Advertisement
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards
Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

Limerick Open 27-29 October 2018

Comments



  • Limerick has a good entry as far as quantity goes https://www.icu.ie/events/916 but there is a real dearth of players rated between 1900 and 2200. I thought that this was perhaps because the Limerick tournament is an open so players in that rating range would be playing very low rated players for a few rounds and yet would have little chance of winning prizes but when I checked the ICU rating list I was amazed to find that there are only 25 players in that rating range. Where have all the 1900 - 2200 players gone?




  • I see 77 (out of 1114) players from 1900-2200 on the ICU list. 107 from 1900-2200 on the FIDE list.




  • I see 77 (out of 1114) players from 1900-2200 on the ICU list. 107 from 1900-2200 on the FIDE list.

    I double checked the numbers before I wrote that post and I've just checked again on the ICU site and there are only 25 players being shown in that rating band. Where are you getting 77 from?




  • I wonder are you only looking at current members? As we're two months into the new ICU year, it could be that a lot are off the list because they haven't yet paid subs


  • Advertisement


  • This confusion is a consequence of another change to the ICU Ratings website. The October 2018 rating list excludes all those who (like me) hadn't got round to renewing their membership before it was released. There used to be a grace period until the end of the calendar year, but the ICU seems to have changed that without bothering to inform members of the change. Strangely, the live rating list does still contain those who were members in 2017-18, but haven't (yet) paid for 2018-19. Hence the discrepancy between the two lists, which would seem to be not ideal.




  • cdeb wrote: »
    I wonder are you only looking at current members? As we're two months into the new ICU year, it could be that a lot are off the list because they haven't yet paid subs
    Yes , that explains it. I was wondering how there could be so few. I thought that non paid up members couldn't play in tournaments, or am I dreaming?




  • There used to be a grace period until the end of the calendar year, but the ICU seems to have changed that without bothering to inform members of the change.
    The dread GDPR?




  • mikhail wrote: »
    The dread GDPR?

    Or just No More Mr. Nice Guy?

    Didn't a previous ICU regime get into trouble through trying to enforce payment of annual dues before Bunratty could be entered?
    Still, it does seem strange to me that the ICU site is programmed to collect entry fees from people who haven't yet paid their membership.

    On the other hand, I believe in the case of Trinity, their student members get their ICU membership paid, but the club collects the money later in the year from a central college societies fund when the final numbers are known, which means these people won't show as paid up until that is done. It may be similar for UCD.




  • Unsatisfactory outcome to the Limerick open can be seen at:
    https://www.icu.ie/sm/limerick_open/

    It perfectly bears out sodacat's criticisms of tournaments that have too wide a spread of playing strengths.
    There was a field of 45 in the Open, about eight of whom could have entered the sub-1400 event.

    (I can't be certain because the list with ICU ratings no longer displays but I think there were nine. There were eight below 1400 FIDE according to the report above.)

    The three titled players (one IM and two FMs) tied for first on 5/6, each conceding two draws.

    The IM played neither of the FMs, who did have to play each other.
    An accelerated pairing system or strict exclusion of sub-1400 players would probably have avoided this situation.

    It's not surprising so few strong players enter Limerick when this kind of thing is likely to happen.

    Of course an Open is an Open, and one young player rated below 1400 scored 4/6 but she is an outlier.

    Jana Solomatina (a young Latvian living in Ireland) is an improving junior who was only 18 FIDE points short of the 1400 mark (having gained 40 in the Irish Major in August) so making an exception for her would obviously have been OK.

    The next best score by a sub-1400 player was 3/6. One scored only the bye and another had only the bye and a draw with her father.


  • Advertisement


  • This tournament doesn't advertise what you are suggesting. The U1400s have the choice to play people around their own standard - to a degree - or to try to get some wins in the Open. It is not advertised as 1400+ and under 1400 - there are already plenty of events which have rating tiers but this is simply an open and an U1400.

    If the IM and 2 FMs had played to their high standards and avoided early draws, then there would have been an IM vs FM game in round 4. 2 years ago, the Gonzaga Classic (which kept to a rating floor) had 4 GMs, none of whom played each other after 5 rounds. The just-completed IoM had to wait until round 9 before any of the top 15 seeds played each other.

    We have events which guarantee encounters like the ones you mention: round robins. The Limerick Open doesn't guarantee that by any means.

    Your criticisms (and Sodacat's) of rating floors/tiers are well-documented; and most people probably share your view that its annoying when the advertised band is broken. However, I'm not sure why, at the first available chance, they have to be re-raised after/before each event again and again especially in a case like this where the advertised band wasn't broken. It hijacks the conversation which could be spent discussing games/results/other suggested improvements.

    If every event was pigeon-holed toward identical rating-tiers/bands/floors etc - the Irish chess scene would lose out. At the moment, off the top of my head, we have:

    6 round weekenders (1-3-2)
    6 round weekenders (2-2-2)
    5 round weekenders
    5 day round-robins
    5 day events
    a proposed 6-day open
    9 day event
    Half day Blitzes
    1 day rapids

    Within those, there are:
    U1200, U1100, 1100-1900, 1200-1900, U1400, 1150-1600, 1200-1600, 1550-2000, 1600-2000, 2000+, 1950+, 1900+, 1800+, 1600+, Opens and others

    If a format doesn't work - then it will die-off or be changed.

    Suggesting that an accelerated pairing would have "avoided this situation" also leaves out the fairly important point that it is a far from perfect alternative, especially for weekenders. See the Irish Open Weekender: where a 1200 player got to 4/4 in an open without having to play anyone rated over 1350 and then played a 2350 in the final round; essentially ensuring the top seed a full point in the pivotal round.

