More on tie-breaks

The discussion on tie breaks used for the 2011 European Championship is bubbling along over at Chessvibes. Of course the debate also covers what is the 'best' tie-break system to be used for various tournaments, a subject that is currently in front of the FIDE Rules and Tournament Regulations Commission.

The major issue is how you differentiate between the performance of players that finish on the same score. The conventional wisdom for swiss tournaments, and one I agree with, is that the player that plays the harder field has achieved 'more' than the other players. The difficulty is what constitutes the 'harder' field.

Now I don't have a problem with Sum of Opponents Scores (Buchholz) as the first tie break. Some may have a preference for Median Buchholz (drop the highest and lowest scoring opponent) due to the effect of first round pairings, but I'm not convinced it is a better system (your first round opponent may have a shocker, or may have a blinder, but then so may your second round or third round opponent).

However one potential defect in the system is: What happens if one of your opponents plays a particularly hard field themselves (and consequently gets a lower score)?

Now while this concerns another level of complexity, GM John Nunn proposed a solution a number of years ago. He suggested a Sum of the Sum of Opponent Scores. In fact he suggested (if I remember correctly) this could be extended further (using an averaging system) until everyone's tie-break scores stabilised.

Interestingly I haven't seen this system formally proposed as an alternative system to the existing tie-break methods. Whether it is because it is seen to be too complicated I'm not sure, but at the next RTRC meeting I get to I'll try and find out.

2011 ANU Masters - Round 8

IM-elect Andrew Brown wrapped up the 2011 ANU Masters with a win over Adrian De Noskowski this evening. Although it is only the 8th round, Brown played his 9th round game against Alana Chibnall ahead of schedule, winning that as well. This leaves him on an impressive 8/9 and a full point and half against Junta Ikeda, who still has a game in hand.

Ikeda moved to 6.5/8 after picking up an early pawn against Peter Pullicino, and then rebuffing an attempt to hack the king. Michael Reading salvaged half a point against Miles Patterson after looking like he was facing a lost ending, while Alana Chibnall continued her good tournament by beating Jeremy Reading after the latter got his pieces tangled up while trying for an attack.

De Noskowski,Adrian (1938) - Brown,Andrew (2175) [E81]

2011 ANU Masters (8), 06.04.2011

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.Be3 c5 7.dxc5 dxc5 8.Qxd8 Rxd8 9.Bxc5 Nc6 10.Nd5 Nxd5 11.cxd5 Bxb2 12.Rb1 Bc3+ 13.Kf2 b6 14.Bb5 Bd4+ 15.Bxd4 Nxd4 16.Bd3 e6 17.Rb4 Nc6 18.Rb3 exd5 19.exd5 Rxd5 20.Be4 Rc5 21.Ne2 f5 22.Bb1 Ba6 23.Rd1 Re8 24.Rb2 Rxe2+ 25.Rxe2 Bxe2 26.Kxe2 Re5+ 27.Kf2 Kf8 28.Bc2 Ke7 29.Bb3 b5 30.Bg8 h6 31.f4 Re4 32.g3 a5 (D)

33.Bh7 Re6 34.Rd5 Kf7 35.Rd7+ Ne7 36.Rb7 b4 37.Ra7 Kg7 38.Bxg6 Kxg6 39.Rxa5 Nc6 40.Rb5 Kf6 41.Rd5 Ne7 42.Rb5 Ra6 43.Rxb4 Rxa2+ 44.Kg1 Nd5 45.Rb8 Ne3 46.Rb6+ Kg7 47.Rb7+ Kg6 48.Rb6+ Kh5 49.Re6 Rg2+ 50.Kh1 Re2 51.h3 Re1+ 52.Kh2 Nf1+ 0-1

The dilemma of coaching

I've started working with a new coaching group this year and once again I face the dilemma about what approach I should take. It is a fairly young group (9 - 10 year old), but they all have some tournament experience.

The choice (as I see it), is either to go with the flashy tactics, the brilliant attacks, the spectacular mates, or to try and develop a more rounded understanding of the game. The former is more appealing, as it is something that younger players seem to understand better (winning a piece makes more sense than controlling d5), and it is more likely to hold their interest. But in choosing this option I'm afraid they might miss out on developing a more general understanding of the game (as I did when I was younger).

Or am I worryingly unnecessarily, and it is just a matter of making the information interesting and challenging, no matter what the subject is?

The new New in Chess

Change is sometimes difficult to cope with, especially where chess players are concerned (try changing a venue for an established tournament and see how many fail to cope). So it isn't surprising that the current issue of New in Chess contains a number of letters complaining about the changes to the last issue of New in Chess.

For those who don't subscribe (shame on you!), the magazine simply changed size and now is in a larger format. The change makes it slightly harder to keep in your pocket, but on the plus size, the bigger layout makes it far easier to read. Along with the size change a couple of extra features have been included, but otherwise it is essentially the same magazine. So overall I like the change, and think the publishers have made the right move.

