Nick Addante Post on IL

[Palomino]

This is for those who love statistics...It's pretty disconcerting to say the least!

(A) There are approximately 780,000 licensed physicians in the U.S. (Figure form the year 2008.)

(B) There were approximately 145,000 accidental deaths of people under the direct care of licensed Physicians during the year of 2000. (12,000 deaths by unnecessary surgery, 7,000 due to medication errors in hospitals, 20,000 due to other errors in hospitals and 106,000 from the negative effects of medications.)

(C) The number of accidental deaths per physician is 0.185+ per year.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Now think about this:

(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is approximately 75 million.

(B) The number of accidental gun deaths (All age groups.) during the year of 2000 was 776.

(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner was .0000103.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

So, statistically, doctors are approximately 1800 times more dangerous than gun owners.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

CONCLUSION: We should ban doctors before we are all dead!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Remember, statistics don't lie they just lead us to the wrong conclusions!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Seem to me that we are focusing on who did this and who did that with no proof of any wrong doing by the Ellison brothers or Nick.

I think the focus should be on "How do we keep both Nick and the Ellison brothers envolved in the game?

I'm afraid we are going to lose both and we can't afford to allow that to happen!

[n1ck]

Paolomino,

Congratulations on your ability to go to Truth or Fiction. com and plagerize a humorous anecdote based on incorrect statistics.

I hope this was your intention, humor lol.

Obviously accidental medical deaths and gun deaths are completely irrelated. These statistics are biased, as the accidental medical deaths arise from occasions where those seeking medical assistance are already in critical condition, so naturally the probability of them "accidentally" dieing is higher.

[MostFamousDane]

When I was studying statistics at the university I remember reading a paper proving (as a joke) that children come from the stork since it could be proven that the more storks there were in an area the more babies there were.

When I was a child I was visiting my grand parents and we were watching tv - at one point I formed my hand as a "finger" gun and shot at the TV. Just at that second there was blackout and the TV went out. When you consider that I hadn't "shot" the TV before (or after) and the fact that blackouts are extremely rare in Denmark the odds of these two events to happen at the same time is astronomically low. The only possible conclusion is therefore that I have super powers .

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Nick didn't play in too many checkers events as I did, otherwise he would be aware that 1-2 mistakes with pairing is about normal number that happened at almost each State Checkers event. Even Nationals are not completely free from mistakes.

Statistcics prove that everyone who was born before 1880 and didn't smoke - died. Conclusion: NOT SMOKING is danger for your health and for your life.

On serious note ... dear Nick, you are "psychologically trapped" with this story and continue thinking and thinking, talking and talking ... Just stop doing it, it's not healthy and it's danger. Leave it behind. Don't think everything goes right and is perfect in this life, but in other hands - don't think everything goes wrong.

There is no way to prove anything in this story. I am not taking sides and I really wish Gene, Gary and Nick remain to be on my list of friends.

Regards,

Alex

[Mac Banks]

