Announcement of England Teams for European Team Championship

[Matthew Turner]

I do think Nigel, or anybody else for that matter has the right to refuse a re-pairing in a FIDE event. For me the answer is simple, players should have to register an hour before the start and if they don't then they don't appear in the pairings. This happens everywhere else and it should happen in Britain too.
Are you really saying that if the opponent of the top seeds don't appear then they should be paired together in round 1? because this seems to me to be totally ridiculous.

[Jonathan Rogers]

Indeed, that would be terrible. In an accelerated system they should be playing in rounds two or three instead

[Sean Hewitt]

The key issue to me is advance notice. If a tournament wishes to insist on re-pairing players then it should be able to do so, provided it has been upfront and transparent in notifying all players before they entered - this should be on the website and the entry form and the invitation letters. Those who object to the practice don't have to enter or play the event.

In the absence of such notifications the players should not have to be repaired. In my tournaments I offer the opportunity of repairing, or a full point bye. The innocent victim of the no-show can choose and I always respect those wishes.

[Roger de Coverly]

Repairing is a leveller in chess, and a big one at that.

Those of us who play in mickey-mouse events such as weekend congresses, evening leagues or county matches where you don't get more than a few minutes notice of your opponent might disagree or at least not see any evidence. General reasoning suggests that not having advance notice of the pairing is favourable to (a) the less well known player, (b) the player with an unusual (but a bit suspect) opening line or plan. In fact I wonder what would happen if you assembled a number of the world's top 100 and only told them who was playing who about 5 minutes before the start. It wouldn't invalidate opening theory because even evening league players study openings. I suppose it would favour those who studied the style of all their potential opponents rather than just those they were paired against on the day.

[Matthew Turner]

To answer Roger's question, about the top 100 players against some good players. The top 100 would (in my view) clearly do better with preparation time than without. This is because the top 100 would not wish to reveal their home prep against the average joe. Therefore, the average joe's preparation against the the super GM's main lines would be almost useless. The super GM's preparation on the other hand would be much more likely to have an impact on the game.

[IM Jack Rudd]

Some professional players would desperately want to be re-paired rather than win by default in some circumstances. (Classic scenario of this type: you're a strong IM going for a GM norm, and playing in a 9-round Swiss.)

[Matthew Turner]

Jack,
Fine, so they can be re-paired against a 2300 looking for an IM norm, or you can find some random filler (a role I once played at Hastings). The players are choosing to be repaired (Sean Hewitt has said how he does it and how it should be done). The idea that players must accept repairings in FIDE tournaments is in my view just wrong.

[Roger de Coverly]

The idea that players must accept repairings in FIDE tournaments is in my view just wrong.

You could make it a condition of entry that players grant the organiser blanket rights to do repairings. Those who quake with fear at the prospect of playing an opponent blind to preparation could decline invites to play. To balance this, organisers would have to consider not just monetary conditions but playing conditions if they wished to entice particular players.

These days even mickey-mouse tournaments can be FIDE rated. You cannot expect players to turn up an hour or more before a weekend tournament starting at 9.30 am on a Saturday morning or even the night before. You could at a pinch ask players to confirm their participation the night before on a website but that's hardly much use if you fully intend to play but get delayed by transport issues and arrive for the round after the default time.

I've seen mention that the Dutch arbiter doesn't like the notion of half point byes either in FIDE rated events. Both that and re-pairing are inventions during my chess lifetime as a serious player. Back in 1970 in an eleven round open, I recall being told the night before that with 1.5/3 I would get a full point bye the next day, the reason being that my prospective opponent needed to be absent to attend a job interview. Even more annoyingly that made my colour sequence for the first week BBWbyeBB. I suppose it made sense in the strange world of arbiter logic.

[Paul McKeown]

Jack,
Fine, so they can be re-paired against a 2300 looking for an IM norm, or you can find some random filler (a role I once played at Hastings). The players are choosing to be repaired (Sean Hewitt has said how he does it and how it should be done). The idea that players must accept repairings in FIDE tournaments is in my view just wrong.

Grandmaster Turner,

Who could disagree with that?

Re-pair if the player wishes to be re-paired, otherwise not. Some people have good reasons to want to play, some have good reasons not to want to play.

Grandmaster Short,

Would you agree with that?

If the player has legitimate reasons (e.g. he needs a played point for a norm or a rating, or he's just paid £200 to play in the bally tournament, he's damned if he's going to sit in the bar) to wish to be re-paired then allow the arbiter to re-pair him. If the player has legitimate reasons not to be re-paired (e.g. sports psychological, preparation, etc.), then the arbiter shouldn't?

This would make it impossible, of course, to apply the current British treatment of forced re-pairing, but might, still, be seen as a reasonable compromise.

Regards,
Paul McKeown.

[Paul McKeown]

Back in 1970 in an eleven round open, I recall being told the night before that with 1.5/3 I would get a full point bye the next day, the reason being that my prospective opponent needed to be absent to attend a job interview. Even more annoyingly that made my colour sequence for the first week BBWbyeBB. I suppose it made sense in the strange world of arbiter logic.

Aaaarrrrrrrgggggghhhhhh, that could dampen your enthusiasm....

[Jonathan Rogers]

Well sure, but suppose there is no compromise - only two players are in the pool of persons waiting to be repaired. One is tired and would like the free point, but the other player needs an opponent for norm/rating chances. Now what?

[Matthew Turner]

The player who wants a bye gets one and you try to find a filler for the norm seeker. If no filler can be found then I'm afraid it is bad luck, that is the way it goes sometimes.