FIDE Norm Tournaments - More Of Them?

Running Chess Tournaments
1

The Las Vegas Masters Tournament (http://www.clarkcountychessclub.com/masters/) is a 9 round, FIDE rated Swiss, that will take place from June 10-14 in Las Vegas.

The tournament has attracted 38 entries so far, out of a maximum of 40 players that the venue can hold. The reason for this success is primarily because of the National Open (http://www.lvchessfestival.com) that will take place from June 16-18, also in Las Vegas. This has enabled players to participate in a FIDE “norm” tournament and then go on to play in the National Open, while only incurring one travel charge.

The idea primarily came from the Berkeley Masters that was held in December (http://www.eastbaychess.com/tourney/05/fideswiss.html) who were also trying to “piggy back” on the North American Open that was held in Las Vegas in December, but they did not attract as many entries because of the additional travel costs involved and because of the holiday period.

I believe that this tournament will benefit many American IMs, FMs and other potential strong players by giving them the opportunity to play a strong field and give them the chance of norms.

I also believe that this type of tournament could easily be reproduced at some of the other major weekend events across the USA and I am hoping that the success of the Las Vegas Masters will encourage many more organizers to attempt such other tournaments.

Here are some organizational items that I would recommend to anyone wishing to attempt such a tournament:

Use foreign GMs! The US GMs wanted to receive large appearance fees for their attendance at the event, while foreign (primarily European) are willing to play for the chance of earning some additional cash at both the FIDE event and the weekend tournament, both of which they usually get a free entry. I am paying their accommodation fees, but some of the GMs are also staying together at both tournaments and this helps cut down costs.

Prize Fund: I believe the prize fund I am offering could be reduced slightly, but not much. I’m not sure how much emphasis players are really putting on the prizes rather than the norms, but I know some of the Under 2400 and Under 2300 players are looking at their specific rewards to help recouperate some of the expenses.

Organize it for the week after the weekend tournament. The Las Vegas Masters runs from the Saturday through Wednesday before the National Open, but players are having to pay for a Friday and Saturday night, which is a lot more expensive than the Sunday through Thursday. With hindsight, I may have been more inclined to organize it for the Monday through Thursday after the event so players could have saved some money on hotel fees. (Of course with the National Open this is more difficult since they have the US G/10 Championship on the Monday after).

Choose a cheap hotel! The actual venue of the tournament is in a chess club, but the nearest hotel (about half-mile away) is only $35 for Sunday through Thursdays, which is very reasonable.

Beware the Foreign IMs. Foreign players are a key ingredient in being able to offer norms (players must play a specific percentage of foreign opponents, unless there are at least 20 foreign players). To that effect I was offering a free entry, with prize money deducted, for foreign IMs. However, this is a gamble as they are more prone to dropping out and they have no repercussion for doing so, apart from leaving you one player short. Ask foreign IMs to confirm their travel and accommodation arrangements by a certain date, well before the tournament starts. That way if they don’t confirm then you can drop them and try to find replacements.

I’m sure there are other things that will be of use to organizers once we get closer to the tournament date and once the tournament is finished and I hope to be able to post something similar on conclusion of the event.

Chris Bird
Clark County Chess Club, Las Vegas

2

How about a forfeit deposit, refundable if/when they complete the tournament? Perhaps you could charge them the regular entry fee, then refund it at the end of the tournament if they do not drop out.

Or, to be a little less draconian, and if you run the same tournament again in future years, assess this deposit only against those who have dropped out in previous years.

Bill Smythe

3

It’s refreshing to see other organizers willing to go the route of FIDE norm tournaments!

After having played organizer and deputy arbiter over 5 FIDE norm event (1 in April 2005, 1 in January 2006, and 3 in April 2006 - these three all run in parallel) there are some words of wisdom I can offer here.

First I both agree and disagree with the comment on foreign vs USA GM’s. This depends on a number of factors such as where the event is, what else can be piggy backed (Swiss event, camp, etc.), and one of the most important things is the relationship you have with the GM’s. In Chicago we are lucky - we have 4 GM’s, 2 USA, and 2 MKD. Our USA GM’s of Shulman and Gurevich have both played for me before for reasonable rates. Yes they are local so travel expenses are nill, however it’s also because I’ve cultivated a relationship with them and don’t treat them only as someone I need for an event but someone that a symbiotic business relationship can be established with. At the end of the day they are in it for some basic reasons: it’s their profession, they love the game, and they want to see the game promoted more.

Are some USA GM’s high priced? Sure but keep it in tow with a number of various aspects - who are they? US Champ, over 2600 FIDE rated, etc? Yeah they will charge more? We can’t have our cake and eat it too… and unless the foreign GM is already around you can’t bet the farm on their participation.

Personally I don’t believe in the Swiss tournament for norms. A bad single or two rounds has a significant impact on norm chances while in a RR it’s not as much. It makes sense in events like the CCA events to have norm potential, but organizing a Swiss event only for norm purposes I don’t think is quite as plausible. What guarantee does a player have of norm potential if they start off with a bad round or 2 (bad can equal .5/2, 1.0/2 or even 0/2) - still possible in a RR to come back from this.

As a player, trying to prepare for a Swiss event is not as effective since you don’t know who your opponents would be. In a RR, a competent organizer would have pairings published in advance so the players can prepare.

Prize fund - this is an interesting one - you can play the game of a higher prize fund and lower appearance fees of the GM’s (within reason).

Playing space - this is also an interesting one - make sure wherever you go, such as a hotel, you have a clause in there regarding noise control. At my event in April we had an issue because the hotel didn’t tell us (1) that the national girls hockey league was have an elimination tournament and that the hotel was filled with noisy high school hockey girls, and (2) that the hotel general manager was a loud mouth with his office right next door to the playing area.

I don’t believe in ‘beware of the foreign IMs’. As an organizer you have to be careful on who you invite. I don’t invite foreign IM’s that either I personally have not communicated with or that I have not been referred to by a trusted person. Take for example my last event - IM Jan van de Mortel needed to withdraw from the event. He notified me as soon as he could and even helped find another foreign IM - IM Giorgi Margvelashvili from Georgia (the country, not the state) who ended up scoring his first GM norm in a tough crowd of characters (Shulman, Mitkov, Mikhalevski, Friedel, Finegold just to name a few). So it comes down to relationships again and knowing who to invite. I’ve invited the following foreign IM’s with no issue - IM van de Mortel, IM Smetankin, IM Margvelashvili, IM Almedia, IM Scekic, IM Matikozian.

In my opinion one of the biggest annoying factors for an organizer is the draws, especially among GM’s. One reason why I implemented the no draw in 30 moves rule w/o arbiter approval. Worked well in April as opportunities made themselves known for players to go in for the kill.

To answer this issue also is another interesting variation for a norm event called the Schiller System, created by IM Eric Schiller. Now this format is non-standard and requires FIDE approval from the Chairman of the Qualification Commission (which I received for my July 2006 event). In the Schiller System you have 4 teams of 3 players each. You play everyone EXCEPT your own team mates. You place all GM’s on 1 team in which will give all GM norm seekers the ability to meet their GM norm requirements AND gets around the bogus GM ‘professional draws’. Now they take a draw they lose rating points :slight_smile:

Another nice thing about the Schiller System is that it allows an organizer to invite 2 extra people for a 9R event. In a 9R-RR you have 10 players - 3 GM’s and 7 non-GMs (if you want to maximize the # of norm seekers). In a 9R-Schiller System, you have 3 GM’s and 9 non-GM’s!

Again you need advance permission for this type of event and I think this event will be pivotal for organizers here to be able to run more Schiller System events. We have to prove ourselves.

One of the best recommendations I can make is to purchase Stewart Reubens book on this topic - The Chess Organiser’s Handbook 3rd Edition - ISBN: 1843821702. A lot of materials are in there. No need to recreate the wheel where not required.

If you are interested in collaborating drop me a line at sevan.muradian@nachess.org.

–Sevan

4

I would like to see more FIDE rated events, especially ones designed to get US players norms.

However, there are a LOT of steps that have to be followed to get events rated by FIDE and even more to get norms.

Based on what I’ve learned in Turin, there nees to be some changes in how the USCF handles FIDE rated events and norms. FIDE is still using a mostly paper system for norms, but that doesn’t mean the USCF can’t lead the way in handling norm tracking via the Internet.