Hi Everyone,

I don't want to get into the specific Illinois State tourney but will give you my opinion on the subject in a general discussion. I have been going to checker tourneys for over 50 years and I have seen every thing possible to decide who wins the tourney. In one National tourney in the 1970's, two of the best master players of that time decided to take a break and rest for next round so they agreed to two draws. What is even worst, they went to their room to write up the fake games so they could be turned in. Now a lot of people back then sent in money to support the tourney and wanted a copy of the real games played, not fake games. Remember back then we didn't have the internet. I was also mad because I had given full support of the tourney. The reason, besides the rest was to avoid playing Marion Tinsly in the next round and it forced R. Johnson to have to play Tinsley. Johnson was doing very well into the tourney until this happened. By shifting who played Marion, the whole result of the tourney changed. Once in a tourney in Tennessee, a Memphis player who was hosting the tourny had drawn up the rules of the play for the tourney. Well , in the final round, by the very rules he had made up and passed out to everyone prevented him from playing the player who was leading so he made a decision to change the rules by himself so he could be playing for the title and get the prize money. When he was challenged, he declared that he was running the tourney and could do as he pleased. Many times I have seen players decide to throw the last match the benefit someone coming in a higher position and more prize money.
A lot of players like to leave early because of a long drive home so decide on drawn match such as what Alex was talking about. This has been going on for over 50 years. In my view , this is not fair, as the games in the last round are as important as the games of the first round and should be played but that is the way a lot of checker players want it as many drive for hours to get to a tourney and sometimes it allows them more daylight to get home. There is no simple cure for ensuring all games are to be played. When I was secretary of the ACF, I talked to Alan Millhone about this problem and he as me thought that all games should be recorded and turned in. Unfortuantely, some move so fast especially in the minor division that this is not possible and some masteer players could force a game into a draw if both agreed beforehand. I for one never went to a tourney for money as I usually spent a lot more than I could win but I would treasure the games that I would get from playing in the tourney but the social contact of meeting and knowing the players. I personally feel for Nick as he felt he had a legimate shot at winning the state title and in his eyes he didn't have a fair chance of reaching that goal. Whether or not anyone else thinks he is right or not is not the question, as in his eyes he felt he should have had a better chance of winning the title. This doesn't mean that I think someone screwed him up or not as I was not there and don't know the facts but I do know the gentleman running the tourney are honorable men. Over my 50 years of playing the game, many have speculated why checkers have not reached a higher status than it should have because of the beauty of the game. Here is my opinion, and remember, I am only one person, and my opinion may not be the opinion of others. Here is what I have seen: First of all the players want the cheapest motels they can find to play in as this reduces the cost to come to a tourney but it also reduces the interest that local media has in covering the event. Recently a checker tourney was held in Las Vegas at a motel next to Circus Circus that I wouldn't even want to visit much less play a tourney and sleep for the night. Secondly, I always wanted dress code for the players as I have seen some players attend tourneys with their privates hanging out. By having a dress code, it would make the tourney seem more professional.
Next, I would set up rules that require standards for all tourneys, state, National or whatever. No tourney should have rules devised to please the host of the tourney. Also, I would have more sponsorship of a tourney; try and get the city involved into ownership of the tourney. Once a city is involved tremendous benefits come from their support. Also, would like for any important match that is in progress be shown on a giant display move by move until the game and match is over. This will have to be done away from the players to keep the noise down but it will generate interest from the weaker players and others who may come around to see what all the fuss is about. Now, I have many more ideas and I don't want to put them all here as they are only my opinions and remember I am only one person and others may dislike my ideas. Someday, I hope Nick does win a state or national title so hang in there as good things will happen to you if your interest in the game remains strong. I leave everyone with one final thought, " I would rather lose a checker game than to lose a checker friend"!! All the best, Mac Banks

[jpost]

The continuation of this thread is, ultimately, irrelevant, as we have called attention to the fact that tournaments should be run with the utmost dignity and care, and I have no doubt that the tourney overseers will be much more circumspect in coming tournaments. I, for one, never came into contact with this situation, as the late J.B. Morris ran the Arkansas tournaments, and did an exemplary job doing so.

Competition is the heart of checkers for me, as I love competing in real tournaments; however, I have fun competing, and I don't find myself indignant (or terribly upset) when I lose, even if it might not be fair. We should all remember that sportsmanship is the heart of the game, and fighting (what some at least could argue is) bad sportsmanship with bad sportsmanship is really not the answer. I still don't understand how we find ways, in a game that needs unity more than ever, to fight each other over pointless trivialities. (And yes, I don't view this situation as too serious, as one should be able to challenge for the championship outside of a tournament setting.) Why don't we all grow up and play nice?

[Eric Strange]

I completely agree with you Mac and your post was informative as well as inspiring.

Thank you

[kkelly]

Hello Jay:

Since you asked The " A " Class at this past week-end's tournament requires ACF Membership to play in the Masters. Dr. Beckwith and Kim Willis and myself have received several emails and the three of us as ACF Executive Officers are engaged in discussion . All I can offer for now..............................................

Sincerely:
Alan Millhone, President
American Checker Federation

Greetings Alan,
Hope all has been well.....
One thing which I hope you and the rest of the EC strongly consider during your discussions......
If the allaged conduct at Illinois is indeed true and accurate, and there are no consequences,......
this goes the whole nine yards towards perpetuating the myth (if it is a myth ??!!??) that the ACF, and organized Checkers in America (in general) are nothing more than a "good old boys" club.
How could we ever hope to attract the youth of our country to this game with such a stigma attached to it...? Corruption from within has destroyed many an empire............

