Uh huh. And that’s why you made a bizarre comparison to fixing games, and replied heatedly and at length to anyone who has suggested that there’s nothing wrong with the practice.
Since it seemed obvious that there’s no ethical problem with half-point byes in the last round, I thought you must have some argument in mind to the contrary.
But apparently, you had nothing in mind. Somehow, that no longer surprises me.
To whom does it seem obvious that there’s no ethical problem with half-point byes in the last round, edgy? (Entry Word: edgy 1 feeling or showing uncomfortable feelings of uncertainty)
It would SEEM that it is UNFAIR to award a gift half point in the MONEY ROUND to a player, who would benefit from NOT PLAYING, as opposed to a player who actually PLAYS a last round money game, and loses. Yes, the player who lost had the same opportunity to take the FREE HALF POINT. For him to be passed by a player who did not even play a game just SEEMS wrong.
I am not a philosopher, and am honest enough to admit that I do not have an answer to the question.
As for what’s in my mind, sir, if you knew, I’m certain you would be surprised!
baconlog.blogspot.com/
blog.chess.com/nocab
There’s a whiff of the lynch mob or the lemming migration about any overlarge concentration of like-thinking individuals, no matter how virtuous their cause.-P. J. O’Rourke
Thank you, Mulfish. All this huffing and puffing about taking a half point bye in a Tuesday night Game30 tournament! As John McEnroe would say, “You can’t be serious!”
me
In my statement (as someone else has already pointed out) If I say it is fair and consistant, then there is no way it can be considered unethical.
Your exaggerations as the the unjustice done to players who lose in the last round are bad satire at best. As long as the requests are early and you are consistant as a TD/Organizer, ethics need not come into the equation at all. There is no way a player can know in the early round that they are guaranteed to go into the final round in money contention and the ‘free half point’ will put them into some cash.
Looking at this thread, to everyone but you.
I have more in mind the first couple of definitions on urbandictionary.com; also my first name and last initial. Mocking someone’s name or handle is a pretty silly form of argument. But if you enjoy it, I wouldn’t dream suggesting you forgo such a simple pleasure.
Why does that seem unfair to you? As you say, both had the same opportunity to take the bye, and the guy who plays the last round has the chance to pass the bye-taker by winning his game, or at least tie him by drawing.
I doubt it, unless it were something measured and reasoned.
Me, too.
Perhaps you recall a year or so ago, when Ray took a zero point bye in the last round in a weekend event at the House. He intended to play all five rounds but took ill and could not play the last round and make the long drive to FL. He actually had a full point lead, and this allowed Kazim Gulimali to tie him for first.
Since Joseph and Sam had no way of knowing whether the bye would help or hurt them, I see no problem with their choice. Similarly, in my G/45 event, 9 times out of 10 my bye would have hurt me. I usually beat two lower rateds and lose to one high rated player, and 2.5 is never worth anything. This time, because I (unintentionally) gave up a swiss gambit draw in Rd 1, the bye was helpful, but the odds were against me. Most players don’t take them for strategic reasons.
The important things are (1) to decide on the bye policy well in advance of the tournament, and announce it in all pre-tournament publicity, and (2) to enforce the policy strictly, consistently, and without exception.
If the TD is a different person from the organizer (or maybe even if they are the same person), it is also important for the organizer to adopt a policy the TD can live with. If last-round byes are prohibited, but some soft-hearted (or soft-headed) TD listens to a sob story and awards one anyway, there could be hill to pay from other players.
Bill Smythe
Talked with Mulfish today and we agreed that these two comments left on the BaconLOG adroitly summed up the arguments:
Anonymous said…
For anyone to say there is no difference between the first round and the last round is analogous to saying there is no difference between the opening and the endgame. After the first round, there is the second round. After the penultimate round, there is the LAST ROUND! Things are decided in the last round. After the last round, there is the next tournament.
Whether or not it is a half point or a full point, the fact is that it should be EARNED, not given, in the last round. Anyone who cannot understand that fact is ignorant.
September 19, 2008 12:13 PM
Anonymous said…
After a tournament is over, when the final result is tallied, it makes no difference which round the half point was taken. A half point added to the total is still just a half point, no matter what round it is given. Anyone who cannot understand that simply fact is IGNORANT!
September 19, 2008 2:39 PM
We also agreed they are both right…Guess this thread can now be locked…
baconlog.blogspot.com/
blog.chess.com/nocab
There’s a whiff of the lynch mob or the lemming migration about any overlarge concentration of like-thinking individuals, no matter how virtuous their cause.-P. J. O’Rourke
I would say that they both wrong.
