New FIDE Tie-breaks and how to configure in Swiss Manager

[Paul McKeown]

The FIDE Tie Break Regulations, have been amended with effect from September 2023.

The former "virtual opponent" appears to have been removed, and section 16 defines a simpler means to deal with unplayed games:

16. Unplayed Rounds Management in Swiss Tournaments

In Individual or Team Swiss tournaments, the tie-breaks Buchholz (see Article 8.1), Sonneborn-Berger (see Articles 9.1 and 13.2) and their variants (Fore Buchholz, see Article 8.3; and "Cut" Modifiers, see Articles 14.1 to 14.4), which are directly or indirectly based on opponents' results, are affected by the presence of unplayed rounds in the record of participants.

16.1 The following definitions are used in this section:
16.1.1 requested bye: a half-point-bye or a zero-point-bye (note: any round after a participant withdraws is a zero-point-bye)
16.1.2 available-to-play round: any round in which a participant played their game, or ended up without a game due to a pairing-allocated bye, the opponent did not arrive to play, or unforeseen circumstances that resulted in the award of a full-point-bye

16.2 Unplayed rounds can be divided into the following categories:
16.2.1 Pairing-allocated byes or full-point byes
16.2.2 Forfeit wins
16.2.3 Requested byes that are followed by at least one available-to-play round
16.2.4 Forfeit losses
16.2.5 Requested byes that are not followed by any available-to-play rounds

16.3 When a participant has unplayed rounds, for the sole purpose of calculating the tie-break of their opponents, the participant's score is adjusted in the following way:
16.3.1 Unplayed rounds of categories 16.2.1, 16.2.2, 16.2.3 and 16.2.4 are evaluated with the result (win, draw, loss) corresponding to the awarded number of points or, for teams, match points and game points.
16.3.2 Unplayed rounds of category 16.2.5 are evaluated as draws.

16.4 To calculate the participant's own tie-break, any of their unplayed rounds are evaluated as if there was a game played against a dummy that has the same number of points as the participant themself, and ended with the result (win, draw, loss) corresponding to the awarded number of points.

Now that all seems straightforward and simple, and I think I know what it means.

However, I am not so foolish as to believe that when I think I know what any FIDE document means, I actually do understand it at all.

Can someone who really, really knows what FIDE intends, please explain it in simple terms?

Also, can someone explain how to configure Swiss Manager so that Bucholz is in accord with FIDE's new regulations, please?

[NickFaulks]

Thanks, I wasn't aware of these.

The first line is of course quite wrong.

"1. Scope
These regulations shall apply to all FIDE-rated competitions."

Private events can break ties in any way they like, and if they do not offer norms they can use any pairings they like. These matters would need to be addressed in the tournament's own rules.

[Paul McKeown]

What is rather more alarming is the notice on the FIDE Technical Commission website.

Quoting:

Kindly note, Pairing Software Vendors have a deadline until April 1, 2024, to integrate these revised tie-break guidelines into their systems.

So the FIDE TIe Break Regulations have been mandatory since last month, but the technical means to comply with them in a reasonable manner will not necessarily be available for another seven months.

[John Upham]

Thanks for bringing this to the attention of this place Paul.

[Paul McKeown]

Happily, I spoke with Alex Holowczak about the matter, a short while ago.

He tells me that it is indeed the case that this regulation will now be mandatory for FIDE rated games, and it is indeed the case that the technical means will not be ready until April next. Apparently he sat on some of the committees concerned with the matter.

It appears that the reason that FIDE decided "September 2023" is because they had become displeased with the Technical Commission taking two years over this update and having retracted one edition of the regulations (July 2023). It was also felt that it was important that it should be used in some important FIDE tournaments taking place in September, I assume the World Senior Team Championship, but I can't remember exactly what Alex said at that point.

So it was made mandatory ("FIDE style") from September, with the understanding that it wouldn't be enforced apart from for official FIDE tournaments until April next year when the software suppliers were ready.

Apparently the arbiters at the (I assume) World Senior Team Championship were entirely dischuffed at having to perform the tie-break calculations by hand.

I pointed out to Alex that former editions of the regulation used to include worked examples so that people could follow the details in a not-necessarily intuitive algorithm. Alex said that this is indeed the case, but that the Technical Commission felt it best to separate the specification from the worked examples, and that worked examples should eventually make their way onto the FIDE website. They don't appear yet to be there.

Alex's advice is to ignore the regulation until April next year. In the meantime carry on doing what you have been doing in the past, virtual opponents and all.