Regards,

Jay "Loyal to the game" H

Jay,
your comments are good,
"If the allaged conduct at Illinois is indeed true and accurate, and there are no consequences,......"
Now answer
"If the allaged conduct at Illinois is indeed untrue and in-accurate, and there are no consequences,......" what then? It has already been shown by Nick that his comments have not been completely truthful\accurate, what then, do we just continue to write this off as immature youth and is acceptable?
Ken


Regards

[ERDoll]

This is Roger Doll writing. This forum post is my very first post to the ACF forum.

I am the newly elected Vice President of the Illinois Checker Association (ICA) which sponsors the Illinois State Championship Tournament. I want to meet my implied fiduciary duty as an officer of the association to address the charges lodged in this forum against the two other officers. I take this duty seriously.

The purpose of this posting is to address the issues raised by this controversy in relation to the ICA. An investigation is appropriate to discover whether ICA rules and practices needs to be changed and whether its governance needs to be reformulated.

I have been active in the Illinois checker scene for over ten years and have served as Secretary/Treasurer of the Illinois 101 Counties Tournament (a sister tournament to the state tournament) and have sponsored many short tournaments of my own. I have been an active tournament referee and official on a few dozen tournaments now and last year served as assistant referee for the ACF National 3-more tournament.

I did not attend the IL state tournament this year because of other personal time demands. So I do not have firsthand knowledge of what transpired. I am reacting to the posts in this forum. I have not spoken to Nick, as I believe that he has made his claims clear through multiple posting here. I have spoken to Gene Ellison on the phone.

Several accusations have been made in this forum. I summarize them down to a) that the tournament was run unfairly and b) that Gary and Gene Ellison acted in an unsportsmanlike manner.

Please read the discussion below. The headlines are that I concluded that the tournament was run fairly and do not see a proven case of wrong-doing by Gary and Gene. Read this posting in full to see why I reach those conclusions. I have looked for necessary changes to the ICA tournament rules and practices. While there are possible alternatives to consider, I find no systemic flaws that need to be addressed.

Accusation about the conduct of the tournament

The citizens of the State of Illinois through the Illinois Checker Association sponsor a tournament each year to determine a state champion. Checker playing in Illinois has a long rich history. 106 state championship tournaments have been played. The tournament is an open tournament and we welcome and enjoy the company of many players from other states. All classes of players are encouraged to play and enjoy playing this wonderful game.

For a tournament to be judged as fair then 1) the rules need to be specified beforehand and 2) those rules consistently and properly followed.

Each state can determine its own rules of determining its champion. ICA has chosen to hold a tournament to determine our champion with play under the 3-move restriction, seven rounds, two games per round, game scoring, two hour limit per round, and pairing done using a modified Swiss system. This style of tournament has been played in Illinois for decades. This style of tournament is common. We make available to all players the rules in written form and the rules are reviewed during the business meeting preceding the tournament. Any player can make a motion to alter the rules during the business meeting. Of course, any citizen of the State of Illinois is eligible to run for office and provide leadership to the organization if elected by the members.

One might think that the ACF governs and directs state associations as a top down authority. In reality, that’s not the case. The relationship between the ACF and state associations is one of “affiliation” as described in the ACF Constitution and By-Laws. Organized checker playing in Illinois preceded the establishment of the ACF. The ICA has chosen to affiliate with the ACF and them with the ICA. We have chosen in Illinois to align our approach to tournaments with ACF practices and I believe that is absolutely the right approach. We have our own traditions which we continue to follow. Having a national organization strengthens the continuation of checkers as an organized sport and the ICA is proud to work with the ACF in its promotion. We have great people governing the ACF that we can give advice from, but ultimately, it’s a local matter for a state association to address its own problems. The obligation has fallen to me to investigate this as the independent officer of the ICA.

Suggestions have been made for the ACF to establish consistency among its affiliates on the conduct of tournaments. I’m a proponent of principle of federalism in this regard as one single set of practices may not be appropriate everywhere. However, States should try and keep with practices consistent with others.

