I am starting to run more tournaments at the club, and wanted to create a set of club rules - not necessarily variations to the official rules, but clearer explanations to reduce confusion among our members, such as how byes are to be awarded. One topic is the house player. By history, and because it’s the only reasonable way to prevent an odd player from missing out on a game, the TD is also the house player. Because I am near the top of the club rating list, I wanted to come up with a fair way to have a house player; to avoid bad pairings as well as ensure a just prize allocation.
I did read through this thread (viewtopic.php?t=18112) and it seems like what I am proposing isn’t that strange, but I wanted to get more opinions on this before I submit to the other club members for approval.
Does this make sense? Is it a reasonable club rule?
From rule 28M1, note the paragraph immediately following the “TD TIP” on page 124: “It is not required that the house player be paired against the player who would otherwise receive the bye. Sometimes it is more appropriate to insert a relatively strong house player into a higher score group.” It is not necessary to assign full- and half-point byes to a house player, although that may be a necessary step to persuade pairing software to pair the house player in the desired score group.
There is no particular reason you have to change the full- and half-point byes to unplayed rounds for the rating report unless you are concerned about the appearance of the crosstable in MSA.
However, I think that your house player should be ineligible for prizes. Said differently, I think that if a house player is eligible for prizes, then he should be treated as described in the final paragraph on page 123 (again, from rule 28M1): “Such a player is paired normally whenever there is an odd number, not paired when there is an even number, and may even receive half-point byes if the tournament allows them.”
On the other hand, there is a plausible counterargument to this. The house player is already disadvantaged with respect to prizes by possibly being forced to skip rounds. Assigning the house player a full-point bye instead of a half-point bye or unplayed round presumably causes the house player to be paired against a tougher opponent. So, your suggestion may be sound.
I agree with Mr. Ballou here. It might look strange to have a 3.5 paired against a .5, say, in the official MSA report. It doesn’t sound like the TD would be doing it for prizes, anyway. If I were going to allow a permanent house player to receive prizes, I’d prefer not to give full point byes to the house player.
I didn’t want “determining prize distribution” to include the house player, and removing the unplayed bye points was my attempt to ensure that happens. But after reading it again, and your reply, I can see that I was trying to apply ineligibility the hard (and not guaranteed) way. Merely stating “the house player is ineligible for prizes” is sufficient, so it doesn’t matter how many points that player ends up with. But if instead I am going to take away the bye points, it’s still possible for the house player to win a trophy. Easier just to say ineligible.
But, what if the house player ends up playing every round? Shouldn’t that count as being a contingent ‘real’ player, and isn’t it only fair for the player to claim his place? Keeping the player eligible but removing bye points makes winning a trophy very unlikely, but when it does happen, the house player likely deserved it. Of course it’s easier to state “the house player is ineligible for prizes, unless he plays all rounds”…but now the general statement has an exception added to it, while “drop byes for house player” remains consistent.
An added bonus is reducing crosstable confusion - “how come Bob and Sam got trophies, when Dorothy scored more points?”. But then relyea makes a good point.
This is the most important thing. Some TDs with high ratings will pair themselves against the player who would otherwise receive the bye. This is not at all appropriate, if you ask me. It seems grossly out of line for an 800 player at 0-3 to be paired against a master or expert TD.
Of course, if the 0-3 player is told he will still get the full-point bye, and that his game against the TD will go into the extra games section, and if he is also given the option of not playing it, then that reduces the objection somewhat.
But how much better it would be for the TD to simply pair himself normally into the tournament! For pairing purposes, his score in unplayed rounds could be either 1, 0.5, or 0. Ideally, he should score himself so that he would be near the bottom, rating-wise, of the score group he ends up in.
Of course, that’s not so easy if the TD is one of the top-rated players. That’s when it gets difficult to be fair to everybody. Perhaps, in the later rounds, another anti-bye technique would be preferable, such as cross-round pairings.
Try removing yourself from the equation, and assume some other player agrees to volunteer as the house player. What do you make of taking away the byes then, either for prizes or on crosstable - what do you think that player would feel is fair? As TDs we very frequently do ourselves disservice feeling that is more fair, or to remove the appearance that we’re stacking the deck. I’m no longer convinced this is a correct approach, either to ourselves or the other players.
I’m trying to rethink our club’s policy on this as well, because I have learned how bad it is for my chess to try and be TD and house player. I keep finding reasons why I feel I have to play in, ranging from not wanting scholastic players to receive a bye, to getting itchy playing hands. And after every tournament I tell myself ‘never again!’ But I’m getting much closer to making that the policy.
My brilliant idea (untested and unproven) is that I will try to approach another player, one that may have a problem with affording the entry fee, and give free entry in exchange for being house player. (This doesn’t work so well in a $1.00 / week fee event.)
The house player will receive half points for unplayed rounds, pair into the round normally when needed, and be ineligible for cash prizes. I’m debating if a trophy is tied for should the house-player be by fiat be rated lowest on tiebreaks, or be eligible. In addition (as honey) I may purchase a low trophy ($5.00 ish) to read “House Player / TOURNAMENT / date,” or set it up that the player receives a series of free lessons with one of our coaches.
