I was at a major event nice $$ prizes in a 3-4 day event, with a side event scholastic.
We had some of the kids try to play both tournaments, making a move in one, then leaving that playing hall for another in the same hotel to play in the scholastic as well.
The TDs of the main event would not allow the kids to do this, because they said that
the possibility existed that the game in one could possibly be used for analytical purposes
in the other event. Seems a long shot to me, but then, I have rarely seen folks try to
play in two events simul with no byes.
This comes up every few months. There’s nothing in the rules to expressly prohibit this, though I’ve seen some TDs prohibit it because moving back and forth between playing halls can be disruptive to other players in both events. We once had someone play in 3 sections simultaneously, winning prizes in two of them and narrowly missing a prize in the third. Due to the time control and round times, there were only a few minutes where he had 3 games going at once and most of the time it was just one game.
Prohibiting it because one game could be used for analysis is a new twist, it reminds me of a classic chess short story that I think is in Chernev’s book.
Is this common enough to justify adding a (carefully worded) rule prohibiting it? I’d say not.
I hope there is never a total ban on players playing two games at once.
For example, such a ban would eliminate the fan-blade approach to, say, a 4-round section that draws only 5 players.
Without the fan blade, 4 of the 5 players would end up with a bye at some point, or you’d have to expand it to 5 rounds with everybody getting one bye.
With the fan blade, you can set up five tables (each 6 ft by 2.5 ft) so that the corners of the tables touch, and so that the short (2.5 ft) edges form a regular pentagon in the center. The long edges will then stick out all around, forming a pattern resembling the 5 blades on a 5-blade ceiling fan.
The players sit in the five V-shaped areas near the center, and each player plays two games at the same time, white against the player to his left, black against the player to his right. The clocks go on black’s right in each game.
Since everybody is playing two games at once, you can double the time control, say from G/60 to G/120, and the tournament ends after two of these double rounds.
Once everybody understands, it should not be difficult to arm-twist each of the 5 players into accepting this arrangement. If anybody balks, I guess you would have to abandon the idea.
I thought all-night insanities were a bad idea, I think this is worse. I don’t think it should be prohibited, but I’d never play in one or organize one.
I did play in such a game. My daughter woke me up at the club at 4am, and told me we were paired. I fell asleep in the game, and for the first time, she defeated me.
A lifetime memory.
Rob Jones
I have seen people register for the two-day and three- sections of a tournament, using the Friday night game to warm up for the weekend, with the option to withdraw from the three-day if they won on Friday evening.
I have also seen players enter the open and U1800 sections of a tournament. One guy used to do this a lot and it was not uncommon for this 1700+ rated player to win prizes in both sections. The TD arranged for his games to be at nearby boards to limit the distraction of his moving about.
I have also seen scholastic players play in a two day scholastic event and a one day event on Sunday at the same time. Each section had different time controls. Their coach and their parents wanted them to get as many games as possible in on the weekend. The kids had to go back and forth between separate rooms. Somehow they managed it, but kids have more energy than adults and focus differently. I would not recommend it to my students, but it was an interesting experiment to see if the kids could handle it. Some parents have more money than sense.
What a player does with his money is his business. If it adds extra entry fees and gets the organizer closer to his based on prize projections, I see few players objecting to it.
Gareev is a different issue entirely, because he was playing in an invitational event, with the organizer picking up expenses, and the organizer of an invitational should have the right to prohibit playing in conflicting events. (I suspect the contracts for players in future events will have that expressly spelled out.)