I have spend several hours meticulously “re-officiating” the tournament on paper to see if the Illinois state tournament rules were adhered to. I went round by round and worked through the pairings to see whether the procedures of modified Swiss pairing were followed.

Some posts to the forum thread call Swiss pairing a lottery. That’s not exactly a good analogy as the pairings follow a prescribed methodology rather than being chosen by pure equal chance. However, the Swiss Pairing methodology does have an element of chance in how the pairings are constructed.

Let’s look at the pairing for Round Five which Alex as questioned.

At the start of Round Five the player’s points were as follows.
13 - Moiseyev
12- Holmes
9 - Gary Ellison and Addante
8 – Keen, Davis and Millhone
7 – Burgess, West, Gene Ellison
5 – Grisley
3 – Christian

With Swiss pairing, players in the same point band are paired together unless they have played before, in which case they are paired with a player in the next lower band. Sometimes is necessary to go down several bands to pair someone. In the case where there is more than one choice of pairing for an individual the opponent is chosen at random. Our common practice in Illinois is to have someone other than the tournament officials do the drawing, preferably someone from a different player class if someone is available. The process is done top-down from the highest point band.

The Swiss system is a compromise attempt to produce a fair tournament when all players cannot play each other. It is widely used in checker tournament play.

Some people use computer programs that follow the Swiss Pair methodology to make pairings. In Illinois we have always prepared the pairings by hand. The computer programs simply do the same thing as we do. We have created a system of double-checks to attempt to eliminate mistakes that works very good. It is a terrible fear of a tournament director that a mistaken pairing will create controversy. I think our track record for Illinois tournaments is very solid in this regard.

Even with computer programs, I have found that manually checking the pairing result is useful in that the pairing produced is only as good as the computer programmer who wrote the software. (BTW, my profession is computer programming). I’ve seen computer pairings that didn’t make sense. If fact, we had an instance of this in the Masters class at the last ACF tournament that we overrode with a hand pairing. Computer pairing, while quicker is not necessarily better than hand pairing.

One might suggest that it would be an improvement for the ICA to use computer pairing. I don’t see clear advantages for such as change, so am comfortable with our present approach.

There are alternatives to random selection of opponents in the case where an individual can be paired with more than one person. One common alternative used in other sports is to use player ratings as a guide for pairing in this situation. The ICA has always used a random drawing as our methodology. The ACF National Tournament uses the same approach.

Now back to Round 5.

1. In the 13 point band there is only one player, so he needs to be paired with a player in a lower band. Moiseyev played Holmes in Round 2, so we need to look into lower bands for an opponent. Neither Addante nor Gary Ellison have played Moiseyev, so a card is draw a random. Gary was chosen, so the first pairing is Moiseyev-Gary Ellison.
2. Next we have Holmes alone in the 12 point band. Since he has already played Addante we must go to the 8 point band to find an opponent. Holmes has played Keen, so the opponent is drawn from the two remaining cards in the 8 point band, Davis is drawn. Second paring is Holmes-Davis.
3. Now we have Addante left in the 9 point band. He played Millhone in Round 4, so the third pairing becomes Addante-Keen.
4. In the 8 point band, we have Millhone left. He has played Burgess in the 7 point band, so we draw between Gene Ellison and West with West being drawn. So the fourth pairing is Milhone-West.
5. We next pair the two remaining 7 point band players, Gene Ellison and Burgess.
6. Looking at the last pairing, we see that Christian and Grisley have already played each other, so that pairing will not work. In this case, we need to break the pair in the higher band to fix it. Burgess has played Christian and Gene Ellison has played Grisley, so the last pairing become Gene Ellison-Christian and Burgess-Grisley

I give this rather lengthy explanation to show that the Round 5 pairings were done properly per the established rules. In this pairing there were three random draws. Due to that, there is an element of chance in the pairings and multiple pairing solutions are possible. The pairings must work for the entire field of players. There are several “correct” pairings for the entire field given the point status of each player and the play history. In Illinois we always use the first correct solution we achieve. We do not create multiple correct pairings then choose among them as that would add arbitrariness to the process. I suppose one could propose that the pairings for the round be chosen at random from all the correct pairings, but that’s really impractical.

