…in games in which both players are due for the same color and both have the same total number of Whites and Blacks.
Is this still an option? Basically it replaces the slightly artificial “higher-ranked” preference outlined in current rules and praxis over the past 20 years.
When I started playing rated chess, in 1980, tossing for colors in the last round of a Swiss was relatively common, especially on the top few boards. In recent years it has all but disappeared, and I found no mention of it during a brief glance at the 5th Edition Rulebook.
I recently played in a tournament in which the top two boards tossed for color in the last round. Do any TD’s out there do this in your events or has anyway seen it recently, as a player, TD, spectator, etc.?
By “acceptable alternative”, does that mean the variation must be announced in advance?
Personally, I consider it unnecessary to toss for colors in the last round. A “toss” was performed in round one, practically speaking, so living with the results of that toss is OK with me. One disadvantage of a toss is that someone has to carry it out before you can start the clock of a tardy player.
Tim Just ought to answer that, but I shouldn’t think so. The “TD Tip” on page 146 says that 29E4d should be announced in advance if used. This implies that advance notice is not required for 29E4(a through c).
The “tardy player” problem is one of the reasons last-round tosses went out of fashion in hand-moderated tournaments, but if you let the computer make the toss that’s no longer significant.
That’s logical. Not being a TD, I didn’t realize the programs could do that. By context I interpreted Eric’s question as referring to physical tosses. I’d have no problem with the computer randomizing color selection when two players have had identical color patterns in the last round.
Actually, I did use last-round toss before computers (I’d write “toss” in red next to the players’ names), but I can’t quarrel with TDs who found it tedious and time-consuming.
Thanks for the advice and the reference to the appropriate rule, guys. It seems tossing in the last round is still acceptable.
Now, is it still acceptable if the players both have two of each color but one is due for white and the other due for black? i.e. WBWB and BWBW.
In that case, it seems to me the WBWB player should get White in round 5 with no toss.
One TD I know disagrees with me, saying that anytime both players have 2 whites and 2 blacks going into the fifth and last round, then a toss for colors is acceptable. (Assuming neither player had the same color in both rounds 3 and 4)
The way the rule is worded, no. (I also don’t think it’s a good idea, but that’s a different argument.) However, almost any pairing variation is allowable with adequate advance notice – see the “no adjustment for colors” system used by Jerry Weikel in Reno. I think the variation you describe is sufficiently major to require mention in the TLA, but it’s a close point (posting it before the first round might be sufficient).
My intention with that TD TIP was only for 29E4d. In the past 29E4 (a-c) was used without any advanced notice. 29E4d. involved a major change. Perhaps in the next edition…
In a 3 round tournament such as a quad, or small swiss I will have players toss for color in last round. Whether the players flip a coin, or pick a pawn, I leave that up to them.
Yes, I finally got the TD in question to see the light by quoting 29E4c from the 5th Edition.
This took place at a 5-round Swiss in which I played last weekend. I was the lucky recipient of a “toss” rather than a Black on board 1 in the last round. My opponent and I each had an equal number of Blacks and Whites, but he was due for White while I was due for Black.
Justice won out when my opponent won the coin toss and took White. Had I won the toss I would have faced a classic moral dilemma: Probably I would have taken White, as I am a man of weak character.
It was a small tournament, with no cash prizes and a ‘friendly’ feel to it, so it was not a big deal. I’ve long since learned, though, that any point of controversy, no matter how minor, in rated chess can become a big deal when you least expect it.
In re the “no adjustment for color” variation: Has anyone ever gotten 4 of the same color in a row under that system?
Probably the field is big enough to avoid that, but in the late '90s, when multiple schedules were in vogue, I saw sections of medium-large events in which one of the schedules drew very few players and was impossible to pair before the “big merge” where all schedules came together. It made me happy to see that the computer pairing programs could not solve this problem, either…
That would, in my opinion, be extremely unwise. It would fly in the face of the new pairing priorities for pairing players due the same color (29E4). There, even much earlier color differences are supposed to be taken into account before applying the “higher-ranked gets due color” rule.
For example, in WBWB vs BWWB, the player with WBWB should be given white because of the colors in the most recent round (round 2) in which their colors differed. (Another way to look at this is that the player with BWWB is “almost” due black, because that would at least equalize his colors during the most recent 4 of the 5 rounds.)
The above assumes that a coin toss is not being used in this tournament, or that there are more than 5 rounds. To maintain a consistent philosophy, however, it seems that a coin toss, if used at all, should be used only when the entire color history is identical. That is, a coin toss should replace only the “higher-ranked gets due color” rule, not the several other rules which precede it (and take precedence over it).
Personally, I don’t like the coin-toss idea anyway. The coin was already tossed to determine board 1 colors in round 1.