New Year Norm Tournaments

sodacat11 · 20-12-2017 1:06pm #1

Why on Earth is a 1760 rated player being allowed into the I.M norm tournament????? Surely this drastically lowers the average rating of the tournament? I am sure that there are dozens of higher rated players who would have gladly made up the numbers.I don't know who this 1760 is but I forecast that he will score no more than half a point at best.

Tim Harding · 20-12-2017 1:54pm

At first sight incomprehensible unless he has paid loadsamoney. V. Paronyan is apparently an IRL-registered player, born 1976, with FIDE rating 1760.

I haven't calculated the category so maybe it's the same as if a 2200 player was included?

On the ICU live ratings it shows him as Paronyan, Vahe 1670 (+211) from the Armenian chess club and I see he won the James Mason event at Kilkenny with 5.5/6. So I guess he is seriously under-rated for some reason.

Anyway we are not in that tournament so why worry?

Retd.LoyolaCpt · 20-12-2017 1:55pm

An email to me might have proved as fast SC:
https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=198&view=article

I don't have access to the FIDE site from my office but I think that's the relevant article that discusses norm regulations.

For the purposes of an IM norm, you are allowed to have one player's rating float up to 2050 (if they are rated under 2050) so in essence a 1100 is the same as a 2050 in these events provided there is no other players rated under 2050.

When I announced this event, the intention was to set an IM score of 6.5. Up until Tuesday morning, that was going to be the case but I lost two players (2415 IM and a 2300 FM) last minute which meant a cheap 6.5 score was impossible. So then I had two choices:

1. Pay a titled player to bring the score to 6.5 (Cost = 4/5 nights accom at 99 p/n + 150 flights + 250 appearance fee - 225 loss of entry fee all adds up)

2. Drop the score to 7/9 which is obviously very tricky. So my aim as an organiser trying to maximise norm chances goes from getting the average rating to as close to 2284 as possible but not below to instead getting the average rating to as close to 2230 as possible but not below while still having 6 FMs and up (currently we have 1 GM, 2 IMs, 3 FMs).

I went with option 2 as this gives me the option of running a second set of norm event in 2018 (Easter - not confirmed as yet) alongside other events (senior, university + others) - an IM norm event generally costs up to 1k so the savings from not going with option 1 made that choice clear. (Many reasons that event is as yet unannounced - aiming for January announcement as long as this event runs smoothly).

Bringing the average rating right down to 2244 (for Brady and O'Donnell - its closer to 2260-2270 for the other norm hunters - that's assuming the 2050 rating as opposed to the 1760 rating) gives them a far better chance.

It also so happened that the 1760 in question was the next on my waiting list (who essentially had asked without too much hope but on the off-chance) so that seemed fairest in that regard too.

It may look unusual but would be by no means uncommon for a strong player to have an "easy" draw in round 1 of an open draw which without this rule would scupper norm chances immediately. So, for me, it was an acceptable solution given that I wanted the draw done and everything confirmed before Christmas.

Tim Harding · 20-12-2017 2:03pm

Title norm regulation 1.46b does allow for one opponent to be raised to 2050 for the purposes of calculation but surely FIDE introduced this rule because of Open Swisses and international team tournaments, when norm-seekers often cannot avoid having a low-rated opponent in round one.

I have never heard of this being used in a round-robin event before though perhaps it has in some countries. I cannot see anything that says the regulation cannot apply in this case.

sodacat11 · 20-12-2017 5:59pm

I still think that had the vacancy been advertised it would have been snapped up quickly by someone much higher than 1760 and quite possibly by someone a lot higher than 2050.
Tim asks why I should worry since I'm not in that event. It has been my longtime crusade to have underrated players omitted from tournaments for which they are not strictly eligible. Recently I have noticed that most tournaments are adhering much more rigidly to rating restrictions, hence my vastly increased tournament activity this season!!
My next campaign will be to have controllers who bend the rules regarding ratings burned at the stake or subjected to the rack although for a first offence perhaps twenty four hours in the stocks and a pelting with rotten eggs and putrid vegetables might be enough.

cdeb · 20-12-2017 6:23pm

The vacancy was advertised for a number of weeks I believe? The IM norm tournament was up for a fair while with a gap. (So I thought anyway!)

sodacat11 · 20-12-2017 6:59pm

cdeb wrote: »

The vacancy was advertised for a number of weeks I believe? The IM norm tournament was up for a fair while with a gap. (So I thought anyway!)