I have re-created/re-officiated on paper all the rounds and the pairings. I did this carefully and it took several hours. I find no evidence that the Swiss system rules that the ICA has adopted were not followed correctly. If I had been present at the tournament and officiated then the very same pairings for all rounds would have been a likely outcome.

Let’s now look at the seventh round. The ICA uses Top Dog pairing for the last round (that’s where the “modified” part of modified Swiss Pairings comes from). In Top Dog pairing, opponents are matched top to bottom based on their points regardless of whether they have played before. However, when going down point band, prefer fresh versus repeat pairing. I have seen cases where we had to randomly select a pairing from a lower band, so even Top Dog pairing has some chance involved. This last round pairing method is the same as the method used by the ACF in their national tournament.

So at the beginning of Round 7 we have:
20- Moiseyev
17 – Holmes
14 –Keen
12 – Addante, Burgess, Davis
11 – Gary Ellison, Gene Ellison
10 – Millhone, West
8 – Grisley
7 – Christian.

The Top Dog pairing goes as follows:
1. Moiseyev-Holmes
2. Both Addante and Davis have played Keen, so pair Keen with Burgess.
3. Pair Addante and Davis
4. Pair Gary and Gene Ellison
5. Pair Milhone and West
6. Pair Grisley and Christian

So the Top Dog pairings for Round 7 were made correctly per the Top Dog pairing method.

The only pairing method that I’m aware of that eliminates the element of chance is the round-robin pairing. However, you need the right number of players for the number of rounds, which does not happen very often.

We can argue forever whether Nick was favored or disfavored by chance in any particular pairing, round or for the entire tournament. We can take any other player in the tournament and construct a similar argument. As I look at how the tournament progressed, and think about the progression of other tournaments I have officiated, I see no pattern of manipulation of the pairings to favor the officers. Just take Round 5, is pairing Gary with Alex, favoring an officer?

Some postings in this thread suggest that a special case should be made for brothers playing. However, the ICA rules established at the start of the tournament had no such provisions. I believe that it is much more preferable to set down a set of rules that players can count on and follow them versus coming up with some arbitrary rule mid-play. Arbitrary rule changes expose the tournament director to more accusations of mis-conduct or un-fairness than simply following the rules properly. Subsequently, making up a new rule in the 7th round for Gene and Gary is inappropriate. I don’t think a special brother rule makes sense regardless (do the brothers like or hate each other, play strength, etc.) and would not support one if proposed at an ICA business meeting.

Other posts have questioned the choice of tournament director. It has been traditional in Illinois that the ICA officers direct tournament. Directing a tournament is task that few want, so the role usually is assumed voluntarily by the ICA officers. In the past, I have helped officiate these state tournaments and I’m sure that Howard Hoover, who played in the B Class helped out with score-keeping and pairing at this tournament as he usually does. One might make a case for an independent referee/director but at these small state tournaments that’s just not feasible. So, the tournament direction was perfectly consistent with our past practices and I cannot suggest any practical changes to be made.

The ICA might consider a rule to have a referee monitor Round 7 games where the championship is at stake. In this tournament there were four Illinois players in reach of the title, so we would have needed 3 referees (since two were playing each other). Practically, those referees are not available for such a small tournament as ours. Besides, there are six other rounds. If we verify through refereeing the seventh round, will not someone complain that a previous round was played improperly? Must we referee every game? Must we referee every game since all games impact honor points? At some point we need to trust the players. Why do they become untrustworthy in the last round? Should we have refereed Nick’s own Round 7 game? This line of thinking takes us in a bad direction. I don’t want to go there.

I hope that from all this information and analysis that you come to the same conclusion that I did, that the tournament was run fairly in accordance to our rules. The rules were established and explained before play began and were properly adhered to. If one does not like our rules, our rules are subject to change upon a vote of Illinois players, and proposals for changes can be brought to the association during the next business meeting.

Accusation about unsportsmanlike conduct

Gary and Gene have been accused of colluding on the last round to throw the round to Gary’s favor. Based on what I read and heard, there are no independent eye witnesses who watched the games, thus, no direct confirmation of mis-conduct. The only evidence offered is that the games were played quickly.