At a guess, you will see the following fairly quickly:

  1. A form to register FIDE rated events. In fact, it is likely that the USCF will require that any FIDE rated events that wil be submitted through the USCF be registered in advance with the USCF.

  2. A form for reporting norms earned at an event. Hopefully this will be tied in with norm tracking in the rating report so that we can double check that all reported norms are earned and all earned norms are reported.

  3. Some additional changes to the rating report to handle FIDE rated events better. Among other things, FIDE wants the date of EACH ROUND reported, though it isn’t clear how quickly that will be required. They also want the color of each game. Both of those will require changes to the tournament reporting format, but now I think I know what is needed to finalize a new format and get it to the pairing program authors in the next month or two.

There also needs to be STRICT time limits and HARSH penalties for exceeding them on FIDE rated events. That’s because FIDE charges the USCF stiff fees for late reports., though we don’t know what those late fees are until the next semi-annual billing cycle. (Late norm reports are IGNORED.)

5

Most foreign IM’s will laugh at a deposit. In most of the world, excluding the US, they can play nearly every month in a norm bearing event without paying a forfeit deposit and only a very modest EF. And at the end of the day the organizer needs the foreign federation player more than the player needs the organizer.

The best way, in my opinion, is to keep in contact with other organizers and run by potential players to see if there have been any issues in the past with them. Organizers working together is more effective and builds relationships.

6

Mike is right. There are a lot of hoops to jump through to make a FIDE event and one with norms to happen. I think one of the difficulties now for us is that we haven’t been doing them in frequency so its growing pains but it seems like we are on the correct path to get there.

Online registration of events would be a great thing, even if its just registering the event with USCF so they can send it in to FIDE. Same goes with an engine to do the norm forms (of course we still have to print it out and have the FA or IA sign it unless we get into electronic signatures and such). Personally I think it would be great functions to have in the affiliate section (hint hint) and I’d be happy to beta test it with you Mike (hint hint) :slight_smile:

–Sevan

7

Both of these already exist. The USCF can supply you with a Word file for FIDE registration. (in theory, you are required to register FIDE-rated tournaments in advance through USCF, though I’m ot sure how strictly this is enforced.) The norm reporting form is in the FIDE Handbook. Filling it out on screen is a little awkward since it is in PDF, but it is possible.

8

Having just attended the Technical Commission meeting in Turin and spent a fair amount of time talking to members of that commission, of the Titles and Ratings Committee, and to FIDE officials, I’m looking for something COMPETELY different that the current stuff, which quite honestly DOES NOT MEET ANYONE’S NEEDS.

Since the USCF must submit the rating report on all FIDE rated events held within the US and is supposed to be involved in the norm reporting process as well, it is very reasonable that we insist that organizers or TDs register those events WITH THE USCF, and let the USCF take care of registering them with FIDE.

Both of these tasks should be highly automatable.

FIDE is working on some new web forms for this purpose and to help in assigning FIDE IDs to new players, but I think those may only be accessible to the FIDE Ratings Officer for each member federation.

Norm reports and title requests are even worse, these are COMPLETELY manual at this point, though FIDE does put some information about norms up on their website, they collect this information FROM THE MANUAL FORM. This is an area where FIDE needs to put better information technology to work, and should be an area where the USCF can lead the way for a change.

9

How does that differ from the current situation? I was under the impression that this was already the case.

10

Very few FIDE rated tournaments held in the US are registered in advance with FIDE. There are only three USA events currently listed, the World Open isn’t listed on the FIDE website, neither is the US Open. :frowning:

Having a webform for TDs to register their FIDE events with the USCF, including the information that FIDE needs, such as the chief arbiter, that isn’t part of a traditional TLA, should help that process. (The chief arbiter may not be the chief TD for the event for USCF rating purposes, which creates additional problems.)

I heard a lot of horror stories at the FIDE Congress about their paperwork problems, some of which they are starting to address.

I was also informed that the USCF is one of the worst offenders in terms of getting paperwork submitted on time. I think we’ve gone part way towards solving that with the changes that were made to the FIDE reporting process last fall, but there is still more that we can do, including using their new electronic reporting format which I think will be mandatory as of January 1, 2007, though the original deadline was July 1st, 2006.

