Forgive me if this question has been asked and answered before, but if I run a Basque system tournament (i.e., opponents play two games simultaneously, one with each color, separate clock for each game), is this a rateable event? And if so, how would it be submitted? It would be paired like a Swiss system tournament (except that color allocation is irrelevant), so I wouldn’t be able to do double round-robin. Can WinTD handle something like this?
No opinion on ratability, but I know that SwissSys can handle this. Simply treat each round as a “double round”. I do that for most of my blitz tournaments. I assume that WinTD can do the same.
Alex Relyea
The event would be ratable. It is essentially a double Swiss where the two games are played simultaneously. There is no restriction in the rating system regulations that mandate a player may play only one game at a time.
I have not tried using WinTD to run a double Swiss, but I am all but certain it is possible to do so.
It is indeed possible to run a double-round Swiss with WinTD.
The main argument against rating an event like this would be that it is possible to play copycat and assure an overall drawn result. With a significant rating difference, there would be a strong incentive for the lower-rated player to try something like this, and the only ways to prevent it would be (1) Force the lower-rated player to move first, or (2) The higher-rated player can sit and wait until the other does move, with the risk of the game degenerating into blitz (or worse, if it’s blitz to begin with).
This is why I thought it might not be rateable. If the players have similar ratings (as in most GM tournaments), this wouldn’t be an issue. Maybe it could only work in a quad format, or have automatic disqualification for someone who plays copycat (but then again, I wonder if you could rate it with a rule like that).
The same concept is useful if the number of players is small, and odd. With 4 rounds and 5 players, for example, in the first double round you could pair
A - B
B - C
C - D
D - E
E - A
and in the second double round it would be
C - A
E - C
B - E
D - B
A - D
Arrange the tables so the[i] short /i sides form a regular pentagon in the center, with the long (6-foot) sides radiating out like the blades on a five-blade ceiling fan. Each player sits in one of the V’s formed by the blades, playing white against the opponent to his left and black against the opponent to his right. All clocks face the center. The TD stands in the small center pentagon so he can watch all games simultaneously. (Just kidding about that last part.)
Bill Smythe
I would say not ratable. Here is my argument.
Each game being played is not simply a Chess game. It is a game of Chess with some additional requirements. Specifically, it requires the person to play another game of Chess while they are playing Chess.
Think of it this way. If I played a round robin Chess tournament, that’s ratable. No problem. However, I’m going to add an additional requirement. While playing their Chess games, they must play a game of Checkers. The outcomes don’t affect pairings, because it is a round robin, but standing in the tournament, including prizes if any, would be based on points earned in both the Chess game and the Checkers game.
Each Chess game played is still a Chess game, but it is played in a way that there is an additional distraction involved. The skill being measured isn’t merely the ability to play Chess, but the ability to play Chess while doing something else.
In the Basque system, as describe, the “something else” would be a second game of Chess.
And if that argument isn’t sufficiently convincing, under what time control would it be rated? Suppose each game was played at G/30, would it make sense to rate it as a G/30 game? Does each player actually have thirty minutes to study the moves for each game? No, because he has to spend some of those 30 minutes studying the other game. Both of his clocks could be running at the same time.
You could make a ratable tournament by substituting “back to back” instead of “simultaneously”. i.e. each player plays a game, then they play another game with colors reversed. That counts as one round. Future rounds are paired as Swiss rounds, except that color is ignored. In that case, every game of Chess is played according to standard rules, with no additional requirements.
While there is no restriction on playing more than one game at a time, I think the Basque system is a bit different than that. It requires people to play more than one game as a condition of entry.
There’s no restriction on playing in a Checkers tournament while playing in a Chess tournament, but I don’t think anyone would accept the idea of rating a pseudo-Basque, one game of Chess while playing one game of Checkers, tournament.
Aw, come on, don’t be a spoilsport. Those 5-player double-round tournaments were fun. I ran several of them at the old Lunt Avenue club, whenever we got 5 players for a one-night weeknight event, as long as all 5 players agreed.
Bill Smythe
Hey, if you left it up to me, I’d throw the door wide open on all sorts of things being ratable. You can bet that I would be trying to work in Chess960 somehow.
However, with the USCF being the stick-in-the-mud group that it is, I just don’t see how this fits in with the rules.
It’s basically the same as a “double blitz”. See Multiple game sections.
