I meant to post this a couple of months ago. I was having a discussion with someone on how to list extra rated games while causing a minimum of adverse impact. We had the following ideas for guidelines. Note that we don’t want to make them rules, not least because I agree with Mr. Just that rules that can’t/won’t be enforced had better not exist in the first place.
If both players are eligible for prizes in the same section and would have that game count towards the prizes they are eligible for (including team prizes) in that section, it is not an ‘extra’ game, otherwise it belongs in an extra games section.
Thus games against house players (including adults at scholastic events) or cross-section pairings are extra games, but cross-round pairings are not. However, if player X is asked to play an extra game against player Y in a section (eg, a 5th game in a 4 round event), then that game goes in an extra games section, since it would not count towards player X’s prize eligibility, regardless of whether it counts for player Y or not
Extra games section(s) should have section numbers higher than all the prize-eligible sections, that way they will be rated after those sections even if the starting and ending dates are the same.
If that were the rule, which it isn’t, it wouldn’t be possible for a game to count towards prizes for one player and not the other, which is standard practice at CCA tournaments, for example. It goes beyond rule 28M1, The house player, which says “Sometimes the player [who would otherwise expect a bye] would rather play an unusually strong opponent than receive a bye. This is also acceptable, but if the strong opponent is rated too high for the section, the director may consider retaining the original bye and listing both players for a rated game in a higher section or an extra rated games section.”
Having said that, Alex’s 1-3 match how I usually handle extra games sections at non-CCA tournaments which I direct. Sometimes I’ve done it differently, such as by having a permanent house player in a section who only plays to make it even. Those games are reported as part of the section, and count towards prizes for the house player’s opponents.
One other point: there needs to be a separate extra games section for each rating system (not necessarily time control), e.g. there might be one extra rated games section for regular rated games and another for dual rated. I don’t bother having separate sections for extra rated games played at G/60 d5, G/45 d5 and G/30 d5; they all go in the Extra-Dual section.
Yes. I’m aware of that. I don’t think that it is fair for the higher rated player to be punished (and possibly subject to future byes) if he loses. YMMV (CCA’s certainly does). It also seems unfair to require a player to play someone far lower rated when perhaps he’d rather rest. I think there are many problems with the CCA method, and yes, I have voted with my feet.
No one is forced to play a cross-section game. The game counts for prizes for the player in the higher section, but he/she is marked in SwissSys as “never gets the bye”.
Another point about the CCA system: both players have to be eligible to play in the section where the game is reported. If, for example, an adult plays a rated game against a child who gets a bye at a scholastic tournament, even CCA would report this in an extra rated games section, assuming no other section was available, rather than in a scholastic section.
A possible exception is at a class tournament where players are restricted in their ability to play up, e.g. a player rated 1500 can’t enter the Class A section of a CCA class tournament but might be listed as playing a cross-section game in that section. Some CCA directors would move the game to an extra rated games section.
At FIDE norms tournaments like the World Open, a cross-section game where one of the players is in the Open Section is reported in a different section and isn’t FIDE rated. That’s less of an issue in FIDE rated tournaments which aren’t norms tournaments.
It’s not really necessary, but it’s what I do (except in one recent tournament where I had to list the extra rated games section first to work around a bug in US Chess’s ratings software). There’s something to be said for consistency. I like to list the sections in a logical order, from the highest to the lowest, with the extra rated games section last (although sometimes a side event, like a blitz tournament, is listed last). Other directors list them in what appears to be a random order. This seems to be most common with TDs who use WinTD.
One reason is that the performance will be rated after the performance in the actual games that count in the event. Does that really matter much? Nope.
But heck, most TDs I know do it in part because we like order. And if we figure out something adds to order, well by golly we will keep doing it. Even if it is just the order in our own minds.
Thanks Bob and Allen. Another person PMd me that statisticians say it is more accurate to do the many games before the few. I’m not sure why, but I won’t question it.
I wonder if there is any data on whether the results of ERGs are less consistent with the player’s ratings than “counting” games. I know my personal experience in ERGs has been rather poor; I just don’t care as much and am often more careless. In all of my ERGs I have been a house player. The fact that my opponent is always in the tournament probably would lead them to be more focused than me. That’s my excuse, anyway.
