Taking a half point bye and a zero point bye

[wintdoan]

@Micah Smith

Yes. If they are voluntarily taking a zero point bye and a half point bye, they can take them in the opposite order so they don’t ‘game’ the system in an attempt to get easier pairings. If they take a zero point bye and are given a half point bye by the TD in the last round, then that is OK.

Micah, you’ve outdone yourself. Not only have you come up with a solution for a problem that no one else sees—this time you’ve come up with a solution for a problem which you yourself don’t even see.

[eastside]

Proactive rulemaking taken to its logical conclusion.

[kevin_bachler]

@Micah Smith

@wintdoan

@Micah Smith

My proposal would only prevent a player from taking a 1/2 point bye if they have already taken a zero point bye so in the situations you mentioned, players would still be able to take 1/2 byes except in the unlikely scenario that they have already taken a zero point bye. This is to prevent players who know they are going to take a zero point bye and a half point bye from trying to ‘game’ the system by originally requesting only a zero point bye and then once the zero-point bye round is over, requesting a half point bye in an attempt to get easier pairings by having the zero point bye applied first.

You’re OK with someone losing the first game (or first two or first four) and then getting a 1/2 in the last round, but we need a rule to prevent someone from voluntarily taking a zero in the first round and then getting a 1/2 in the last round. Am I understanding that correctly?

Yes. If they are voluntarily taking a zero point bye and a half point bye, they can take them in the opposite order so they don’t ‘game’ the system in an attempt to get easier pairings. If they take a zero point bye and are given a half point bye by the TD in the last round, then that is OK.

Let’s clarify and explain one aspect of Tom Doan’s statements above and elsewhere in this thread.

Chess players can play in tournaments for sheer enjoyment of playing chess or additionally for some degree of enjoyment from competition and doing well in a tournament.

In this context, “…an attempt to get easier pairings” makes sense only if one is trying to do better in the tournament.

So, if we reduce Micah’s argument to its contituent parts, he is concerned that (in a typical 3-5 round event) a player will purposefully choose one loss and one draw in order to improve his tournament standing.

He is also concerned that a player would do so ONLY by choosing a zero point bye, rather than by simply throwing the earlier game.

If I’ve misunderstood Micah’s argument, I hope someone will correct my misunderstanding.

[kevin_bachler]

@CMerli

In general I would say a 1/2 point bye should never be offered in the last round. There is no reason other than prize money to ask for a 1/2 point bye in the final round. Any moderately experienced player can figure out (even before most events begin) if he is likely to need a 1/2 point bye in the final round to have a good chance at prizes. In my area there used to be a player that regularly took the 1/2 point bye in the last round. He was one of the higher rated players so he was paired down for the 1st three rounds then dodged all the tough players in the last round. Even if he had a good reason for needing that last round bye it meant he was coasting in with a prize while the remaining players had to fight it out with a loss meaning they go home empty handed. Even for lower rated players they can still figure it out. If your rating is just above the middle of the event you can figure you will be paired down then up then down then up. So in a 4 round event a last round bye gives them a good chance of the top prize in their group.

I don’t see an issue with half point byes requested significantly in advance of any round. The player’s rating isn’t an issue. If he’s defeating opponents, he’s defeating them. That’s reality. If we are allowing half point byes, we’re allowing them. That’s reality. If a player has to select them sufficiently in advance of a round so that they have imperfect information, then that’s fine.

If you’re arguing that the information isn’t sufficiently imperfect in this instance, other alternatives (besides making scheduling harder for participants) are: sectioned events, plus-score events, or accelerated/modified pairings in the early rounds.

(In MN, they even use McMahon system a fair amount - that requires, btw, something that flies directly in the face of Micah’s thesis: For example: parts of the group might be given 2 rounds of 1 point byes, parts given 2 rounds with 1 point of byes, and parts with 2 rounds of zero point byes. In other words, a mechanism is used to accelerate pairings in a way to further divide the groups - that Micah is claiming could be gaming the system.)

[Smythe_Dakota]

@wintdoan

… I was at some point going to point out that Micah is consistent in misspelling “there” as “their” so consistent does not imply either correct or desirable.

In Micah’s dogma, consistency is the world’s greatest attribute. Therefore, it is better to use “their” ten times incorrectly than to use “there” nine times correctly and “their” once incorrectly.

Q.E.D.

Bill Smythe