Some tie-break systems aren't as good as others.

There probably isn't such a thing as a perfect tie-break system. Some work better than others in certain circumstances, but fail in others. However, to at least try and make it work, an organisers should be (a) consistent and (b) publicise it well in advance.

For example, the junior event I directed last week used what is the 'standard' tie-break system for ACT Junior events. In the event of a tie for first (or a title), the two highest players on countback (Bukhholz, Median Bukhholz, Progressive) first compare head to head, and if they either did not play, or drew, play a G/15m single game, with draw odds going to the player with the highest tie-break. While that loads the odds in favour of the player with the best tie-break, it does give the other player a fighting chance of winning the title (as indeed happened last weekend). This system has been in place for a number of years, and is reasonably well know (at least amongst players who have been involved in such ties).

In contrast, the organisers of the European Championship sprung a new tie-break system on the players, one which the majority of players seemed to be unaware of until just before the closing ceremony. The tie-break (to decide qualification spots for the World Cup) had Tournament Performance Rating (TPR) as the first method. However this was modified to drop the lowest (probably good) and highest (probably bad) rated opponents from the calculations (including any points scored). This had the effect of dragging down some TPR's of players who defeated their highest rated opponent (eg Gawain Jones against David Navarra). In the confusion it appears that some players believed they were off to Russia for the World Cup, only to find out later they weren't. I guess the European Chess Union will eventually be the final arbiter of the results.

Straight down the middle

It is a very rare game where I can follow a single plan from (almost the) start until the finish. Normally such plans will either be undone by my opponents own plans, or by me deciding I've found a better one (which often isn't correct).

I did get to play such a game last week in a rapid (G/20m+10s) tournament at my club. As early as move 10 I envisaged a minority attack, doubling my rooks on the c file and then playing a5-b4 to wreck White's pawn structure. I even won a pawn due to to White's misplaced rooks. However chess is still a touch game, and having won the pawn I still needed to win the ending. In fact I almost mucked it up, and was fortunate that I had the f6 idea in the position.

Robertson,Keith - Press,Shaun [A48]

2011 ANU Autumn Rapid (2), 30.03.2011

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.e3 Bg7 4.Bd3 0-0 5.0-0 d6 6.c3 c5 7.Nbd2 cxd4 8.exd4 e6 9.Re1 b6 (D)

10.Ne4 Bb7 11.Nxf6+ Bxf6 12.Bh6 Bg7 13.Bxg7 Kxg7 14.Qe2 Nd7 15.Be4 Bxe4 16.Qxe4 d5 17.Qe2 Qc7 18.Ne5 Nxe5 19.Qxe5+ Qxe5 20.Rxe5 Rfc8 21.Rae1 Rc7 22.g4 Rac8 23.h4 b5 24.a3 a5 25.R5e3 Rc4 26.R1e2 b4 27.Rc2 bxa3 28.bxa3 Rxd4 29.cxd4 Rxc2 30.Rd3 Rc4 31.Kf1 Kf8 32.Ke2 Ke7 33.f4 Rc2+ 34.Rd2 Rxd2+ 35.Kxd2 Kd6 36.g5 Kc6 37.a4 Kd6 38.Kc3 f6 39.Kd3 e5 40.gxf6 e4+ 41.Ke3 Ke6 0-1

Paranoia runs deep

Despite being found guilty by the French Chess Federation of cheating at the 2010 Olympiad, Sebastien Feller is currently playing in the European Championship, as he is appealing the decision, and the punishment handed down is therefore on hold. Clearly the case (and possibly Feller's presence) is having an effect on others players, as an open letter, signed by many of the participants, appeared part way through the tournament, asking the organisers to take harsher actions to prevent cheating. The letter asked that arbiters be allowed to search players, to ban all electronic devices from the playing halls, and to unplug DGT boards if a player requests it.

Interestingly the prime mover of the letter was Francisco Vellejo Pons, and it appeared the day before he was due to play Feller! Nonetheless it was signed by other players in the event as well.

While it is clear that the players are concerned about (a) cheating or (b) being worried their opponent is cheating, I have two points to make. Firstly, demands to 'do something' can often lead to unintended consequences (ie players being disqualified for accidentally leaving a switched off phone in a jacket) , and secondly, a determined cheater will try and find a way around the restrictions.

Having said this, it doesn't mean organisers should do nothing. At this years Doeberl Cup, we are taking steps to deal with the possibility that cheating may occur. It won't be as draconian as metal detectors and body searches, but it will include prohibitions on talking to people with laptops/computers in front of them, as well as a high degree of vigilance from the arbiting team. Of course this is pretty much what we've done in previous years (although the laptop rule is new), but in the current atmosphere it will hopefully allow players to concentrate on their games, rather than what their opponent may or may not be doing.