; a computer tie-break system could have saved all involved of such solution...

Michael Barron
10-03-2011, 11:48 PM
Actually play-offs for 2nd and 3rd places were held in the past, if only to remember CYCC 2005 in Victoria. The purpose of those play-offs were to determine who got the respective trophies. I know it well since one of my students played in one for 3rd place! Now even if he had already qualified for WYCC, he was still much affected when he lost the play-off game... It was played right after the last round, late at night, tired, etc. Given the situation it should have not been any play-offs; a computer tie-break system could have saved all involved of such solution...

I second Valer's opinion - play-offs are not needed.
7 rounds provides sufficient data to determine who played better in the event.
Just look at the international competitions - anybody knows anything about play-offs after WYCC? :confused:

Patrick McDonald
10-04-2011, 03:16 PM
The direct encounter (play-off) should be set for all first three places.
See:

Thus I move a motion to append the quoted sentence as:

The playoffs are arranged to determine the official Canadian representatives for the World Events.


This would be a change from the current status as it required play-offs only to determine a winner. ("to determine an outright winner")

The Official Canadian Representative to World Events is only the First place finisher, otherwise anyone even tied for any of the top 3 spots is invited to participate on the team - at their own expense.

Patrick McDonald
10-04-2011, 03:18 PM
I might also take issue with the proposed order of priority for statistical tiebreaks.

Egidijus Zeromskis
10-04-2011, 05:10 PM
The Official Canadian Representative to World Events is only the First place finisher, otherwise anyone even tied for any of the top 3 spots is invited to participate on the team - at their own expense.

Partially correct.

Once more
1012.Participation in the World Events:
...
Top 3 finishers in each section are qualified to become official representatives for:
1) World Youth Chess Championship (WYCC);
2) Pan American Youth Chess Championship;
3) North American Youth Chess Championship.

Fred McKim
10-05-2011, 07:47 AM
I might also take issue with the proposed order of priority for statistical tiebreaks.

Unless I'm reading the motion wrong, the order presented is simply a pick-list of choices available. Presumbably the organizers would build a list of tie-break procedures prior to the event. Variations could be allowed depending on the number of players tied for a position, etc.

Ken Craft
10-05-2011, 09:23 AM
I had the same thoughts as Patrick. At best, the motion is inadequately worded.

Ken Jensen
10-05-2011, 12:27 PM
I might also take issue with the proposed order of priority for statistical tiebreaks.

The order of tie breaks is a recommendation, not a prescription. Under this wording you could choose the solution that best fits your situation.

The wording for play offs to determine the official Canadian representative to WYCC also gives you the leaway to hold playoffs for second spot if you believe the top spot winner will not follow through an go to WYCC.

This proposal gives you the tools to do the job you have always been doing.

Frankly I'm surprised that the order of recommended Tie Breaks did not raise more conversation earlier. It is always a hot topic of discussion amoung event organizers and TD's. This happens to be the official fide recommended order.

Ken Jensen

Patrick McDonald
10-05-2011, 05:26 PM
The order of tie breaks is a recommendation, not a prescription. Under this wording you could choose the solution that best fits your situation.

The wording for play offs to determine the official Canadian representative to WYCC also gives you the leaway to hold playoffs for second spot if you believe the top spot winner will not follow through an go to WYCC.

Ken Jensen

The list does not even contain the tiebreak that I believe is the most fair - performance of opposition - I definintely disagree with some of those tiebreak systems and believe they should not only not be recommended, but be recommended against.

Ken Jensen
10-05-2011, 07:34 PM
Now this is more like the discussion I expected. :)
Tie breaks are like desserts, everyone has their favourite, and nothing is unanimous.

Again the purpose of this motion is to introduce computer tie breaks as an option for CYCC. The specific method selected is very much open.

As for performance of opposition, that is exactly what the Buchholz formula is. It takes the sum of the scores of the opponents. Similarly the Sonneborn-Berger formula considers the sum of the scores of opponents defeated, and half the scores of opponents drawn. How is your favourite calculation different?

Ken Jensen

Christopher Mallon
10-05-2011, 08:24 PM
Performance of opposition uses the performance ratings of your opponents rather than their scores.

Ken Jensen
10-05-2011, 10:29 PM
Yes, The ratings based "Performance of Opposition" calculation sums the ratings of all opponents, adds 400 for each win and subtracts 400 for each loss. The resulting average per game is the event performance rating. It is a good calculation that I have used many times. It would fail of course when players do not "perform" at their rated level, like in CYCC 2008 when a 1050 rated player went 6.5/7 "performing" at an 1884 level.

Performance of Opposition is a little missnamed as it actually has nothing to do with the performance of the opposition. Perhaps it should be called "Strength of opposition" or "Opponents rating".

Either way with this amendment Patrick could use it at CYCC, where today he cannot.

Ken Jensen

Christopher Mallon
10-05-2011, 10:44 PM
No, that's not what I said... Performance of Opposition takes the performance ratings of your opponents (using the formula you provided) and averages them. It's not the same as your own performance rating and can only be useful in comparing those with the same score - such as in a tiebreak situation.

Although I suppose you could then modify it again using your performance rating calculation and have an overall comparison. But that's beside the point.

Ken Jensen
10-06-2011, 12:40 AM
That's not what I said and its seems to miss the point. I agree that Tie breaks are best applied to players that are tied.:)

It makes no difference which player it is calculated for. That Performance calculation relies on ratings to be effective, and is flawed when player ratings are not reliable, as is common at a CYCC.

This is going around in circles and I don't think we disagree. The point of this excercise is that you can use the formula you like best.

Ken Jensen

Michael von Keitz
10-10-2011, 10:05 PM
Ken Jensen presented a motion opening the door to the use of statistical tiebreaks at the CYCC. The lack of direction on when tiebreak methods should be announced (i.e. before the event or before the final round) was raised as a concern. Egidijus Zeromskis proposed an amendment to the motion, by which play-offs would be mandatory to determine the top three finishers, but that failed to receive a seconder. The exact order of recommended tiebreaks was also given some discussion, but it was made clear that the arbiter ultimately had leeway as to which tiebreak method(s) to employ.