Suppose we have 10 player tournament.
So first round player rated # 1 plays player rated #6, player rated #2 plays player rated number 7, etc.
What are the rules for assigning “colors” in the first round?
~MK.
Assign the colors on board one randomly, e.g. by flipping a coin. After that it alternates. If the higher rated player is black on board one, the higher rated player will get white on board two, black on board three, etc.
Random choice for the first board and then alternate. Random choice could be a coin flip, the first board choosing between one of two hidden pawns, a computer-generated randomizer, etc. If the decision is being done at least a day in advance, away from the players, and you want to make it totally clear that it was not just a biased decision on your part then you may want to make it that if some external random number (last digit of a lottery number, final digit of an exact large event attendance number, etc.) is odd then #1 gets white and if it is even then #1 gets black.
This Chicago Industrial Chess League generally uses the IL lottery number when deciding round one playoff home site between two teams that are equally entitled to home (with eight teams and up to four matches between equally entitled teams, the pick four lottery would allow each match to have its own digit and still have a single lottery drawing cover it).
Interesting!
I have not realised that there is no written rule. I was under (perhaps false) impression, that lower rated player on the first board gets white.
You are incorrect. There IS a written rule. Assign board 1 in some random fashion and then alternate.
Coin flip is mentioned in the rules, but any random method is acceptable. FIDE has a draw for color to be done publicly. The major US pairing programs have a random feature built in which just involves turning on that setting.
See rule 28J on allocating colors for the first round.
In some places I’ve played, the #1 seed always seems to receive black in the first round. Any known bugs in these computer-generated randomizers? Or do I just have a selective memory?
Your rating leads me to believe that you are the highest-rated player in most tournaments you play in, so that at least you’re speaking from personal experience (whether selective or not).
Pairing programs have the option to turn off random first-round top-board color selection, and instead have the TD assign the color. So it’s quite possible that certain TDs feel (incorrectly) that the top-rated player should always start with black (perhaps to force him to “prove” himself or something).
Can you do us a favor? Review all your tournaments for the past calendar year, group them by organizer or TD, and tabulate how many times you have had white and black in round 1. Something like this:
Organizer whites blacks
John Smith 4 7
Jane Doe 2 5
(etc)
Omit any events which were matches, or had any other weird feature that might have an effect on colors. Also omit any events in which you were not the top-rated player.
You might also want to specify, if you can remember, whether pairings were done by computer or by hand.
Let’s get to the bottom of this.
Bill Smythe
This reminds me of situations I have been in where TDs running round robin quads ALWAYS give the pairing numbers to players in accordance with their rating order (like in a Swiss). In other words, the highest rated player becomes player 1, the second highest becomes player 2, the third highest becomes player 3, and the lowest rated player in the quad becomes player 4.
The proper procedure in a round robin is to randomly assign player numbers to the players, and then use the pairing tables. (Can someone find the rule on this? I cannot locate my rulebook right now.)
In a particular tournament, I started to point this out to the TD, who gave me a “how dare you question me, I’ve been running tournaments for years, and this is how it is done” answer. It was very frustrating.
You are probably thinking of the first paragraph on page 293 or rule 30A, both of which indicate that the players are assigned numbers by lot.
You can use this to create random pairing numbers: permutation.htm.
I’m sorry, but a strict reading of the rules indicates that you are incorrect. Please observe rule 30G, of which the relevant extract is:
You can achieve essentially the same effect using just a single coin toss. Heads, use rating order. Tails, reverse the rating order.
Also, in multi-section quads, you can alternate the quads. If the top quad is assigned in rating order, the second quad can be in reverse order, etc.
Bill Smythe
There is always rule 1B1 to cover things like a club assigning numbers based on standings on the 10.5-month-long ladder season (score-based, not rating based).
Wow… I have no reason to doubt you, but I am just stunned. I was certain I was correct, but it now appears as if I am wrong. Thank you for pointing out by error.
Tim Just, you seemed to back me up earlier… what do you say?
I was pointing to the rule(s) I believed you were looking for. Nothing more. Nothing less. With my 20/20 hind site glasses on I can see should have pointed out more (30G).
I didn’t mean to accuse you of anything – I just thought you might have a different interpretation of the rules.
Thank you to all who enlightened me.
Now, that doesn’t mean that I think is a god-awful stupid rule. In my opinion, pairing numbers in ANY round-robin should be assigned randomly; quads should not be any different.
Any thoughts on that?
I think the only issue is who gets two whites and who gets two blacks in the quad, and tossing for colors in the last round randomizes the selection as well as assigning random pairing numbers does.
There is one difference between quads and a “regular” round robin. In general, when quads are held, there may be several (or even many) sections. It is unusual to have more than one general round robin happening at the same time. If there are a lot of players to arrange into quads (typically with not a whole lot of time between the end of registration and the start of the first round), it can be more efficient to just list the players in rating order and not have to draw lots or otherwise assign random pairing numbers. In fact, if one is willing to be really informal, the players can even be instructed to draw lots on their own for the last round (hide a pawn in each hand, for example) instead of having the TD perform this function for them. Even if the TD does the toss, there’s plenty of time during the first and second rounds to do this with less time pressure. (Yes, TDs can and do get into time trouble!)
You are right that, from a “purity” perspective, a quad is nothing more than a four-player round robin, so to be absolutely pristine, one would draw lots for pairing numbers. I suspect rule 30G exists owing to more practical considerations.
There is a fair short cut for quads: Round 1: (Seeded) players 1 & 2 have the same color against 3 & 4. Round 2: 1 & 2 have the opposite color against 4 & 3. Round 3: Flip a coin to determine colors for the last two games.
I regard to quads, I like the idea of the top 2 seeds facing each other in the last round. While no one can predict the results beforehand, the probability is that the top 2 will be in contention in the last round. I have had it happen where a player loses his first 2 games and drops out when they should be playing a player who was 2-0. I find it annoying to have to give a first place prize to a player who through no fault of their own, clinched first by forfeit. I believe that having the top 2 face each other in the third round reduces that probability.
I haven’t run a quad in a while but when I do, I have a no dropout rule.