Pairings Question - Color Priority

Running Chess Tournaments
1

I’m an assistant TD in this real life example of an ongoing weekly tournament. What is the correct top board pairing on board 1, final round 4 next weekend? See the complete Wall Chart below.

Player A has 3 points. No 2.5 scores. Player A has played all three of the 2.0s. So seemingly, he plays Player B who is the only player who has 1.5 points. Who gets White? Both players are due Black. Both players have one extra White so far. Player A has the higher rank (score). Player A has 2 whites, 1 black; Player B has 1 white, 0 blacks.

Rule 28E4 –Equalization, Alternation, and Priority, of Colors – is the key rule. Under the “Players due the same color” section, sub-rules 1 & 2 clearly do not apply. Sub-Rule 3 is possibly ambiguous here (…if they had opposite colors the previous round, they get opposite colors this round), but I think it is also inapplicable, as player B did not play the previous round.

It is not clear whether Sub-Rule 4 applies. “If both players have had an equal number of whites and blacks, or both are equally out of balance, and if they had different colors in one or more prior rounds, priority for assigning color should be based on the latest round in which their colors differed. One or both players should be assigned the color opposite to that which they played in the last round…” In round three, Player B did not play, so they probably did not have different colors (but arguably maybe they did). In round two, both played, with Player A having Black, and Player B having White. If you do opposite of that, in round 4, it would be Player A (white) vs. Player B (black). If you look at Player A’s round 2 and 3 vs. Player B’s round 2, that would seemingly result in the same pairing.

Sub-rule 5 does not seem to apply as the two players do not have the same color sequence. Variations 29E4a, 29E4b, and 29E4c are based on sub-rule 5. Even though Variation 29E4c, is not strictly applicable (based on same sequence), it is interesting by analogy since it is the last round, and would have imposed a player coin flip. Variation 29E4d (the old main rule) eliminates sub-rule 4 applies when “…they have had the same colors in each of the preceding two rounds…” which doesn’t strictly hold up, but might based on how one wants to read the rule. If it does apply in that they have had the same colors, it would pair round 4 as Player B (white) vs. Player A (black).

Of note, WinTD pairs Player B (white) vs. Player A (black).

So, nothing strictly applies, there are a lot of analogies. Is there a clear right answer? Is this situation potentially not covered by the pairing rules? Help!

(Hopefully the wall chart formats alright.)

Wall Chart

  1. Player A (2024) – W9…B11…W3
    ……………………………………1…….2……3
  2. Player B (1916) – BYE…W5…BYE
    ….………………………………5……1.5……1.5
  3. Player C (1894) – B7….W6….B1
    ….……………………………….1……2…….2
  4. Player D (1492) – B5…W/D…W/D
    …………………………………0…0……0
  5. Player E (1487) – W4……B2……W9
    ….……………………………….1……1….…1
  6. Player F (UNR) – W8……B3……W10
    ….……………………………….1…….1…….1
  7. Player G (UNR) – W3……B8……W11
    ….……………………………….0…….1…….1
  8. Player H (UNR) – B6……W7……BYE
    ….……………………………….0…….0…… .5
  9. Player I (UNR) – …B1……W10…B5
    ….……………………………….0………1…….2
  10. Player J (UNR) – W11…B9….B6
    ….……………………………….0………0…….1
  11. Player K (UNR) – B10….W1….B7
    ….……………………………….1….….1…….2
2

if you read in sub rule 5, Example 2 is very clear. “Example 2: BWxBW gets white over BWBxW, because the first player had black and the second had no color in round 4, the latest round in which colors differed”

Thus “having a color” and “not having a color” is a difference.

So, in your case you have a WBW (player A) playing a xWx (Player b) so the color difference is in round 3 with Player A having a color (white) and Player B not having a color.

Thus Player A should get Black (the opposite color of his round 3 color) and Player B should get White, as your WinTD correctly paired it.

tom

3

I would give Player B black, based on 29E4.2. Player B’s color imbalance is greater - 100% White - 0% Black, versus Player A’s 67% White 33% Black.

