new idea for (Canadian) Forfeit Losers List

[Aris Marghetis]

Hello there, especially chess Organizers, I would like your take on this new idea.

At the recent Zonal & Sectionals in Kingston, we used five different floater-players, across a wide rating range, to ensure that no one ever had to miss playing a round due to a forced bye.

As much work as that was, it was way easier to deal with than forfeit losses. We had very few forfeit losses, but they were predictably the same names that had forfeited at previous events.

To be open and honest here, few things in life irk me more than forfeit losses!
To make matters worse, one of those forfeits likely wiped out a CM Title claim.

Therefore, when I open registrations for the 2020 Closed & Sectionals (again in Kingston), anyone who forfeited at the recent 2019 event will have to add a deposit to their registration fee.

My initial thinking is $100, and if that player forfeits, then:
1) the opponent receives $50 in cash from me
2) the prize fund gets increased by the other $50
3) the forfeiting player needs to deposit another $100 before being un-withdrawn

Comments, feedback, etc?

If there is widespread agreement with this idea, I offer to maintain the Canadian Forfeit Losers List (CFLL). Organizers can set any penalty amount they want for themselves, but I can maintain a list of all forfeit losers for, say, the last two years and/or 24 rated games, whichever comes first? Again, I am open to ideas on just how long someone has to deposit due to their aging forfeit loss.

Of course, any Organizer can choose to NOT ask for this list, to NOT ask for deposits, etc. It will be completely voluntary whether anyone wants to imitate what we do for the Kingston events.

Thanks in advance for your insights,
arismarghetis at rogers dot com

[David Gordon]

Ohh An Ace Kill Prize

[Aris Marghetis]

Ohh An Ace Kill Prize

Please elaborate chess buddy!

[Pierre Dénommée]

Other Federations have tried those three solutions.


Fine the offending player a predetermined amount.
Do not allow the registration of the player in the next Zonal.
Three months suspension of the offending player form all rated chess activities,


Choice 2 may cause a loss to the next Zonal organizer. He could loose many entry fees.
Choice 3 has been proven ineffective, it is not an effective deterrent because many players are not planning to play any tournament during the suspension period and don't care being suspended.
I prefer your option to choice 1 because you will not have go after the player for payment.

[Kevin Pacey]

Ohh An Ace Kill Prize


Please elaborate chess buddy!

Thought I'd wait a while to see if Dave would reply first...

Aris, I think Dave may be kidding a little here.

"Ace Kill" is a [semi-retired?] Ottawa organizer Neil James Frarey concept that has yet to be tried, afaik. The idea is: when a [much] lower rated chess player beats an opponent in a [Swiss] tournament, who then withdraws before the next round. So, a single Ace Kill prize for an event (or section) would presumably go to the player who got the biggest upset win by rating difference, provided his opponent withdrew before the following round.

I'm not sure how this concept could prove foolproof against collusion by the two players involved to later share the Ace Kill prize, however.

P.S.: I think Neil's idea was to simply give out a cool badge as an Ace Kill prize, rather than cash.

[Aris Marghetis]

Thought I'd wait a while to see if Dave would reply first...

Aris, I think Dave may be kidding a little here.

"Ace Kill" is a [semi-retired?] Ottawa organizer Neil James Frarey concept that has yet to be tried, afaik. The idea is: when a [much] lower rated chess player beats an opponent in a [Swiss] tournament, who then withdraws before the next round. So, a single Ace Kill prize for an event (or section) would presumably go to the player who got the biggest upset win by rating difference, provided his opponent withdrew before the following round.

I'm not sure how this concept could prove foolproof against collusion by the two players involved to later share the Ace Kill prize, however.

P.S.: I think Neil's idea was to simply give out a cool badge as an Ace Kill prize, rather than cash.
Oh ok, thanks for explaining. I guess the idea doesn't resonate with me. It seems kinda mean to the Ace, no?!

[Kevin Pacey]

The name of the prize seems kind of mean to the Ace, yes. However, I recall that more than one Canadian tournament over the years has had a 'Biggest Upset' prize (no withdrawal on the part of the victim necessary, though).

In Neil's defence, I guess one might argue that the 'Ace' may deserve some such slight public indignity for having withdrawn from an event rather than playing to the end.

[Aris Marghetis]

The name of the prize seems kind of mean to the Ace, yes. However, I recall that more than one Canadian tournament over the years has had a 'Biggest Upset' prize (no withdrawal on the part of the victim necessary, though).

In Neil's defence, I guess one might argue that the 'Ace' may deserve some such slight public indignity for having withdrawn from an event rather than playing to the end.
Yeah, we might add a Biggest Upset prize (per section?) next year at Kingston Easter Chess (2020KEC#2). The idea crossed our minds this year, but with a total prize fund based on 100 total registrations (but where GMs and IMs were free, etc.), there wasn't any extra funding to play around with. I deliberately gave priority to honouring the guaranteed $1000 first place prize per each Sectional (U2200-U1900-U1600). There were no funds left over for "fun" prizes like Biggest Upset.

Now, all signs are pointing to more registrations next year! You should play Kevin, or we could REALLY use a good player like yourself as a Closed Section floater!