English Chess Forum

I note from https://doc.fide.com/docs/DOC/4FC2022/Annex_6.3.1.pdf as approved recently that

Any title application containing at least one norm achieved after 30/06/2022 must include at least one norm from one of the following:
a) An individual Swiss tournament with every round containing at least forty participants whose average rating is at least 2000. For this purpose, players will be counted only if they miss at most one round (excluding pairing allocated byes)

I wonder if we might see the smaller "Open" tournaments rationing the presence of lower rated players in order to preserve their ability to offer norm chances. An easy way to do this, which some British organisers seem reluctant to adopt, is to run a "B" tournament alongside with rating restrictions, but othewise the same playing timetable etc.

I can't see why excluding lower rated players would help achieve this requirement. So long as you've got your 40 players meeting that average rating it doesn't matter how many more you've got that don't.

Of course, you might want to exclude lower rated players because playing them damages a norm seeker's chances, but that's a different issue.

I get the feeling Roger and Ian may be interpreting that regulation differently, and I'm not sure which one of them is right.

IM Jack Rudd wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 08, 2022 11:58 am

I get the feeling Roger and Ian may be interpreting that regulation differently, and I'm not sure which one of them is right.

I can see the point that provided you have at least 40 people over 2000, the rest of the field doesn't matter and as it's an average the top 40 field can go below 2000. Hastings 2022 already has at least 40 players over 2000. Whether it will apply to the forthcoming Cambridge Open in February 2023 remains to be seen. It would not have applied to the 2022 South Wales International, which had barely more than 50 players nominally starting. It's unlikely to apply to the Major Open in the British which would not be thought of as a Norm tournament anyway.

IM Jack Rudd wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 08, 2022 11:58 am

I get the feeling Roger and Ian may be interpreting that regulation differently, and I'm not sure which one of them is right.

I do not see how it is possible to give more than one interpretation to this regulation.

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 08, 2022 1:13 pm

I do not see how it is possible to give more than one interpretation to this regulation.

I checked out the 2022 South Wales International. Looking at the last round pairings, there were exactly 40 people with ratings who completed the tournament. Their average was under 2000, so if any Norms had been made, they presumably would have been disqualified. It may point to another problem, not initial entrants, but persuading higher rated players not to withdraw without playing 8 rounds from 9.

Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 08, 2022 1:34 pm

Their average was under 2000, so if any Norms had been made, they presumably would have been disqualified.

Only if the player's other two norms were also flawed in some way.

OK, the potential ambiguities, as I see them:

(a) it doesn't specify which average, and, if the average in question is a mean of some sort, what you do with a participant with a rating of NULL.

(b) it isn't entirely clear whether the average is taken over the entire set of players who complete the tournament, or the forty highest-rated players who do so.

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 08, 2022 1:54 pm

Only if the player's other two norms were also flawed in some way.

What I was referring to was that if the new regulation had been in force for the South Wales International of 2022 and if any player had otherwise made a Norm requirement, then that Norm would presumably have been disallowed.

I was assuming the requirement was that at least 40 players completed the tournament each with no more than one elective bye and that the top 40 of those players all have ratings and that the arithmetic average of ratings for those players is at least 2000.

Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 08, 2022 1:34 pm

It may point to another problem, not initial entrants, but persuading higher rated players not to withdraw without playing 8 rounds from 9.

Or too many higher rated players choosing to take a half-point bye in the same round, leaving that round short of the requirement.

Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 08, 2022 2:41 pm

What I was referring to was that if the new regulation had been in force for the South Wales International of 2022 and if any player had otherwise made a Norm requirement, then that Norm would presumably have been disallowed.

It doesn't say that. They have a valid norm, but to be awarded the title they need another of their norms to meet one of the requirements listed, which need not be a).

It's like the regulation that at least one of your norms must meet the normal foreigners requirement: norms where you face nine Englishmen in the British Championship or the 4NCL are valid, but you can't get all your norms that way.

Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 08, 2022 2:41 pm

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 08, 2022 1:54 pm

Only if the player's other two norms were also flawed in some way.

What I was referring to was that if the new regulation had been in force for the South Wales International of 2022 and if any player had otherwise made a Norm requirement, then that Norm would presumably have been disallowed.

No, as stated above. Only one of your three norms needs to be achieved in a "Big Swiss".

Ian Thompson wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 08, 2022 2:53 pm

Or too many higher rated players choosing to take a half-point bye in the same round, leaving that round short of the requirement.

The conditions are definitely intended to be a minimum, not a target. Any event considered in the chess world to be a "Big Swiss" will not even think about them. Organisers who try to build their event around this regulation ( and the norm seekers who enter them ) must be prepared for a disappointment if the plans go slightly awry.

IM Jack Rudd wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 08, 2022 2:05 pm

OK, the potential ambiguities, as I see them:

(a) it doesn't specify which average, and, if the average in question is a mean of some sort, what you do with a participant with a rating of NULL.

In standard English average always means mean.

I suppose NULL could be used as a rating of zero. It would be strange tournament if you had to do that.

(b) it isn't entirely clear whether the average is taken over the entire set of players who complete the tournament, or the forty highest-rated players who do so.

If the former, the wording would be

a) An individual Swiss tournament with every round containing at least forty participants and whose average rating is at least 2000.