Different "byes" and assigned points

Running Chess Tournaments
1

I find the assignment of different types of “byes” to be very confusing, and would appreciate any aid in understanding it.

I guess maybe some help with the different entries in a cross-table: U, H, B, etc., is the place to start. What are the exact (official?) definitions of these, and how are they chosen or assigned by the TD? It seems a bit arbitrary.

Let me just pull one example from a recent cross-table to invite comment. This is a tournament result that I was looking at, but not one that I participated in personally. I stress that I am NOT choosing this to make comment about any of the individuals - most of them are unknown to me - but rather, only to illustrate my point of confusion.

I think this works as a link to the cross-table directly: main.uschess.org/assets/msa_joom … 0908255141
If not, you can access the results by event number: USCF event 200908255141 - the Ira Lee Memorial ¶.

In the referenced cross-table, you see a Swiss with five rounds. The players are listed by final score. The top three players received scores of 5.0, 4.0, 4.0 - making them three of the top four (there was one other 4.0) for the tournament.

But then look at the game details. For each of these three players, the scores are dominated by “B” byes. I had previously thought the use of “B” was only for the case where there was an odd number of players, and by necessity one had to be unmatched - and awarded 1 point for that round. But in that thinking I cannot see how any one player could ever get more than one “B” for a tournament. Instead, for these three players, there are a total of 8 "B"s recorded (plus one “U”) - well over half of their total 13 points, and even more than half of their total games or possible points (15)! None of them appears to have more than two actual "W"s.

So do these players actually finish at the top, as the table reflects, having actually only played fewer than half their games? Again, I don’t know any of these three - I am just confused over this accounting of results, and this was a perfect example to use to ask the question. How does this work?

2

It’s important to notice the statement:
“Crosstable data is NOT SHOWN in tiebreak order and does not reflect any distribution of trophies or prize monies.”
There are even times, where the results for rating purposes are not the results used for prize distribution or standings!

Many events that run for a month or more don’t have prizes or real standings. They simply include USCF-rated games from club meetings and the primary goal for the td is to get reasonable games for all the players who show up to a particular club meeting.

For serious tournaments, the usual explanation are:
U - unplayed games worth 0 points
H - requested byes worth .5 point
B - assigned byes worth 1 point

However, there are lots of occasions where these could be assigned for other reasons. For example, late entries could be assigned some number of points for earlier rounds resulting in some mix of U, H and B to get to the right amount (which could depend upon their rating). TD mistakes could also result in confusing distributions. For example, the situation where a person requested a bye but was accidentally paired could result with a H for him and a B for his opponent.

3

In such a situation, the game itself is generally rated, but in an ‘extra games’ section.

What I’ve never completely understood is why TDs award inconsistent results for ratings purposes, ie, something other than a win for player A paired with a loss for player B or a draw for both players. While infrequent, those show up in crosstables on MSA as an ‘N’ for the player with a win, an ‘R’ for the player with a draw and as ‘S’ for the player with a loss. (So instead of WL or DD for the two players you would see something like NN, NR or RS.) I’ve never had an event where it seemed necessary to do that.

4

Thanks, Tom - I can see what you mean from my recent (but limited) experience at my club. I was associating the B with “good” and U with “bad”, and that’s probably not at all accurate based on your note. Of course you’re right; most of these events do not have prizes and recognitions for “position”, per se.

I am a ‘C’ player and am below the median of what I think is a pretty strong club. If I show up all four weeks (as I try to) for a Swiss, I can pretty much count on this kind of sequence: Week 1, very difficult game against one of the club’s better players - probably 500 points above me. I haven’t fared well in these, but of course, there are learnings. Week 2, a game against a player weaker than me. Assuming I lose #1 and win #2, Week 3 will be my most competitive pairing - probably 100-200 points above me, which is my favorite scenario. If I lose #2, Week 3 is against a much weaker player; we have had a number of kids in our club lately, which is great - but most are relative novices (E or lower). Either way if I am at 1.0 after 3 weeks, Week 4 will again be a competitive pairing. So - a range of playing experiences.

Now I can see how an A or Expert player, who doesn’t make the first two rounds, would actually WANT to get those two "B"s and thus avoid a non-competitive pairing in their (3rd round) game. Similarly, an E player would best be served if he/she were ‘awarded’ U’s for missed rounds, to keep from being overwhelmed when they do come to play. A middle player (maybe B/C/D) might be assigned something in between - maybe U, H - or H,H - or B, H.

