I have received an inquiry from a player wanting to enter two sections at the same tournament I’m organizing, and play the games simultaneously. This is a fairly large 5-round weekend tournament with slow time controls and a decent prize fund. He’s rated under 1400.
It doesn’t sound like a good idea to me on his part, but is there any solid reason I either should or cannot deny his request?
Thanks for your input!
Well, if you want to give him a reason for denying his request, tell him that it would be unfair to players who DON’T play him, because those who do will not get his full attention.
In my youth I did this several times with fairly decent success. No opponent ever complained, although many time Washington State Champion Jim McCormick did make a (perfectly appropriate) wisecrack about this B player who had the nerve to give a simul against him! When I played a decent game that still allowed him to finish me off rather prettily, he was more supportive.
The one thing that made this feasible for me was that TD Robert Karch always agreed to place my boards side by side. He also gave me a discounted second entry fee. As he said, he made no adjustments in my pairings. Had he not placed my boards next to each other I would have had to run back and forth, and that would have been sufficient to discourage me from the attempt. He looked at it as extra income for the prize fund.
My advice is to permit it if you don’t think it will be disruptive (and from my experience it’s not).
If you don’t have a standing rule prohibiting this (and some organizers do), then my inclination would be to accept the entry. There are some specific considerations that I might take into account:
I concur with your statement that it’s likely not a good idea on his part. However, players have the right to implement their bad ideas, both on and off the board. 
I have seen a number of players do this over the years. It is extra money for the prize fund as most do not do very well with this strategy. I have only seen one player do this successfully. He often would do better in the top section and win class prize money there while scoring equally or worse in the lower section. The main problem for him was that the players in the lower section played faster so he was often short of time by going back and forth to his boards.
The only problem I see is the distraction of his popping up to run to the other board or craning to see if the player on the other board has moved. Players might object to the movement, both of the player and the chairs. There will be inevitable noise, even on carpeted floors. If you feel you must make some accommodation for the player, put his boards at the end of the top section he is playing in. This will bring up the player from the lower section to see what it is like to be among the much higher rated players. This should minimize the noise and movement.
We have a local player who has done this in many events. I don’t recall any complaints from other players as a result of his playing in two sections. The only issue I recall was when he dropped a $50 bill out of his pocket as a result of his frequent chair changes.
That is exactly why I appreciated the late TD Karch’s consideration in placing my boards side by side. It helped me but it also made it less disruptive for others. So do this for the benefit of all players, not just the optimistic player.
About 30 years ago at a club on Lincoln Avenue, there was a weeknight event, 3 rounds at G/30, played of course with analog clocks and no delay. Scorekeeping required until under 5 minutes.
As it turned out, there were 7 players.
I offered to play 2 games simultaneously in round 1, so that nobody would have the bye. I suggested to the TD that he pair me as two copies of myself, with identical ratings. He accepted my suggestion. Thus I was automatically assigned to consecutive board numbers, so I didn’t have to run around the room. I was also automatically assigned the white pieces in one game and the black pieces in the other.
That way, I could sit out round 2 because I had already played 2 games. One of my round 1 games would appear on the wall chart as a cross-round pairing. The other 6 players would then play a normal round 2, and I would return for round 3.
But I wasn’t happy about sitting out round 2 (and besides, then there would be an odd number in round 3), so I suggested to the TD that he again pair me twice in round 2. Then I could go home after round 2, having already played 4 games out of a possible 3. The remaining 6 players would then eventually play a normal round 3.
I guess I was once young and impetuous, too.
Bill Smythe
I believe that the ratings committee has ruled that more than one game at a time should be unratable. Perhaps someone can come up with a citation.
Alex Relyea
Seriously? I see no basis for the ratings committee to rule that you can’t play in two different sections at the same time. It’s a self-imposed handicap, not giving time odds. No different than arriving 30 minutes late. I remember in one of those events I knocked off three higher rated players between the 10 games. If they had said that wasn’t ratable because I was at a disadvantage I would have called that a great injustice.
The prohibition against simuls, if there is one, is to prevent rating one versus many in the same section. This type of multiple game play should be fine.
This inspires an idea for our Monday night tournaments that run over a span of Mondays. In the past we have had dedicated house men to even out pairings, even going as far as paying someone’s US Chess membership for them to do that. Sometimes I will sit out to even things out. But those nights when we are doing G90 or G80 etc I could see myself or some other volunteer playing two games, one with the person that would have gotten the Bye.
Our Monday night Tournaments have no prizes or entry fees so that shouldn’t be an issue.
What does that have to do with the ratings committee’s ruling? The reason I don’t have a citation is that it was gotten privately and relayed to TDCC.
Alex Relyea
So it’s a secret rule? Wouldn’t a policy like that need to be approved by the Executive Board?
Why would one of the games need to be with the person who would have had the bye? If you have an odd number, and somebody plays two games, then there is no bye. Just pair the ambitious player as though there were a second player with the same rating and score.
In calling for volunteers to play two games at the same time, the most obvious candidates would be those who have already missed a round for some reason, or who will not able to attend the following week.
Bill Smythe
That makes sense because it basically randomizes the selection process etc. I was thinking that instead of my sitting out I would play my game plus the person that would have received the bye. That way the person that would have gotten a bye actually gets a game and would more likely be accepting of the fact that his opponent was playing multiple players. This could really open a can of worms, what if all the players decide they want to play two people? Now I am having second thoughts.
If everybody plays two games, there will never be any byes. For example, with 5 players you could pair 1-2, 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, 5-1 in the first double round.
Bill Smythe