Yes indeed there was a gap but never for a minute did I think that it was open for anyone below at least 2100. Actually I am surprised to see anyone below 2300 trying for an I.M norm but maybe after Leicester winning the Premiership people have started to believe in miracles!

zeitnot · 20-12-2017 7:47pm

The 2050 rule is deceptive: it isn't really a case of FIDE being generous. Instead it's needed to compensate for distortions in the norm calculation that would otherwise make norms artificially difficult.
A norm is supposed to reflect a performance of 2450. For anyone playing at that level, there isn't that much difference between a 2050 player and a 1760 player. From the tables, you expect to score 0.92 against the 2050 and 0.99 against the 1760. So facing the 1760 makes some difference, easing matters by 0.07, but just barely.
The rest of the norm calculation takes an average of the opponent ratings. This is the part that's distorted. Playing 8 2300 and 1 1400 is much more difficult than playing 9 2200, even though they're the same average rating. Similarly counting the 1760 as is without raising to 2050 lowers the average opponent rating by 45 points or so, which would push up the norm by 1/2 point in almost all cases.

Retd.LoyolaCpt · 03-01-2018 1:29pm

Starts at 6pm tonight as planned. Format of events:

Leinster Juniors: 1-4 January
Norm Events: 9 rounds from 3-7 January
50+/65+: 7 rounds from 3-7 January
Blitz Event: Sunday night, 7 January, 750 prize fund.

sodacat11 · 03-01-2018 2:50pm

Great take up in both the Senior and Junior events proving my oft voiced opinion that people prefer to play their peers!! Hopefully we will see a lot more age restricted events in the future.

L1m1tless · 03-01-2018 7:53pm

Any of the games being broadcast? Can't see any info.

Tim Harding · 03-01-2018 11:01pm

Sorry no live boards in use this week

cdeb · 07-01-2018 3:16pm

Looks like Sam just needs a draw this afternoon against Matthew Turner to seal a third GM norm. Great result beating Simantsev GM this morning; Simantsev's first defeat of the tournament.

Would be great for him to get his third norm on Irish soil. Does he have the live rating requirement? Have a notion he briefly topped it during a tournament - an Olympiad maybe - a few years back.

eclipsechaser · 07-01-2018 3:47pm

cdeb wrote: »

Looks like Sam just needs a draw this afternoon against Matthew Turner to seal a third GM norm. Great result beating Simantsev GM this morning; Simantsev's first defeat of the tournament.

Would be great for him to get his third norm on Irish soil. Does he have the live rating requirement? Have a notion he briefly topped it during a tournament - an Olympiad maybe - a few years back.

He made it to 2499.2. Still, it would be a huge step on the road to GM to get the 3rd norm. I really hope he gets the draw.

eclipsechaser · 07-01-2018 7:08pm

Sam drew against GM Matthew Turner and bagged his 3rd GM norm. Superb achievement. Onwards to 2500...

mikhail · 07-01-2018 9:11pm

Awesome news. Fair dues to Sam for a magnificent performance. He was unbeaten against a tough field.

mikhail · 08-01-2018 12:11am

An IM norm for Jessel, too, says the ICU facebook page. It's his 5th, but he doesn't have the rating requirement yet. The chess-results.com page hasn't updated yet, but from their claimed final score, he seems to have beaten GM Simantsev in the last round.

tedjennings · 09-01-2018 9:31pm

I endorse the congratulation to Sam, I am sure his rating will have taken a boost with those results, well done Sam.
Well done to Stephen as well.

On a technical note the report on the ICU web site says that this was the first GM norm awarded on the island of Ireland, alas no, Bjorn Thorffinsson IM got his first GM norm in the Bunratty Classic in 2015.

sodacat11 · 09-01-2018 10:42pm

The whole event was a great success. Fantastic turnout for the junior event and the seniors and two very good all play alls resulting in Sam's GM norm and Stephen's rating gain. The Senior was a really enjoyable tournament with a number of players coming out of "retirement" to play or spectate. These are the children of the "Fischer phenomena" and it was great to see them back. There was a lovely atmosphere of camaraderie in the Seniors although no quarter was asked or given when it came to the games themselves. A lot of the competitors said how enjoyable it was not having to play youngsters who have been coached and are booked up to the gills with opening theory. This is nothing against the youngsters, just a reflection on how us over 50s have better things to be doing with our time than memorizing theory!! I hope that we will see a lot more age restricted tournaments in the future, there is obviously a demand for them.

New Year Norm Tournaments

Comments