It has previously been established several times in these forums that thematic tournaments are ratable. In a thematic tournament, players are compelled to play a particular opening. In the current hypothetical, players are compelled to play two games simultaneously.
The game is still “chess” and follows all the rules in USCF Official Rules of Chess, 6th edition (including rule 3C, which chess960 or “Fischer random” does not). Both players have the same time in the time control. The conditions are equal for all players. Why should a thematic tournament be ratable while a Basque system tournament should not?
Sounds like one for the rules committee, then.
While I don’t really think they should be ratable under the rules, I hope they rule differently. It sounds like fun.
I’m taking a break from Chess, for a variety of reasons, but I doubt it will be a permanent break. I expect I’ll renew my membership in a couple of years and probably resume tournament hosting at that time. If that happens, and Basque system is legal, I would probably host such a tournament. (Not even including the Chess960 option…at first.)
Well, a thematic event is still one game at a time, just with the first few moves predetermined. It makes sense these are rateable. The closest equivalent to Basque I can think of is a simul. I’ve never heard of a rated simul. Is there one?
Arguments have been made, in these Forums and elsewhere, that a clock simul, with all players in the same room, with each game under the same ratable time control, should not be allowed to have the games rated.
However, there are numerous examples in USCF history where a player who enters multiple sections of an event (or even different events) with conflicting round times can have those games rated, even if those games aren’t taking place with the same time control - or in the same room.
I find these two paragraphs are massively contradictory, IMHO. YMMV.
My own position on rating Basque games is that the games should be ratable, provided that they are conducted under USCF rules.
For the simul, by definition, aren’t the players clearly under different conditions? The one giving the simul has no choice but to play multiple games. The ones playing against the simul player are forced to have a different number of games. In a regular tournament, all players are free to choose the same multiple-entry arrangements. The conditions aren’t different.
I don’t think this holds water.
In a regular tournament, players are not generally expecting their opponent to be playing multiple games. The opponents of the “simul giver” cannot easily monitor their opponent at all times. This is not true in a typical clock simul.
Further, in the clock simul, all players know the conditions in advance, and agree to play that round under those conditions. In the case of the player playing multiple games, only the “simul-giver” really agrees to that.
Also, in a regular tournament, all players may not have the same chance. For example, I have seen a player play multiple sections of a tournament, including playing up into one higher section. The opponents of the “simul-giver”, in that higher section, don’t have the same option.
Players can get up and walk around between moves in regular tournaments. This makes them (potentially) just as hard to observe at all times.
If the rules of tournaments allow players to enter multiple sections, then I would argue that all players are (perhaps without realizing it) agreeing to these conditions. Ignorance of a rule isn’t an excuse, or so says a very respectable individual in other contexts, so I’m going with that.
I don’t currently have the option of playing in U1600 sections, even though others do. Does that mean I am playing under different conditions from a 1550-rated player in the same event?
These two situations aren’t the same, especially when considering the practical application of Rule 20H.
The phrase “in other contexts” may be of importance.
I’ve run the Pennsylvania state scholastics for the last three years. We’ve had a one-day K-9 Under 1000 section that runs on Sunday, and a number of other sections that run in a different ballroom on both Saturday and Sunday. There have been a few players over the last three years who have played games in both the K-9 U1000 and in one of the two-day sections, despite the fact that the two ballrooms were actually on opposite ends of the host hotel, and the fact that the games were played at G/40 and G/90, respectively. How are those rated games any more valid than a player who takes on no more than four opponents simultaneously, with all games conforming to USCF rules of play and USCF match rules for rating difference, and all players having the exact same time control at the start of each game? (I’ve proposed these, and other, restrictions previously.)
Keep in mind, I’m not against having games in the first scenario rated. If the “simul-giver” in the first scenario chooses to do this, then that’s his choice, and he assumes the risks of degraded performance and the responsibility for following USCF rules (such as keeping notation). At least in the second scenario, all players know the conditions ahead of time, and there should be no 20H-related issues to handle.
Please compare this with the following quote.
Arguing for both these (implied) positions simultaneously requires logical acrobatics of which I am personally incapable.
So, is there a way of getting an official ruling on this, as opposed to a matter of opinion? If Basque System tournaments are legal and ratable, I would gladly hold one.
ETA: I did submit a query via the “Contact USCF” web form. Let’s see the response.