Actually, it works the other way with the calculation of ratings—the last games rated have (marginally) more effect than the ones immediately before them. However, I would prefer doing it last as well since it tends to be a “noisier” game (since it doesn’t count for the standings). If you rate it before the main section and the extra game is a significant upset, it would hit the ratings of all the opponents of both players (some positively, some negatively). If you do it after, it won’t have any effect on anyone else until the players involved play another tournament.
In the case of a cross-section pairing, it is often reasonable to list the game on the wallchart (and rating report) for one of the sections.
For example, if a 1900 player in the under-2000 section is paired against a 1700 in the under-1800 section, and the 1900 wins, it is logical to simply add the 1700 player to the under-2000 wallchart (and rating report). Then the 1900 is scored as a played win, rather than a full-point bye. The 1700 is listed in the under-2000 section with a played loss (and no other games), and in the under-1800 section as a full-point bye.
This is a bit more elegant than using an extra-games section, provided the 1900 wins. But if the 1900 only draws, or loses, then a separate extra-games section might be more appropriate. So it might be necessary to postpone the decision (as to where to list the game) until the game is over.
The same logic could apply to a house player. If the house player loses, list the game as a regular game in the regular section. Otherwise, include the game in an extra-games section, and list the opponent with a full-point bye in the regular section.
I would offer one cautionary bit of advice with cross-section games: If the TD is using pairing software, make sure to mark the player in the upper section as being ineligible for a full point bye. (I once observed a tournament in which the TD forgot to do so, and the same player ended up with two cross-section pairings (against players from a lower section) as a result. The parents of the player in question were understandably unhappy about this.
What is the rationale for having an extra game count for standings/prizes? Unless I’m missing something there are only 2 types of extra games - Bye player vs house player and bye player from one section with bye player from another section (OK there’s also house vs house, but that doesn’t apply here). So far in both cases I’ve always let the bye stand and put the game in the special extra games section. I haven’t done any CCA events yet, so I’m sure I don’t know all of the nuances yet.
With bye player vs house player is there any reason at all for this to count in the standings? Win or lose?
With bye vs bye unless the players are similarly rated (possible if the sections are based on grade or the higher player is playing up), one would expect the player from the higher section to win. Depending on the rating difference, the lower rated player is risking a lot if this game were to count. Sounds like CCA doesn’t count this for the lower section if I read the previous posts right, so that’s good. The higher rated player has less risk, but still has some. This seems like a disincentive for the player from the higher section to accept the game (and even more so from the lower rated if that one counted).
A cross section game may end up counting for the score of the player in the higher section and only being an extra rated game for the player in the lower section.
I’m not sure of the rationale, but the CCA rule is that bye player vs. bye player counts for the player in the higher section (who is not necessarily the higher rated, since some players play up into higher sections).
I can think of a couple of reasons, which I don’t necessarily agree with: (a) the TD avoids having to create an extra rated games section, and (b) the TD/organizer believes that whenever possible players should have to earn their tournament points over the board instead of being given full point byes.
As noted above, the game only counts for the player in the higher section. Some higher section players decline to play a cross-section game, either because they don’t want to risk losing the point they’d get for the full point bye or, more commonly, because they don’t want to risk losing rating points in case of an upset or because they’re playing up and are only interested in playing higher rated opponents. Many players do play the cross-section game, either because they’re out of the running for prizes anyway or simply because they want to play a game.
The point is to give both players a full-point – after all, both were given full-point byes to begin with.
Putting the bye-vs-bye game in an extra-games section will always accomplish this goal, since the main section(s) will still show a bye for each.
But putting the bye-vs-bye game in the section of the winner accomplishes the same goal, without the messiness of an extra-games section. The winner will get credit for his (played) win, and the loser will get credit for his full-point bye.
Of course, you have to wait to see who the winner is before deciding which section should list the game.
And there could be other problems. The game might be a draw. Or, the extra player added to the section may not be eligible (rating-wise, for example) for that section.
But in the absence of these problems, there can be a big advantage. Normally, a full-point bye kills a player’s tiebreaks. With an actual win, the winner’s tiebreaks might improve.