If you take a bye in round 1 it changes the pairings that you end up with. In theory you will get games that aren’t as hard because you will be playing players in lower score groups. (even this is a bit of a gamble due to upsets etc)
I’m sympathic to the argument against the last round bye. But I also can view it as strategy if a player wants to play it that way. (sort of like football where they rarely go for the 2 points afterwards but instead choose to go for just the 1 extra point afterwards.) The strategy isn’t to simply win any individual game but to win the tournament or to win your class prize. In other words the game is the tournament not the individual rounds.
I’d like to see some empirical evidence on this – examples of someone taking a last-round bye winning a) first place, b) a place prize, or c) a class prize (specify class). Offhand, I can’t think of a single example of a last-round bye winning first, and maybe two (over 25 years) of tying for a place prize.
It happened at the New England Open this year
http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?200809013271.1
Shmelov’s half point bye backed him into a three way tie for first when GM Ivanov lost to Cherniack.
Alex Relyea
Nine times out of 10, any prize (whether place or class) is won by a player who (a) has a plus score,[b] AND /b wins his last-round game. Therefore, taking a last-round bye is more like giving up a half-point than getting a free half-point. (The half point is less than his “expected”, or necessary, score to win a prize.)
One of my players in a 4-round plus-score asked for a last-round bye, and chortled throughout the early rounds about his brilliant strategy. But after 3 rounds he had 1.5 points, ensuring that, with his last-round bye, he could not win a prize.
Bill Smythe
You’re going on the assumption that the player taking the first round bye would have gotten paired down in round 1, and barring an upset would be playing another one pointer. So in theory the 1/2 point bye might giving him an easier pairing. However I’ve seen players take a 1/2 point bye and get paired against a GM who also took a 1/2 point bye. That pairing would not have happened in the first round unless it just happened to have been where the break occurred. So much for the swiss gambit. That would be an accelerated swiss gambit now having .5 out of 2 instead 1 out of 2.
I have seen middling masters after winning round one look at the wall chart and going on the assumption that he wins in again in round 2 will face a GM in round 3. So he takes the round 3 1/2 point bye to avoid the GM and perhaps slide in with 3.5 by winning round 4. I’m sure Steve Immitt could tell you how many times this stratagy has been successful since it’s often employed in his 4 Rated Games Tonight tournament on Thursday nights. However Steve is very consistant in insisting that all bye declarations be made by start of the 2nd round.
Since the 1/2 point bye for the last round has to be committed to so early there’s no guarantee that a player using it for strategic reasons will even be in the running come the end of the tournament. Maybe someone else in their class is having a really good tournament and wins the class with a higher then expected score for that class. Or if the player is using it to try to win the tournament he may get upset, and not being able to play for a full point in the last round totally knocks him out of contention.
My last round 1/2 point bye strategy is what I call the pre-emptive bye. Take last round bye to avoid getting a full point bye before the last round in tournaments where I’m at the bottom of the wall chart. 
I think what irks me more then strategic 1/2 point byes, are re-entries where a player can start over 1/2 point byes and get another shot. (This could be its’ own thread.) There have been the rare moments on Thursdays where I’ve been in the running for the under 2000 prize with 2 points, but somebody re-enters after starting 0-2, wins his last two games and gets a 1/2 point bye for 1 of the “missed” rounds. He actually had same number of real points but with the re-entry has an extra 1/2 point so instead of us tying for the prize he wins it outright.
I’m glad to see I’m not the only one who thinks this. (I don’t allow re-entries in my tournaments, by the way.) And yes, this probably ought to be a separate thread if anyone wants to pursue it.
I can guarantee that the rfeditor will rise exponentially in the estimation of The High Plains Drifter, aka, Life Master David Vest, upon his hearing that John Hillery does not allow ZOMBIE chess!
See ZOMBIE CHESS in the BaconLOG, Friday, July 4, 2008.
baconlog.blogspot.com/
blog.chess.com/nocab
There’s a whiff of the lynch mob or the lemming migration about any overlarge concentration of like-thinking individuals, no matter how virtuous their cause.-P. J. O’Rourke
Here’s an example of a last round half-point bye securing clear first place.
Here’s some data, not that I expect it to settle anything. 
This looks at events with 4 or more rounds where a player had a last round bye and finished clear first, tied for first or a half point out of first place. I’ve limited this to events since January of 2006 and to players rated 1400 or higher at the start of the tournament.
37 players who took a half point bye in the last round finished in clear first place.
34 players who took a half point bye in the last round finished in a tie for first place.
81 players who took a half point bye in the last round finished a half point out of first place.
By contrast, 1305 players who drew their last round game finished clear first, 2066 players who drew their last round game finished in a tie for first place and 2502 players who drew their last round game finished a half point out of first place.
To put it in a bit better perspective, using those same constraints, how many total people took the 1/2 byes last round over that period of time and over 1400?