Others have commented that Gary and Gene play fast. That is my own observation, so I do not find this surprising. They are regularly among the early finishers in a round. They play especially fast when they play together. There is a reasonable explanation for this.

When one gets to know Gary and Gene, one learns that playing checkers is a long-time family pastime. Their brother Kenneth, who passed away recently, was as strong a player as Gary and Gene. I’ve heard them refer to playing with sons and grandsons. Playing checkers is a part of their family gatherings and they have been playing checkers together for many, many years, probably thousands of games. They know each other’s style and strengths and weaknesses probably better than any other pair of players. So either player would quickly know when they have recognized that they played into a loss whether it is worth the effort of playing the game out in hopes that the one would make a mistake. Many players chose to resign in respect for their opponent in this situation. That is a common practice. As Gene described his and Gary’s Round 7 games to me, I came to believe that the short games where attributable to this practice along with their general propensity to play fast when playing each other.

I have known Gary and Gene for over ten years and have worked with them as an officer of the Illinois 101 Counties Tournament. I find them forthright and honest gentlemen who take their responsibilities as ICA officers seriously. Never during my time knowing them have I seen them do anything remotely shady. Others such as John Acker, Palomino, and others who have long acquaintance with the Ellison’s have attested to their integrity in this forum. The idea of Gene or Gary throwing a game is just contrary to my entire experience with them over many years. I would need persauvise evidence to to convince me.

Some have suggested that we require recording and submittal of all games. Since we do not publish our tournament games, recording games has never been a requirement in Illinois. While doing so might have provided additional evidence in this situation, I just see it as an unnecessary burden on players and don’t recommend that recording of games be required in the future.

Without any eyewitnesses to the games, we only have accusations and no direct facts. Given the known character of Gene and Gary and because there is a logical explanation for the short games, I don’t see how Gene and Gary can be “convicted” of unsportsmanlike conduct. I am distressed that the circumstances have raised an appearance of foul-play, but an organization need more than appearances to make a definitive judgment and the default judgment in these cases is a presumption of innocence.

In conclusion

As I stated above, my purpose is to examine this situation in light of ICA rules, practices and governance. I have attempted to be comprehensive in my examination of the situation. The integrity of the ICA organization is important to me and others. While it is unfortunate that Nick feels the way he does, unless new information comes to light, I see no actions that the ICA should take at this time.

Running an state checker organization is not black and white and we must come up with a practical method of conducting tournaments. I feel that the ICA has done a good job in this regard. At the ICA we are always open to suggestions on how to improve our tournaments. I would appreciate any suggestions you have to make.

Roger

[Alex_Moiseyev]

At the start of Round Five the player’s points were as follows.
13 - Moiseyev
12- Holmes
9 - Gary Ellison and Addante
8 – Keen, Davis and Millhone
7 – Burgess, West, Gene Ellison
5 – Grisley
3 – Christian

Dear Roger, until the tournament is over I am always in competition and pay full attention to each round, game and such important fact - who is my opponent. After 1st day was over and before I left a playing zone,I examined carefully cross table to find out - who is my opponent next morning. I saw the same picture (see quote above) but I also took an extremely important fact in consideration that Nick already played with Michael.

One of the rules for Swiss system is - "maximum compress pairing from the top" Follow this rule there were no case of random selection of my partner: in order of maximum mix leading group I supposed to play with Nick and Michael with Gary.

I was very surprised next day when I find out that my opponent is Gary, not Nick.

The pairing of 5th round could be done better

I see no actions that the ICA should take at this time.

There is at least one action you may think about: in earlier posts in this tread I proposed to use "State Title Recovery" rule for last round. My proposals now are under Dr. Beckwith review and examination.

I’m a proponent of principle of federalism in this regard as one single set of practices may not be appropriate everywhere.

No comments, only emotions !

Look at the royal wedding on April 29: one family - one King/Queen - one rule ... for 1,000 years. Isn't amazing ?!

Respectfully,

Alex Moiseyev

[ERDoll]

Alex,

Thank you for your response.