My ramblings aside, I think that if you see someone else than yourself acting as house player, you’ll come up with an equitable solution for your club. (If the house player then becomes you, rest easy that you have nothing to apologize for on the score of your integrity.) And I do believe that a solution should be tailored for your club - its size, rating spread, frequency of events, etc.
This sounds good, except for the half-points part. If the house player is extremely low-rated, zero points seems more appropriate. If extremely high-rated (compared to the rest of the players), full points might be better.
In general, I would think you’d want the house player to fit naturally into whatever score group he is paired in. He should not be the highest-rated in his score group. Give him whatever score would put him in the bottom half of his score group, but not all the way at the bottom. Perhaps about 3/4 of the way down from the top would be ideal.
I’ve just started taking on the TD role on a regular basis. I’m still trying to crack into 2000, and I’m sure acting as house player while being the TD will not help my chess goals. But our club meets one day a week, Monday nights, and while there are not many scholastic players, it still isn’t fair to have someone come all the way to the club (over an hour round-trip for some) and end up not getting a game that night. Our entry fee is low ($5 or now $10 for a month-long tournament), we only have trophies (no prize money), and the club runs pretty ‘lean’; those who show up intend to play rated chess, so there isn’t another group of players who show up to play informal games (or socialize) while the tournament is going on (and where a house player can be deputized from).
Thank you for your response, it is helpful. I guess I’ll have to over-think it some more.
What I recommend for house player policy (especially if the TD is also the house player):
Clearly mark on the wall chart (or announce) that the house player is ineligible for prizes.
Give zero-point byes for any rounds where the house player does not play.
If the house player is going to be available every round, pair him normally.
If the house player is only available sporadically, pair him against the bye player.
To me, this is the fairest solution for all the players, and gives an easily explained method for handling this situation that your regular players can count on seeing implemented. Good luck with your new TD duties.
What if the ‘house player’ is in the top 1/4 of the field?
Pairing him against the person who would normally receive the bye (usually the lowest rated player who has not already received a bye), is not likely to be a satisfactory experience for either player.
IMHO, this whole thread demonstrates just how hard it is to write comprehensive rules completely covering complex situations. At some point ‘TD best judgement’ has to enter the picture.
I was hoping to combine ‘best judgement’ with some kind of concurrence in the forums. That way, if someone did complain, I could print out this thread.
For simplicity’s sake, and to minimize unfairness (since it seems impossible to insert a house player and have everyone consider it fair), I’ll go with the following:
House player is not eligible for prizes (for our club that’s just trophies, and my wife doesn’t want me to bring any more home anyway)
When not paired, will receive a 1/2 point bye (not going to try to mix half and full point byes)
Will be paired normally (ie, based on score group)
I’m going to forget the ‘erase bye points’ I mentioned originally; the trophies will be awarded to the best finishers (minus the house player), and if the crosstable looks funny so be it.
IMHO, that is not nearly as big a problem as artificially inserting such a player into the field with an expected score that would cause him to be paired among the leaders. The house player is provided as a service so that every player can get a game. The house player should influence the outcome of the tournament as little as possible.
I agree with this, but I got the impression Mr. Strattner was looking for guidelines, as opposed to writing whole new sections of the rulebook.
Were you looking to have the house player play as a house player or as an extra player. If it is as a house player then simply use 28M1 and pair the house player in the midst of all the other players. Otherwise you risk putting a high-rated house player against a weak player at the bottom with a greater risk of influencing the outcome of the class or under prizes than you would if the high-rated house player was paired as the player’s strength would normally indicate.
If you are looking at an extra player then the huge mis-matches in those games won’t hurt anything because they would go into the extra games section.
The question of which approach to use is answered by determining whether the house player is expected to be available for most/all of the event.
If you expect the house player to be available every round (which is typically the case when, for example, the TD is the house player), then pairing the house player with whatever score he has is, to me, most sensible. This can lead to an odd-looking crosstable on occasion. But it’s explained easily enough - and you don’t have to make artificial pairings that way either.
If the house player is only stepping in for one or two rounds, just pair him against the bye…and be sure to rate the extra games section in the right order.
Sometimes, players with nothing but a full-point bye win class or under prizes. Such is life.
The house player’s sole purpose is to ensure that every player has a game. My preference is to pair that player as naturally as possible without affecting prizes, and if I must affect prizes, I’d rather affect the lowest prize I can.
Also, if this higher-rated house player is only going to be available for the one round, it probably makes more sense to have an extra games section where you’d put that rated game, and the bye player would just keep his bye for tournament purposes.
There are probably exceptions I haven’t thought of, but in most cases I suspect it is better to take games that are NOT part of the tournament standings (like games against house players, especially if the player receives a bye for future pairing purposes) out of the sections those players are in and put them in an extra games sections.
The Ratings Committee is going to be looking at the possibility of combining (some) sections for ratings purposes, but there are a lot of details to be ironed out before that might occur, and several of those details could derail it. I doubt we would be likely to see that change occur until some time in 2014 at the earliest.
