Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22

Thread: 14. CYCC Tie-breaks Motion (Ken Jensen) Motion 2012-B

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,709

    Default 14. CYCC Tie-breaks Motion (Ken Jensen) Motion 2012-B

    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)
    Last edited by Lyle Craver; 09-30-2011 at 11:56 PM.

  2. #2

    Default Back Ground

    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

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,744

    Default

    I'm missing the note that the tie-breaks are set before the tournament.
    .*-1

  4. #4

    Default

    This is mandatory because otherwise, the arbiter could choose tje winner by choosing the tiebreak method at the end of the tournament.

    Quote Originally Posted by Egidijus Zeromskis View Post
    I'm missing the note that the tie-breaks are set before the tournament.

  5. #5

    Default

    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.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,744

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lyle Craver View Post
    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")
    .*-1

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Egidijus Zeromskis View Post
    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

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Port Moody, BC
    Posts
    594
    Blog Entries
    3

    Post Ti-breaks for 2nd and 3rd places

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Jensen View Post
    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...
    Valer Eugen Demian
    FIDE CM & Instructor, ICCF IM
    https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/ches...593013634?mt=8

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    1,361

    Thumbs up play-offs are not needed

    Quote Originally Posted by Valer Eugen Demian View Post
    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?
    Thanks,
    Michael Barron

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Breslau
    Posts
    169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Egidijus Zeromskis View Post
    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
    International Arbiter
    International Organizer

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •