Of course if Mr. Bacon were to organize a tournament, he could do it any way he liked!
Alex Relyea
No, No, No! That 1-3-2 format is a mess. Allowing two or three half point byes? Just to accommodate one or two players who have all sorts of conditions before they play? No! As an organizer/TD, I balk at giving more than one half point bye. Anything more allows players to game the system by avoiding uncomfortable pairings and sneak into a prize rather than earn it through play. Convenience for you is a nightmare and an extra expense for me. Three rounds of slow play on a Saturday have become passe, just like adjournments.
Weekend tournaments have always stepped on religious obligations. There are always people who want some special consideration just because his particular sect holds services at a time which is inconvenient for tournament play. Jesus, Yahweh, Vishnu, Allah, et al. will not send lightning bolts if you play in a weekend tournament. Worship can be done privately and silently while you play. If you are that devoted, there are tournaments that have rounds during the week. Oops, that’s right, some have a bedtime at 9 pm and won’t play in any tournament with faster time controls, or don’t want to play after a long day of work, or have a thing about Mondays, Wednesdays or playing on their birthday. Too many conditions.
What’s next? Do we have to provide a robe and bunny slippers? It is enough that we provide triple weighted sets, boards, digital clocks, soft drinks, snacks, and pizza, in an air conditioned environment, and finish at a time so that you have the rest of the evening to yourself. Usually for an entry fee of $8. When people complain about the free pizza and that we should provide hundreds of dollars of prizes rather than trophies for the same price, it makes me want to %$#&*@!
While I’m not unsympathetic to Mr. Magar’s points, it should be noted that the prime objection he has to multiple half-point byes could be overcome by requiring them to be declared prior to the first round the player plays and subsequently not allow them to be rescinded. It’s awfully hard to game the system that way, but legitimate needs of the players can be met. Now personally I’m not willing to pay an entry fee if I’m going to play only 3 rounds out of 5, but as long as the tournament structure doesn’t allow system-gaming I see no reasonable objection to allowing them.
Under that scenario, the difference between the Bacon plan and the typical round 1 option is simply that Bacon allows a player to choose to play both. The player who takes multiple half point byes pays for them in the form of giving up a full point in the standings, handicapping him for prize purposes. On the other hand, the extra round provides extra margin of error for the player who takes 2 byes.
The organizer can’t make allowances for every possible need/whim of potential players, of course. The half-point bye is sufficient to cover any reasonable need.
Vishnu isn’t going to send lightning bolts, but Shiva might!
This 1-3-2 format was used for many years (it may still be used for that matter) for the Minnesota Open. When I was a kid (growing up in the suburbs of Minneapolis/St. Paul), this was a very important/strong tournament - partially because it was the primary qualifying method for the Minnesota Closed State Championship.
With all due respect for Mr. Magar my idea was not to allow anyone to “game the system,” but to accommodate as many players as possible. Some may want to play all six rounds, while others cannot because of “real world” obligations. The fact is that as it is now many players “game the system” when taking a last round bye, which should not be allowed. Period! While working at the Atlanta Chess and Game Center (the official name), I encountered many players who just wanted to play Chess, but could not attend all rounds, for whatever reason. We tried to accommodate all that wished to play. With six rounds those like me who did not wish to play at night could still play four rounds. That is not possible now. Allowing two half-point byes up to and including the penultimate round would allow one to play the Mulfish schedule. One would still feel part of a tournament. That cannot happen at the LOTS. One would have to take a half-point bye and a goose egg. This entered my mind when deciding weather to TRAVEL what is not a long way to travel. This thread is, after all, about TRAVEL. The game has become shorter, and will continue to do so. With that in mind, and the fact that a G/2 is considered a “classical” game, three games a day is not what it was previously.
In addition, I had in mind having to declare in advance any bye taken. That is because ALL byes should be announced in advance. Many years ago I was crushed in the last round Sunday afternoon after having played a long game the previous night. My opponent came to the board looking fresh as a daisy, while I was a bit haggard, to say the least, having played a long game Saturday night, and another long game Sunday morning. I was not pleased and said something to the older gentleman, thinking he had spent the time in church. He smiled and said something along the line of, “I can understand why you would feel that way, but please try and understand that at my age I can simply no longer play an early morning round after having played a long game the previous night. You will understand when you get to be my age.” I answered by saying, “Then why did you not take a bye in the third round.” He had a quizzical look on his face as he cogitated…“Hummm,” he said, “Maybe I’ll try that next time.” He was right because as I’ve grown old his words have stayed in my memory.
Being agnostic I have always felt similar to Mr. Magar when it comes to religion. The best thing I’ve heard on the subject was when the Legendary one, after being informed the player he should have been facing had taken a bye, said, “When I get to the board Sunday morning, I am in MY church!”
