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

[Patrick McDonald]

I might also take issue with the proposed order of priority for statistical tiebreaks.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

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]

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]

I had the same thoughts as Patrick. At best, the motion is inadequately worded.

[Ken Jensen]

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]

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]

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]

Performance of opposition uses the performance ratings of your opponents rather than their scores.

[Ken Jensen]

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]

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.