4

Wow, great answers both (even if opposite conclusions). Serves me right for skipping information. I totally missed the relevance of the Example. It states that a bye constitutes a different color than a played game. I also never considered deciding greater total imbalance by percentage as an alternative to a plus/minus count. Brilliant.
That sub-rule 2 conditions “if both players have an unequal number of Whites and Blacks…” The number of Whites and Blacks is different, but the difference in number is the same. So it applies right? And since it has a higher sub-rule ranking than 29E4 it trumps the other finding, right (which was my fault, DrCheck, since you obviously based your answer on what I had submitted)?

5

I’ve never seen this interpreted as percentages.

6

I have to agree with Allen. Although using percentages does make intuitive sense too, the rule never references “percentages”, but rather uses the term “number of”. Thus, I interpret the statement of “greater total color imbalance” as a +/- number. In your case both players are equally +1 white.

7

Using percentages does seem to me to produce better results - producing net B/W ratios closer to 50/50. It also seems more consistent. In your example against WBW, while xWx and Wxx get White, xxW gets Black.

Also, while using “number of” with reference to Blacks and Whites, it never uses that terminology with regards to how “out of balance” the players colors are. In particular, it doesn’t talk about someone being +2W, etc. This use of “out of balance” instead of “number of” in the area that we are considering sounds more like percentage or ratio to me than an integral number. Either approach seems consistent with the current language of the rule. So the question to consider is which produces “better” results.

8

The term “number of” is before the comma, in the contingent. Grammatically, it would seem to be applicable only there as a check to see if you look at the result clause. The result clause simply alludes to “greater total color imbalance” without defining a methodology for its calculation. So the question which ensues is whether you adopt a +/- system since it is mentioned in the contingent as a check to see if this whole inquiry takes place, do you take that system only, or do you adopt a multi-test system if another method would produce a determinative, fair result. It could maybe even be argued that without specific instruction, percentage test should be the first test, but that would seem to go against common experience.

9

I think you’re assuming a level of grammatical precision that was far from anyone’s thoughts when the rule was adopted. :slight_smile:

10

The imbalance is number, not percentage. So BBWB (75% black) is more out of balance than xBxx (100% black in played games). The easiest way to think of this is to consider the minimum number of rounds it would take for the player to get back in balance and to give the due color to the one who would take more rounds.

I think all the people weighing in already agreed to that.

Next is figuring out who is more due for a color when the number imbalance is the same (the BWB vs xWx question). If I had been the person writing the rule I probably would have gone with percentage and not even thought of the full color history option. Using full color history actually results in more situations getting covered than using percentage (such as BBWBW vs BWBWB) and thus I can easily see why full color history is used with no need to go to percentage.

If you opt to use percentage then that is an unsupported variation.

11

I think that depends on how you define “better.”

More consistent among alternate scenarios for one player, yes, but less consistent in the application of a rule as written.

It seems to me that if you ignore for a moment that we do have a clear rule (complete with examples) that is on point here, the one good argument for giving B black is to equalize colors in the only two games he played. This goes along with the percentage way of looking at the imbalance as well, if you want to argue for that vs. an actual number.

On the other hand, there seem to be lots of reasons to give Player A black. That is clearly giving him alternation, equalization, due color to the higher rated player, and due color to the higher score group. And philosophically, in such a scenario, shouldn’t the player with the higher score (and rating) have the greater burden of winning with black? And I have to wonder, while it may look odd that Player B gets two whites, how important is that considering that he had two byes?

Depending on how one wants to evaluate this situation, I could perhaps understand an argument that calls for the TD to excercise judgement. But if there are valid arguments for alternate ways of pairing, shouldn’t preference usually be given to applying the rule as written? That is what, in my mind, gives us greater consistency.

12

I disagree. It appears to me that both interpretations are consistent with the rule as written. Can you provide a proof or argument otherwise?

Actually we don’t have an example on point. That is why we are having this discussion.

13

Any takers for throwing the rule-book in the trash and flipping a coin? (Or flipping a coin because the rule book says so (Rule 1)? Or because it doesn’t say anything conclusive?)

14

Moderator Mode: Off

I haven’t seen an answer to the initial question of color except for early in the thread.

I am a Local TD, but my rulebook is at home. I just reread this entire thread and my impression is that the higher rated player should get his due color. That would give Player A, Black.