[Paul McKeown]

Thanks for bringing this to the attention of this place Paul.

De rien. All part of the service, John.

[Paul McKeown]

Carl, can we have a separate "FIDE Matters" section on the forum? It is a large and important topic which frequently comes up.

[Paul McKeown]

Any mistakes in the recollection of my conversation with AH are entirely my fault. I was standing on a crowded railway platform at Ealing Broadway in the rain, and he was standing at an equally crowded and wet railway platform somewhere in the West Midlands.

[Roger de Coverly]

He tells me that it is indeed the case that this regulation will now be mandatory for FIDE rated games

So how is that supposed to work in the UK where normal practice is to share prizes when scores are level?

[Paul McKeown]

He tells me that it is indeed the case that this regulation will now be mandatory for FIDE rated games

So how is that supposed to work in the UK where normal practice is to share prizes when scores are level?

No tie-breaks is an entirely valid tie-break under the regulations.

It is more of a technical exercise in listing acceptable tie-breaks and specifying how FIDE require you to calculate them, even in edge cases. It is up to the organiser to specify which tie-breaks (if any) from the menu will be used and in what order. The arbiters will then be required to calculate them following the regulation.

[Kevin Thurlow]

FIDE are getting like FIH (International Hockey Federation). FIH used to change the Laws every year, and we umpires were frequently quizzed by captains at the start of the match on how we intended to interpret the new Laws. Surrey had one interpretation, Hampshire had another, so if you played in the Surrey/Hampshire League, you had to find out where the umpires came from...

It is unlikely you need to change things so often, and also write them so unclearly.

[Ian Thompson]

Happily, I spoke with Alex Holowczak about the matter, a short while ago.

He tells me that it is indeed the case that this regulation will now be mandatory for FIDE rated games, ...

So how is that supposed to work in the UK where normal practice is to share prizes when scores are level?

I don't see why a mandatory rule saying you can do whatever you like (including doing nothing) should be a problem to anyone (*) - "[Tie-breaks] shall take the form of an ordered list of tie-breaks chosen by the Chief Organiser either among those listed in Article 5, or self-defined in the specific regulations of the tournament." and "The regulations of the tournament shall specify whether tied participants will share the same place in the standings or, if not, a method for ranking them."

(*) with the exception of those organisers who like to make the rules up as they go along so the winner is whoever they think it should be.

[Paul McKeown]

I don't see why a mandatory rule saying you can do whatever you like (including doing nothing) should be a problem to anyone (*) - "[Tie-breaks] shall take the form of an ordered list of tie-breaks chosen by the Chief Organiser either among those listed in Article 5, or self-defined in the specific regulations of the tournament." and "The regulations of the tournament shall specify whether tied participants will share the same place in the standings or, if not, a method for ranking them."

Indeed, my point in raising this matter is not to object to FIDE apparently simplifying their regulations or making their regulation mandatory for all FIDE rated tournaments, but rather to understand in practical terms what they actually mean, and how one is meant to implement their regulation, particularly as it seems to have been done so in an unco-ordinated and poorly communicated manner.

(*) with the exception of those organisers who like to make the rules up as they go along so the winner is whoever they think it should be.

And this I do agree with. The harmonisation should mean that from Lands End to John O'Groats, from Galway to Galveston, from San Salvador to Singapore, everyone should share a common understanding of what specific tie-breaks mean and how they should be implemented. This can only help protect organisers from insinuations such as the one you have just made, arbiters from paroxsymal outbursts from disappointed players, parents and/or team managers along the lines of "Virtual opponents, I have never such bloody rot in all my life," and players from errors, whether deliberate as you have suggested, or by accident whilst under pressure which I see as more likely, of arbiters and organisers.

[Ian Thompson]

(*) with the exception of those organisers who like to make the rules up as they go along so the winner is whoever they think it should be.

And this I do agree with. ... This can only help protect organisers from insinuations such as the one you have just made, ... and players from errors, whether deliberate as you have suggested, or by accident whilst under pressure which I see as more likely, of arbiters and organisers.

I was specifically thinking of tournaments that have offered "best performance" prizes without defining what they mean by that term, so the players only find out who's won at the prize giving.

[Paul McKeown]

I see with the latest version of Swiss Manager, 14.0.0.70, dated 01/10/2023, there is now an option in the Tie-breaks dialog box for Bucholz for "Baku 2023". I shall enquire about this is used.