Nevertheless, after having become better acquainted with my friend Michael (Mulfish) Mulford, I would like to ask, “Is there any better reason to miss a game of Chess?” This was the dilemma posed by the book I consider the best novel I’ve read, “Magister Ludi: The Glass Bead Game by Herrman Hesse.” glassbeadgame.com/
Simply put, "Are game players a part of the ‘real world,’ or separate from the ‘real’ world? For some religion is placed above Chess, while others place Chess above the ‘real’ world. There should be a place in Chess for both.
Mr. Bacon, and all those concerned with accommodating as many players as possible, should keep in mind that few players enjoy playing tournaments where they feel they will have no chance to compete for prizes, and that except in the most remote areas there are enough tournaments to choose from that it is generally possible to wait until one that suits your preferences turns up.
Alex Relyea
Mr. Relyea, please define “few.”
As for “…if Mr. Bacon were to organize a tournament,” I can guarantee everyone that the odds of my organizing a Chess tournament are much less than a Presidential candidate losing the total vote by three million votes becoming POTUS.
Did you ever notice how people who are willing to tell you how to organize your tournaments are completely unwilling to organize tournaments themselves?
Alex Relyea
During the seven years that I served as President of the Georgia Chess Association I cannot tell you how often someone would come up to me and tell me of a great new activity that the GCA should organize. Many of these ideas had merit. My response to those was something along the lines of, “That sounds interesting. Since it’s your idea, why don’t you take the lead in pursuing this, and we’ll work with you on it.” Sometimes they left skid marks…
As someone who has played in USCF tournaments since 1970, having played in half the states in this country, I feel the right to suggest improvements has been earned. I have never “told” anyone how to organize their tournament. My interest in Chess was in playing the Royal game. Most of the organizers I have known would welcome most input, and listen to anyone who wished to share. Some, Bill Goichberg comes to mind, take the time to question players. One possible reason was that Bill was a player. One of the reason for having a forum is for members to express their ideas. Many of those who volunteer their time to organizer events, such as the highly esteemed Scott Parker, do so for reason I have had a hard time understanding. He, and other organizers read the forum. I have always thought that those who do organize, even those with whom I disagreed, personify altruism. I have not done so because I’ve had no desire. Back in the day I helped Leland Fuerstman with the organization of the Point Lounge Open. It was held in a bar Saturday but had to be moved, unexpectedly to another location Sunday. Need I say that was enough for me…
Since Mr. Relyea, who wrote, “…few players enjoy playing tournaments where they feel they will have no chance to compete for prizes…,” did not define “few” I would like it to be known that I completely disagree with the use of the word “few,” no matter how it is defined. Tim “The Dude” Bond once said he thought what it took for a friendship was, “Mutual interest and mutual respect.” I have always had respect for those who shared my interest in the Royal game. This was always foremost in my mind when working at the ACC. Allowances are made for those who share our passion. It has been my good fortune to talk with with many players, from GMs, including World Champions not limited to only Tigran Petrosian and Anotoly Karpov, and thousands of players of whom you have never heard. It has been my experience that they all played for love of the game. Only a few play Chess expecting a reward at the end of the tournament, yet they returned. For most players, having played a game worthy of showing others was all the reward they needed. They may have gone 1-4, but they had that one game, and would show it with relish. It is the game that matters; only the game.
I have grown old and seen many changes in Chess. One of the most dramatic changes has come with the influx of those who do not share our passion but only want to “run things.” Unlike those like Bill Goichberg, who played Chess internationally, they do not share the scars inflicted upon a real player, and therefore have little, if any, empathy for those who do play. I have seen real gentlemen, such as a testy Scott Parker, leave in a huff after having had his clock cleaned in the skittles room. Scott has known the “agony of defeat,” as have we all. Because of that he is one of, if not the most empathetic organizer I have known.There was a time when the President of FIDE was a GM, and in Max Euwe’s case, a former World Champion. Bill Hall, who held an important position (forgive me, but I cannot recall exactly what position, and I visited him at USCF HQ once) was a player. Don Schultz was President of numerous States, including the Great State of Georgia. Don was a player I faced many times. These people understood fellow Chess players. Things have changed…
I guess I don’t understand your ‘things have changed’ opine. If you are referring to the leadership of US Chess, it still is and has been led by players who have at least as long a resume as you. I served on the EB for nearly 10 years - my chess playing includes state junior high school, senior high school, junior championship and state championships in multiple states as well as somewhere around 30 Grand Prix tournament wins. We have other Board members with plenty of ongoing tournament play, such as Chuck Unruh, who has been an NM in the past. We have lots of tournament organizers, like Mike Neitman, and tournament directors, like Allen Priest. What exactly are you referring to?
To me, it sounds like you don’t really know what you are talking about.