If so - how about this (actual) scenario? My club is in the middle of such a Swiss right now. I have not been able to make the first two rounds - one work commitment, one night at the ballpark. I am planning and hoping to play this week, however, and would really like a good match - preferably a ‘B’ or ‘C’ level opponent. Would it be advisable, and appropriate, for me to ask the TD to assign two 'H’s for the past two weeks, which I think would give me the best likelihood of such a pairing for the upcoming game?

Do I have the gist of it? It seems logical and I frankly didn’t understand it until you posted, and I reflected on the dynamics of the weekly games/ Swiss sequences in my club. Thanks for your feedback!

Tom Griffin ¶

5

A while back I was looking into the number of ‘Unplayed’ games in crosstables, there are some events where 25% or more of the results in them are ‘unplayed’. Your guess is as good as mine as to what was happening in those events.

BTW, when I looked at the data based on relative ratings of the two players, games against players about 100 points higher or lower are much more common than games against players with about the same rating. I think this is an artifact of the Swiss system, where the natural pairings are to pair the top half of the score group by rating against the bottom half of the score group.

6

I agree - that’s what I see as well. As such I think that playing in an occasional “quad” event, with the opposite dynamic, provides a good alternative experience.

7

The club where I play has rated games without the structure of a tournament. The director pairs players as they become available. This results in a large number of unplayed games as some players come early and stay late (making for a large number of “rounds”) while others play a single game.

I think that I would enjoy quads more, but the current format does have the advantage of allowing me to find a rated game even when I can’t get away from work until later. It also allows others to play who have earlier bedtimes by either choice or curfew.

8

Just revisiting the wrap-up question from my earlier, admittedly long-winded post. Does anybody have any thoughts on this as a potential player request (either its strategic or etiquette elements)? Thanks - Tom

9

What should the TD do if multiple players request similar considerations?

10

I can speak to that in at least my events. If you take a look at the Extra Rated Games section of the recently concluded New England Open

http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?200909079471.13

you’ll find a vast majority of unplayed games. I do that for aesthetic reasons. If there are multiple extra games going on at the same time, I list them in the same round, otherwise I don’t. Thus, if you played someone before someone else played someone else, your game would be listed before their game. I don’t imagine it causes any problems that way.

Alex Relyea

11

I’m not talking about ‘extra games’ sections, which are pretty much by definition going to look strange.

But there are main event sections (or single section events) where 25% or more of the games are notated as unplayed. This came up a while back as a potential indicator of organizers trying to run events where they don’t rate games involving non-members (a clear violation of USCF tournament rules), but figuring out what was really going on in many of those events was not possible.

12

Exactly the point of my question - I don’t know if it is appropriate to ask, as it may overconstrain (or pressure to overconstrain) the TD. I certainly am not looking to jump ahead of anyone in any kind of preference.

I’m just saying, if the system otherwise offers NO sorting function like this (I honestly don’t know if it does or not), I would prefer not to be grouped with either the 2.0’s or the 0.0’s after two rounds in which I didn’t play. In fact, the former would be less of the problem than the latter - but in either case, the resultant game would not be an ideal (for competitiveness) pairing. But if others are asking the same, they natually have equal priority to me. If middling players with byes get assigned middling pseudo-scores (as I am considering requesting), my issue is moot and I am happy that I’ll get a relatively competitive pairing - as ideally, others will as well.

I think I understand this (finally) and I want to again thank everyone for their responses. - Tom

13

As a TD I’d have no problem with someone asking a question like that.

My response would likely be tied to the prize fund of the event. If its a casual club tournament, I’d do what I could to get good match-ups. If its a tournament with any kind of significant prizes, then I’d probably stick purely to pre-announced rules.

14

You mean like the “Border War” section of this event?

http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?200908285781

It appears that there was even a forfeit in a cross round pairing. That would have to be unusual, to say the least. BTW, isn’t section2 a flagrant violation of the match rules?

Alex Relyea

15

Well, section 2 certainly looks like a way to get around the automated checks in the validation program. I may have to add some code.

16

Update: Code added and tested. Section 2 of this event should no longer pass validation due to match restrictions. I’m not sure what we should do about this (and most likely other) events that violate the match limitations but weren’t caught by the validation program, though.

(Note, there are valid reasons for rating sections that appear to be matches that violate the match limitations, but that’s an office override function, not something the TD should be able to do.)

17

If you make specific rules, you’ll have specific loopholes, which somebody will find a way to drive a truck through.

So manual intervention seems the only answer. But there’s no time for one person to manually check all the submitted results.

Good thing we have these forums – creates a lot of checks and balances.

Bill Smythe