This format was just revised by FIDE, I’ll see if I can get a copy of the new format on the USCF website later this week. I think it still needs some more fields, that’s something I hope to work on with the author of the format in the next year, though he is very reluctant to change it further.

I’d like to see one unified form for submitting norms, rating reports and FIDE arbiter credits.

11

I think you’re trying to solve the wrong problem. It’s execution, not policy. I’ve been sending that form to the USCF for all my tournaments for over a year now.

I wouldn’t. (Unless you are referring to an internal form for USCF/FIDE use only.) Most tournaments do not use more than one of these, and combining them would force everyone to fight through an extra layer of complexity to carry out a simple operation.

12

Quite aware that both are available to do manually - i.e. download the form and then fill it out. Especially for FIDE registration of events it would help the USCF to have an automated method for submission. In this day and age of technology a simple web form to handle submission should be be an issue to do.

The USCF has limited hands to help out. What we can do to automate those features that are automatable (is that a word?) will help the USCF and the organizer.

Now I don’t agree with making a single unified form for all things FIDE. The forms should be kept separate because it is accurate that not all organizers / arbiters will need to use all forms. Automating is good, but integrating is not always required.

Now in response to the fact that USA events are not registered with FIDE. Glenn Panner and I communicated with USCF regarding the registration of our April 2006 event. USCF sent in the registration to FIDE and on the side Glenn emailed it to them as well. It never appeared on their website. This is the third time that has happened (once at each of our FIDE norm events in April 2005, January 2006, and April 2006). So there is a process breakdown at FIDE’s side as well as any process deficiency on our side.

–Sevan

13

There was some earlier discussion about appearance fees.

What is a typical range for appearance fees for a GM?

14

Depends on the GM, but $500-$1000 would not be unusual. This is really a question of supply and demand.

15

It depends. Damn I love that response :slight_smile:

No really it does depend on a number of factors:

  1. Is there travel involved that is only for your event?
  2. What is their rating?
  3. What is their status (i.e. are they something special like national champion, world champion, etc.)?
  4. What is your relationship with the player?

My rule of thumb for GM’s over 2450 is to compensate them $1000 but they are on their own for travel, lodging, meals. Now I’m lucky that I have 4 resident GM’s in Chicago but also we get a lot of traveling GM’s that come through looking for extra cash to pick up and are staying with people so their travel costs are really near nil really. GM’s under 2450 get $500 (btw all rating is FIDE).

Now if they are someone special then your fees will rocket up. I know some GM’s whose appearance fees are $10k but they are top 15 in the world. I know some US GM’s that think they can charge $3-5k plus expenses, but you don’t see them playing much in these types of events.

So it really depends. I recommend networking with other organizers or players that may have connections. It really helps. Feel free to drop me a line if you have questions or want to make connections with some players.

Sevan A. Muradian
sevan.muradian@nachess.org

16

Also it depends on the tournament specifics as well - # of rounds, prize fund, etc.

–Sevan

17

Thanks!

I know that there are lots of variables (is there another event that they were in the area to play already, do you expect anything out of them other than just showing up, is it GM No-one-has-ever-heard-of or GM Kasparov, etc.) I just wanted to get a feel for what the expectation was.

I would love to lure a GM to our area, but I’m definately not at that point yet where I’ll put $1,000 of my own money up to make it happen! :smiley:

Rob

18

Point of information: Did you mean “the chief arbiter is not permitted to be the same person as the chief TD”, or “the chief arbiter IS permitted to be a person OTHER than the chief TD”?

Bill Smythe

19

Neither, Bill. I was just noting that the chief TD of the tournament for USCF purposes is not NECESSARILY the Chief Arbiter for FIDE purposes.

The Chief Arbiter is the one who will sign any FIDE norm certificates, and I know that there were some problems at FIDE with title requests where the rating report did not include as one of the TDs the person who signed the norm certificate from that event.

20

ALL FIDE rated tournaments would use the rating report form, at least between the national federation and the FIDE office. All FIDE rated tournaments should list all the arbiters for arbiter experience credits, too.

The only thing missing at that point is any norms earned, and that’s not a LOT of data. Also, where better to indicate it since norm reports must list opponents, etc?

This also facilitates verifying the norm data against the rating data, which IMHO is a good thing.