Is there any rules against playing more than one tournament at the same time?
Mr Nolan used to have 3 on a single weekend in Neb. and I would play in the 2-day as well as each of the one day events.
However someone has suggested there might be an obscure rule in place against this.
Ron Luther
The only issue that I could see is if the player loses his games in both events, then there could be a claim that the player didn’t appropriately try to win and was allowing his rating to artificially drop. (Interesting sandbagging concept; you could use the, “but I usually play quick and thought that I would have enough time to play G/120 in 2 places at once!” excuse)
Aside from common sense, there are no rules I know of against this.
Don Shennum once played in 3 sections of an event I ran (in 3 different rooms), winning prizes in all 3.
There’s no rule against it, but there’s also no rule requiring an organizer to allow it. I will generally allow it, but only after giving the player a stern warning that he’s doing it at his own risk.
When I was in my 20s, I did this several times, usually with results that were unexpectedly good. Once I got place prizes in both the Reserve (U-2000) and the open. Another time a former state champ of my father’s era was one of my “simul” opponents. He was a little miffed, though he enjoyed winning a competitive game from me while I was busy upsetting a Canadian expert.
Robert Karch, who loved to innovate, once ran an open offering an “Ego” prize. You could enter up to four identities. Once an identity lost, it was no longer paired. The games were placed on consecutive boards. Aside from one sensible person who decided after one round that two games was too many, only a B player (4 identities) and me, an A player (3 identities) tried it. We both swept our first rounds, but I escaped round 2 against B players with only two draws. By the second day we were down to one entity with him having a half point lead. We drew each other (!) in round 4, but in round 5 I won to capture the Ego and the A prize.
By the time I was 30 two games at once was too much, so I never tried it again.
One weeknight several years ago at a small club in Lincolnwood, I was one of 7 players who showed up for a 3-round game/30. I offered to play 2 games at once in round 1, so that nobody would have to get the bye. In round 2, I didn’t need to be paired at all, since I’d already played 2 games and now there were 6 other players, so no bye. But I volunteered to again play 2 games at once. Thus, after 2 rounds I’d played 4 games, one more than the other players got to play even after another round. I got to leave early, with an extra game under my belt. I think I won 2 or 3 of the 4.
Bill Smythe
I recall a few players that would play in two sections simultaneously in the same tournament. One player I know played in 3 sections, and won money in two of them.
The last two years I’ve played in the Lina Grumette Memorial Day Classic, taken a bye in round 5 and played in the Action on Monday. I had a little overlap with my round 6 game in the main tournament and my last round game in the action. I spent most of my time sitting at the board in the action tournament and getting that game done. Last year my second round opponent was playing round 5 in the main tournament and playing in the action. The funny thing was he had gotten a full point bye in the main event, got a house player opponent and still played in the action. He lost the round 5 game, and I drew with him in the action.
There’s nothing in the rules about it. I suppose somebody could sandbag by dumping gaes in both sections, but that seems like a lot of work and an expensive way to sandbag.
If you were playing opposite colors in the two games you could have some fun by playing the same opening.
Just as long as you don’t end up paired against yourself…
–Fromper
Of course, that would be construed as using a seperate board for analysis, and gaining advice from each opponent.
If a player were playing against two higher rated opponents, in particular, and playing the “let’s have them play against each other” scenario, this I would rule against and would be considered cheating.
How to stop it? Stop the clock on one board, and force the player to make a few moves on one board before resuming play. After resumption, check to see if the games transposed back to identical positions, and do it again (in reverse this time) if necessary.
There’s a famous chess short story about a grandmaster who got suckered into playing himself in a simul. I think it was reprinted in Chernev’s book.
A VERY long time ago when I was in high school, an organizer who I believe was then a college student – Bill Smythe – used to run Quads and Hexagonals at Northwestern University in Evanston, IL.
There were both Saturday and Sunday Quads, and the hexagonals ran over both days. I recall a player, I think it was Barry Bouton, played in both quads AND the hex (maybe he only played in the second quad?).
I also recall from a U.S. Masters – I believe Greg Small had two adjournments and played them simultaneously.
Didn’t Igor Ivanov once simultaneously play in the Canadian Open and Closed Championships?
I don’t know about the Canadian schedule but I do remember one year when Roman Dzindzishasvili was one of the players that “simultaneously” played in the US closed (afternoon knockout matches) and US open (evening matches). At least one such player complained about receiving (early on) the same color in consecutive rounds of the open and the TD politely reminded the player that he really had the same color that day in the two different tournaments (and really was still alternating colors in the open).
I was in the TD room in Jacksonville when Roman stormed in protesting that pairing.
This clearly violates the “one player, one prize” rule.
Not if you consider different sections to be different tournaments. That’s actually a more interesting question than the one that started this thread – how much difference in format/date/location is necessary to make different sections into separate tournaments?
W H O O S H
Does that mean something in computerspeak?
At the risk of being banished for going off-topic: An example of what I mean may be seen in some of the World Opens back in the eighties. Sections were held in different buildings, sometimes across a very large intersection. Well, OK. Sections had different schedules. OK. Wasn’t there a year where the top section had a different number of rounds? Wasn’t there a year where the one of the schedules of the top section could play its games at a different site the previous week? At what point does the assertion that all of these sections and schedules make up one tournament become meaningless?
I believe there have been a few other, more recent examples as well, with an organizer claiming that a one-day scholastic was a “section” of a two- or three-day open. Personally, I think this is a false economy (saves a few bucks on the TLA but reduces your publicity), but each to his taste. What bothers me about this is the language pollution. What exactly does the word “tournament” mean?
Several years ago in a 4-round Plus-Score I was directing, a player showed up near the end of round 1 and asked to participate. He didn’t want a half-point bye in round 1, because that would spoil his chances for the 4-0 prize. I told him he could play two games simultaneously in round 2, but warned him that, to be fair to the other players, I would have to pair him in both games as though he had won in round 1. He accepted that condition and paid his entry fee.
Much to his chagrin (and my delight), when round 1 ended there were five “players” in the 1-0 group, and he was numbers 3 and 4. That meant he had to play 1 and 2 simultaneously (with player 5 being dropped to a lower score group).
I think he did manage half a point, though.
Bill Smythe