It is an interesting variation of directing that Player B has only played one game and thus has only one color experience in this tournament and we are now about to enter the 4th round. Because he has not played in 2 of the first 3 rounds, I don’t see him having any particular color being entitled to him, per se. Also, this player did not play in the last round, round 3, where he would have been due Black. The normal progression for him would be; Round 2 - White, Round 3 - Black, and Round 4 - White. So, taking this into account, he would be due White, virtually.

Player A has played 2 games as White and one as Black, with this, Round 4, having Black as his due color. He has not missed any of the rounds and is due Black. He is also the higher rated player and should receive his due color anyway.

15

It turns out that the higher rated player should get his due color (Black), but not because he is higher-rated.

As someone noted earlier, it is because when two players both have the same due color and are the same with respect to color equalization, then one looks at the color histories. The most recent round where the two players had different colors determines it. In this case, that is the immediately previous round where one player had White and the other player had a bye. In that case, as the examples in the rulebook make clear, the player with White in the previous round gets his due color Black in this round, rather than the player with the Bye getting Black. That turns out to be the player you chose, Ron, but not for your reason.

In fact, rating rarely has anything to do with color assignment. Only when the color histories are exactly the same might the ratings of the two players enter into the picture, and then only when the two players are in the same score group.

The handling of color assignment is probably a question on the TD test, Ron; so I guess the question related to this rule is one that you got wrong.

16

Unfortunately, there is nothing in the rulebook to support that impression, per se. If you argued that the higher rated player happened to be the higher ranked, then you’d be able to make a case. If there is a 1.0 rated 1400 and a .5 rated 2200, then the 1400 gets due color, all else being equal, because he’s higher ranked.

Alex Relyea

17

This example was cited to show what would be the governing rule in this case should it be determined that the higher sub-rule, 29E4 Sub-rule 2 regarding greater color imbalance, did not apply.

I agree with that analysis, but wonder about the general merit of applying an example to the level of a rule. I also worry about if the example might conflict with:

I think the Rulebook could be updated here, and hopefully the Rules Committee will look into it. They could probably just add a sentence at the end of 29E1’s current text: “Nevertheless, when comparing the color histories of two players, an unplayed game in such a history analysis differs in color from the played game of the other player for the same round.”

This would serve the dual purpose of elevating the example to a rule, avoiding a possible contradiction interpretation, and working towards clarity. My sentence can probably be improved upon, both in conciseness and perhaps in placement. Thoughts?

18

Thanks for that positive comment, Brian.

I would have recalled it was the higher ranked player and not the higher rated one, especially if I was actually in a tournament situation instead of typing something quickly between patients.

Player B received a bye for his half point, while Player A played the game at his due color for a Draw.

If you look at the natural progression of due color for each player, at each round, you will agree that Player B would be due White anyway. He took a bye in that last round, thus avoiding playing his due Black game.

The rules are written to make sense and sensible decisions.

There can also be more than one rule which applies to a specific situation.

Yes Brian, I made the correct choice. In an applicable and real tournament situation, the only thing that matters is that the right choice is made, with the reason not being so important. This falls under the point of academically correct versus clinically correct. As a clinician in both eyecare and tournament directing, I will always choose the clinically correct decision, which makes the situation work.

19

I thought “do not count for color” (29E1) and “because the first player had black and the second had no color in round 4, the latest round in which colors differed” (29E4) were already in agreement and didn’t need any additional verbiage.

The phrase “both are equally out of balance” does not explicitly say that something xxW (+1 white but 100% white) and WBW (+1 white but 67% white) are equally out of balance (+1) or are not equally out of balance (100% vs 67%), but a discussion on this point with an author indicated that the numerical imbalance is to be looked at, not the percentage imbalance, and this is a case where they are equally out of balance.

Another way to look at it is to see the latest rounds as the most critical. So xxW? vs WBW? sees xW? vs BW? and the balance is better maintained by xWB (50/50) and BWW (33/67) rather than by xWW (100/0) and BWB (33/67). Also xWx? and WBW? sees x? and W? better balanced with xW (100/0) and WB (50/50) rather than xB (100/0) and WW (100/0).

20

I don’t know - neither agreeing or disagreeing. Just suggesting that “does not count for color” and “counts as a different color” [paraphrasing] seem somewhat incompatible.