    Well done to John and Ted on a great event - heard from several people that they'd a good time and would be back again.




  • Jana Solomatina (a young Latvian living in Ireland) is an improving junior who was only 18 FIDE points short of the 1400 mark (having gained 40 in the Irish Major in August) so making an exception for her would obviously have been OK.

    The next best score by a sub-1400 player was 3/6. One scored only the bye and another had only the bye and a draw with her father.

    So you would make an exception for the improving junior but the guy who scored 50% has to piss off? :rolleyes:
    As far as I understand it the under-1400 section is only there for players who lack the confidence to play up. The organizers would prefer just an Open but are afraid they would lose players.

    I don't understand what you want to happen here. Exclude a handful of sub-1400 players so a handful of disgruntled 1900 players are free to play again? That would improve the chances of the top players being paired against each other how?

    It's a swiss, there's one sure way of being paired against the #1 and that's by keeping pace with him. You can't slip and then throw a fit because your prayers to the pairing gods weren't answered.

    I notice the players in your desired rating range have had no problem expressing their interest in the Easter Open, despite a healthy scattering of sub-1400s there too. Maybe if the Limerick Open promised 10+ GMs and a €10,000 prize fund everything would be okay with the world again?




  • The issue with the Irish Open Weekender was that:

    a) acceleration was continued to round 3 of 5, clearly one round too many. Limerick was over six rounds and accelerating the first two rounds certainly would not hurt. Then the lower-rated entrant would have to earn his game against an expert by scoring 2/2 against players closer to his own rating;

    b) the situation mentioned by Retd Loyola Capt. was made worse by an unexpected event which messed up the pairing of the leading players on the final day, viz., a player on 3/3 opted to take a half-point bye in round 4. Arguably the rules should have explicitly forbidden this, and that should be considered for next year. (Players on 2/3 or less could still be allowed a Sunday morning half-point bye.)




  • a player on 3/3 opted to take a half-point bye in round 4. Arguably the rules should have explicitly forbidden this, and that should be considered for next year. (Players on 2/3 or less could still be allowed a Sunday morning half-point bye.)

    And? A player asked for a bye, regardless of their score they should be treated the same.
    The three titled players (one IM and two FMs) tied for first on 5/6, each conceding two draws.

    The IM played neither of the FMs, who did have to play each other.
    An accelerated pairing system or strict exclusion of sub-1400 players would probably have avoided this situation.

    The IM played the players that finished 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th.
    Colm played the players that finished 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th.

    Also to note that a player on 2.5/3 had to withdraw from the event due to a bereavement, which undoubtedly caused issues with pairings coupled with some higher rated players dropping points.




  • As someone who was there, I didn't hear complaints - but I suppose we all knew what we had signed up to. Also all the games on the top boards were hard-fought, so we didn't get a quick last-round GM draw on board 1, and that is undoubtedly a good thing. However, at a quick glance at the last-round pairings, I can't quite understand why the lowest-rated player due a white in the chasing group was floated up to play the outright leader, rather than the highest-rated eligible player, which would have paired the top two seeds against each other and thereby partially satisfied Tim; but doubtless there is a reason, and we probably had more interesting games as a consequence (and also an excellent result for Sean Murphy).

    Accelerated pairing might have resulted in a small increase in the number of top pairings, but also of course reduced the chance of giant-killing, which some regard as part of the appeal of an Open. But accelerated pairing is indeed a topic for a separate debate - particularly as there are many different forms of accelerated pairing, and the best withdraw the bonus gradually rather than abruptly.




  • On the pairings - I suspect it got down to the 15th criteria here in pairing hierarchy:

    C.15
    minimize the number of players who receive the same upfloat as two rounds before.

    Conor avoided the top seed due to this (I think). It looks like Colm avoided the top seed in the previous round due to colours (which has a higher spot on that criteria than 2-downfloats in a row, as Colm had).




  • So it seems that Tim's gripe is really with the minutiae of the current FIDE pairing rules rather than with the organization at Limerick. I think (though I may well have got this wrong) that in the past there was a last round exemption, that would have paired the top two seeds in such circumstances, in spite of that conflicting with the usual upfloat rules; that would seem preferable if the aim is to get the higher-rated players to play each other. Seems we need yet another thread to discuss optimum pairing rules, as well as the merits or not of accelerated pairings ...




  • For reference, here are pairing guidelines: https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=170&view=article

    Tim had several gripes - this one I think is fair in the context of how pairings are made as the current pairing systems will automatically obey this guideline step-by-step (I assume). The guideline tends to ensure that the best players "place", as in, the higher rated players won't necessarily be paired in a situation where a human pairing may float the higher rated player.

    I've had compaints about this in multiple events but once an arbiter has committed to using a particular pairing system for all of the other rounds, it is difficult for them to essentially stick their neck out and overright the computer's suggested pairing. It is easier/safer to follow the computer and no less valid.




  • High rated players 2250+ have no problem with opens because they are almost sure to win prize money.Low rated players like to play their betters so they enter too. For players between 19 and 2100 there is little incentive as they are very unlikely to win the top prizes, are too high rated for a grading prize, and are unlikely to get many (if any) games against players of their own standard.
    Having said all that, I do often play in opens and will take part in the Malta Open shortly. http://www.chessorg.de/Listen2018/Malta-Open-Teil.php This is the ideal kind of open as far as I'm concerned with plenty of entrants in the 1800 -2200 range so hard fought games are guaranteed.For me, decent opposition is the main attraction of any tournament .I don't want to play players rated 2400- 2700 any more than I want to play 1300- 1600 players. I want games where all three results are equally possible.




  • Ah yes, the joys of pairing disputes.
    I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords.
    Well not really, actually.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement