It is a better pairing in the abstract, its not something I would want to perform. Since it was not a USCF event, and only a scholastic event would be more willing to follow Tim Redmens’ position. As having one player have BWBBB will give the player 4 blacks with 1 white. Since the roster was non-USCF members without a common rating for a roster, the roster was at random. It is a little hard to understand how with 70 players someone could get a BWBBB, but it did happen.
Can understand someone having 3 blacks in a row with a large number of rounds with a small group of people. As to follow Tim Redmens’ position with a large number of rounds, with a very limited number of players did give directors no rational way to follow the rule.
29E5f. Colors in a series. No player shall be assigned the same color three times in a row, unless there is no other resonable way to pair the score group or unless necessary to equalize colors.
If there was 7 players in 5 rounds can support BWBBB, the tournament did have 70 players.
Since it was a non-USCF event, there is a rational way to equalize the colors.
If it was a USCF rated event, would have gone with a BWBBB. Its’ a little strange the only time the director made any change was on this one and last pairings from the software. And a change to the pairings with the top players in the last round. If the pairings were changed in the non-prize rounds and other rounds would not had much of a problem. Its’ a little strange out of 175 games [(70 players / 2 = 35 games) (35 games x 5 rounds = 175 games)] only one we know of was changed. Since this would change other top boards, we can say it could have change just two games. If the pairings works out so fine for 174 games, why did this one with the top board became so wrong?
For myself, if I was going to over turn the software program. It would have to be something else then the color history. If there was no byes the event should have had 175 games. Its’ just a little strange 174 games were right, and the one wrong was the first board in the last round. If this pairing was wrong, then the director did over look 174 games with the software. Since it was a non-USCF event, would have needed something else to over turn one pairing from the software.
Did you see the word or between cash award and trophy? If the event has cash award or trophies, thats the organizers problems as Mike Nolan would say. I’m just looking into the color history for the pairings.
I did miss the “or” and I also missed your distinction between trophy and trophies. I agree with Mike that it’s the organizers problem if tie breaks have to be used to determine who gets the only trophy or who gets the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place trophy. The types or quantity of awards shouldn’t have any bearing on how the pairings are made. Score groups have a higher precident than color history. To deny the 2 players with perfect scores from meeting in the last round because you have a problem with their color history is artificial and unfair to both those players and the players half a point behind them that are hoping for a draw on board one.
Can someone please explain to me what the other reasonable pairing of the (4) score group would be under 29E5f? Maybe I’m just dense here, but I don’t see how 29E5f1 has any relevence, since we are talking about the last round, and there doesn’t seem to be any other way to pair the group.
Also, I don’t understand why pairing software is presumed to be correct. Isn’t the TD ultimately in charge of doing the pairings? Aren’t we supposed to be able to do pairings without the computer? Why would we defer to the computer when it makes pairings that we disagree with?
If last round pairings are going to take prizes into consideration (ie, pairing class players against each other when in contention only for class prizes), that should be an announced variation.
And IMHO that makes it part of the organizer’s tournament design, not a TD issue.
29E5f1 is relevent. It’s justifying the 3rd black in a row. Also, it makes no difference whether it’s cash or trophies. They should be paired the same. I also don’t see why you would have to advertise you’re going to be using the USCF rulebook. The TD made the right call. I’m questioning the pairings leading up to the final round.
If there is going to be a problem with the pairings that a program does it will most likely occur in the final round(s) in the score groups with the fewest players. In the cases I’ve seen it is usually due to the parameters that were set rather than the pairing program logic itself. You should always check to see if the program settings are what you really want them to be.
The first example that comes to mind is from the Illinois Open final round in 2003. The Sr. TD doing the pairings thought that the top board pairings looked bizarre and had an excessive number of color conflicts. When I reviewed them I agreed, and spent some time to figure out the best pairings (and made me slightly nostalgic for the convenience of cards for doing a manual pairing). After I had done so the Sr. TD looked at them, changed the program’s pairing settings to allow limited interchanges, and then the program did the same pairing I had done. The problem was not with the program, but with the settings that had been set.
I feel it is worthwhile to do a review of the pairings for the small score groups. That was done at the supernationals for the final rounds, and in my section I had the time to check both the top and bottom score groups (the ones with the fewest players to use for making adjustments).
I always try to look at the pairings to make sure their correct. Especially at the Nationals because you have more time plus a National title on the line. They have big time players & coaches there also & they will pick up anything that isn’t right. They will let you know about it.
Rule 29E5f1 would be relevant if the tournament director did advertise or made a statement before the start of round one. The rule is a variation, and a variation needs to be explained before the start of the first round. Then the rule does not justify the 3rd black in a row.
It is a little strange with 70 players after the 4th round only having two 4.0 players. Would say having two players being BWBB and 4.0 is a little strange. Im not going to say having one player be BWBBB is wrong, I just wounder how the director did manage to give the player black. As it is a scholastic event and they have no ratings, both have the same color history BWBB, how did the director come up with who got white and black? I cannot use the rating to pick the color, or the color history as they have the same history.
There are pros and cons with any pairing used. The computer software is just as sound as the directors pairings. Since rule 29E5f1 was not advertised or told at the event; the director as much as I know only changed one pairings out of a possible 175 games; then being a non-USCF event would say the computer software has better grounds. My question on the director change the pairings, why only change it on this one and the one so important to the out come of the trophies or prize money?
I’m afraid I don’t understand your point. 29E5f (the basic rule without the variation) says that you must pair within the scoregroup (three in a row or not) in any round. The variation 29E5f1 allows you to break the scoregroup to avoid three in a row except in the last round. Dropping the two 4’s was simply not a legal pairing under the current rules.
I agree it’s strange. Thats why I was curious about how many sections. There used to be the rule in the last round higher rated gets due color. That would be black or white. Someone told that changed in this edition by I have not checked.
Your argument now seems to be that since it was a non-rated event, there was no need to follow the USCF pairing rules. If you take that position, I’m not sure thare’s any point to further discussion, since you could decide to pair by height and weight if you felt like it.
Of course it’s possible that there were other questionable pairings in the tournament. The point is that this one was demonstrably wrong, and had to be corrected. You don’t release crimilas because their accomplicies got away.
It is actually more likely to get odd color histories in a tournament of this sort. In a ratings-controlled swiss, the ratings are supposed to be a reasonable predictor of the results. By alternating the higher-ranked players, you make more likely (though not certain) that the smaller score groups in subsequent rounds will be susceptible to color balance. In a “random” swiss, it is entirely possible to get leaders with BWBB.
It’s a little more complicated than that. “Color history” is now more important than “higher ranked gets his due.” (Though I can’t think of any way this could apply in the case cited.) Personally, I always use the “last round toss” variation, but that’s a matter of taste.
If both players were unrated, the color would be assigned randomly, the same way the players were sorted for pairing in the earlier rounds.
It was a non-USCF scholastic event. Having 70 scholastic players would not all be unrated, as some would be USCF members with some rating. If I was going to have a non-USCF scholastic event, would place the ones with a rating in the top of the roster. The ones without a rating random at the bottom of the roster. In fairness, why use USCF ratings when the majority would not have any.
The new rule is color history then rating. Since both players are BWBB, both players need to get white in the next round. With the color history, since they are equal would have to use the players ratings. Since the color history is the same and no rating, how the director did pick the color black would have been challenged with any adult player.
Say you have BWBB and the other player has the same rating as yourself. Your not going after a trophy worth $7.50, but a prize of first place worth $175 for first and $150 for second. Would you be happy with the director after finding out you got black. Then to find out you could have had white with someone in a lower score. Having the director say he did not like the pairings, then say I just picked you for black as I could not think how to get around with due color.
Since the color history is the same, without a rating to pick who would get white. Picking who gets white and who gets black, is just a judgement call from the director. Is not picking the player to get black just as bad.
John,
I disagree. When you look at 27A2, Basic Swiss system rules, “Equalizing colors can have priority over 27A2 (see 29E5f, Colors in a Series; 29E5f1 Last round exception”. Any other round and you wouldn’t have worried about score group they both would have gotten white. That is the way I view this situation.
Hypothetically, if you had to give one of them their due color and Hypothetically they have the same rating, the TD would not be able to decide on their own who gets what color. Flip a coin. Someone is going to be upset no matter what you do.
Certainly, but that’s a meaningless quibble here. Since this is the 5th round, you can’t equalize colors. In an even-numbered round, you would have a point.
Fliping a coin just to over turn a computer software?
Lets get past the idea its’ a scholastic tournament and the prize is a $2.25 trophy. Let make for big money like $300 for first place and the title of the state championship. Do you want to be the director that had a hand on picking the next state championship with a coin flip. If white did win this game, everyone is going to question the champion for the rest of his life.
SwissSys has a setting for last-round toss. I assume WinTD has as well, though I’ve never checked. Before computers, I simply wrote “toss” next to the pairing, and the plaeyrs would toss for colors when they arrived. Some TDs prefer to leave the “higher ranked gets his due” turned on for the last round. Chacun a son gout. I agree that having the TD do a physical toss is a bad idea, if for no other reason than that the loser is bound to start whining “I wanna toss myself!”