In Illinois we have never judged our pairings by a maximum compression pairing at the top rule. I pointed out that our practice was to take the first correct pairing we found to the entire field of players. So the pairings are correct, per our present practices. I suppose that in light of using such a rule to judge our pairings, that what we are doing is selecting the first feasible pairing rather than the best pairing. We need to look into this to see if it will improve our tournaments.

I went back and looked at the ACF pairing rules for the tournament last year and don’t see a maximum compression rule indicated. I’ve not seen it used at other tournaments I’ve been a part of. I’m guessing that application of this rule is not wide-spread in checker tournaments.

I did some extensive review of the Swiss system before the last national tournament using on-line resources but, at this point, I don’t recall the maximum compression rule. I’ll spend some time over the next few days reviewing things and coming up to speed on it. I presume that there is some algorithm that judges the amount of compression between different pairing possibilities.

The pairing method of selecting the opponent with the highest rating in the case of needing to select an opponent from multiple possibilities supports your maximum compression rule versus the random selection commonly done in checkers. That is, you select the player with the highest rating as a pairing, versus at random. I am in favor of that approach and actually recommended it to Richard for the last national tournament. It is almost a much better way to pair round one – the tournament converges to expected play quicker. A goal of the Swiss methodology is that players ending the tournament with the same number of points should have played, on average, the same strength of opponent. Ratings selection versus random selection supports that goal. This approach may be your maximum compression rule.

I look forward to seeing the details of your State Title Recovery rule.

Funny, I’m emotional in support of federalism. I’m not surprised we might have different reactions given that we both grew up on different political systems. I almost grew in the south US, so federalism was part of my mother’s milk. We may need to agree to disagree on this one.

Best regards,

Roger

[n1ck]

Alex and Roger Doll,

You both have put much time, effort, and analysis into the specifics of the 5th round pairing, and I appreciate this. I am under the same impression as Alex, about the way the pairing is supposed to be done, but I do not have as much knowledge or experience on the rule or definition for the modified swiss system as you both do.

I think Alex's proposal of "Title Repairing" is an idea you should consider Roger. The swiss system, as Alex has explained in the past, is designed for the Tournament Champion rather than for a State Champion. The "Title Repair" he suggests will maintain highest priority on the State Champion title, as opposed to the Tournament Champion.

Lastly, Roger, I've spoken in bits and pieces of feeling the 2010 National 3-Mov tournament was run incorrectly, and you were the referee for this tournament. Despite what good intentions you have, or how well you do your job, I still take anything you present to me with enough grains of salt to dehydrate a human body. The issue of my opponent playing 2 implayable pieces at the national in the same 3-mov ballot, okay I understand the technicality, its 2 seperate games so he gets a warning, FINE. The issue of me getting an opponent in the same position 3 times and requesting my draw, but there was not recorded history for the games, FINE. But, when calculating honor points by hand, suddenly my scorecard has an erase mark in Round 7, an incorrectly listed opponent, and I lose on honor points. Who calculated those honor points? You did. Only when I whined like I am now for a recalculation, was it discovered someone tampered with my scorecard, and we indeed tied on honor points.

WTF did I do to the ICA, because you guys are really out to get me.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

This whole tread has positives and negatives. Positives are - we just figured out more things which can be improved.

Roger, if you are right and maximum compress from top rule is not a MUST today and vary from state to state - this is definetely another excellent opportunity to improve things along with new "State Title Repair" rule.

[n1ck]

Alex,

I want to let you know, the post you made about "psychologically trapped" really explains how I feel. And your advice, is truly the correct way for me to continue to approach this situation. I am sorry I have been practicing otherwise, but I will do my best to stay out of it. I respect all the advice you give, you are a very wise man, and like the grandmaster you are, always seem to know the best move. Now, if only you could give me such great suggestions during live tournament when I play Michael Holmes

Your friend,

Nick

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Now, if only you could give me such great suggestions during live tournament when I play Michael Holmes

Suggestion cannot be given during the tournament, it's illegal And before the tournament there is only one advice: more practice and study.

Indeed, this is not a new advice or big secret, but I don't know anything better. Yet noone who mastered the game skipped or ignored this advice.

Alex