National Tournament Rule proposed addition

[rich beckwith]

I have proposed a rule change (yet another Lowder rule!) regarding the final round “repair rule” used at the National Tournament (beginning with this year’s event in Medina). Alan Millhone has responded favorably (so far) to my idea. I present my thoughts to the experts on this forum for support, or to make sure I am not overlooking any potential problems.

The rule addition reads as follows:

"If the leader has more than a 4-point lead going into the final round (which allows repairing), a fresh pairing for the leader takes precedence over automatically pairing with the player in 2nd place. This way, the 2nd and 3rd place players can play each other for 2nd place."

Background: In 2004 National in Las Vegas, Alex Moiseyev had amassed such a large lead heading into the final round that he could not be caught even if he lost in the last round. Hallett and Lowder were tied for second, and the referee had to draw a name to see which player would “draw the short straw.” Our rules in place at the time said to automatically repair from top to bottom for the final round. This rule was conceived, as I understand it, solely to give the second place player a chance to meet the 1st place player to decide the tournament head to head for themselves. It seems more sensible, in this case, to let 2nd place play 3rd place, 4th play 5th, etc. Of course, somebody in 8th place (or wherever) will now be paired with the tournament winner for the last round, which could mean a tough round for somebody (assuming the winner is still playing for wins). However, we have members like Alan Millhone, Joe Tucker, etc. who are always ready to take on any challenge.

Lastly, this rule is not just for Masters, but can apply to Majors and Minors as well. Personally, I doubt rule will even come into play the majority of the time. State tournaments using Swiss system are welcome to adopt rule as well, but rule should be agreed upon well before the last round starts!

[Patrick Parker]

not an expert....but good idea and fair

[Alan Millhone]

Hello Dr. B:

Personally I like everything you wrote in your " Lowder Rule" posting.

And yes, I like playing all you tuff players ! If one is going to learn more about this game then one needs to seek out the best players:-) I learned over 40 years ago that to improve your game you will not learn anything playing those you can easily beat.

Sincerely:
Alan Millhone, President
American Checker Federation
2027 Rated " An average Checker/Draughts Player"
===============================================
" Can't wait to get my copy of SIXTH at Pa. Tournament next week-end"
===============================================

[Patrick Parker]

also i have video from vegas 04 national where the point lead and the last round pairing was "discussed" small video but still
also i have video of when alex accepted the trophy at that tournament

and also recently when everyone sang happy birthday at strawberry festival

[matthewkooshad]

Sounds logical, Rich. Congrats on your good ideas.

P.S. I sent you an email some days ago; let me know if you did not receive.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Hi, Rich !

How you want to handle with new rule the following few situations:

1. 3 players are 6 points ahead of the following group.

I hope - you can recognise here significant difficulties to satisfy everyone, if two strong players with the same number of points should play each other, and third player with same number of points goes far down.

2. Young potential strong Master is several points short of GM norm and need eager an opponent with good rating, but instead he gets a partner with smaller rating.

3. One player in the leading group played with "Mr. Alex" in the middle of tournament. Second player who tied 2-3, never played with "Mr. Alex" before last round and ... never will ! Lucky guy. Is it really fair ???

4. "Mr. Alex" ... actually who cares about one guy only ? In last round follow new rule he is waiting for partner who agrees to play with him ! And if we don't find him opponent in Master Division, we are looking into Major, Minor or someone from street.

Respectfully,

Mr. Alex

[rich beckwith]

Some good thoughts Alex....

Point number 3 (and perhaps #1 as well, which is another interesting situation, but beyond the scope of my proposal) won't apply, since a fresh pairing, if available, still takes priority over my proposed scheme.

Point #2 about ratings and norms may very well be a valid criticism from the perspective of the leader, which is why I welcome your opinion. Will have to think more on that.

Point #4, in case I was unclear....permission to pair is not asked. The highest, fresh master pairing (which will never go beyond 9th place for an 8-round event) is what I was proposing.

[Gene Lindsay]

If you want 2 to play 3 and 4 to play 5 in this situation, it appears to me the fairest thing to do would be to give the leader the bye the last round and if there was no bye give the leader and the last place player a bye, but don't drop down to the bottom to get a player for the leader of the tournament.

Gene Lindsay

[matthewkooshad]

1st A
2nd B
3rd C
4th D
etc.

I think if B were to play A and could advance to 1st if winning the round, then A and B should play. Otherwise, I think A's opponent should be found by traversing from B and down to find the player who has not played A yet (It is possible to be player B). If player A has played each player B-Z equal times, then the pairings should be determined beginning with B as mentioned in the first statement; e.g. If C were to play B and could advance to 2nd, then B and C should play. Determine pairings in this sense; player A may deserve a BYE for the last round if the pairings work fine without him.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

the fairest thing to do would be to give the leader the bye the last round

Yes, and also +20 points rating as penalty to Federation, which can't provide enough competetion to leader

Regards,

Alex

[rich beckwith]

P.S. I sent you an email some days ago; let me know if you did not receive.

Matthew,

Sorry, I did not see any email from you....maybe try beckwith24@msn.com

[Gene Lindsay]

Alex, how do you get +20 points on a bye. Back in the late 1990's I was 5 points ahead going into the last round of the District 8 Open and I volunteered to sit out the last round(there was a bye, but I didn't take the points)so Jerry Childers and Bill Stewart could play for 2nd and 3rd and the District 8 Championship. Are you saying if I had taken the bye points I would have gained 20 points on my rating? I don't know how they figure the ratings but I find it hard to believe you get points for a bye.

Gene Lindsay

[matthewkooshad]

Do we really need ratings anyways? It seems a person would prefer to work on self-awareness rather than concentrate on a number that becomes a label for himself.

[rich beckwith]

Gene,

I think Alex was trying to say the reverse.....by being forced into a bye (or even a lower ranked opponent), there is no (or less) opportunity to gain rating points compared to beating the #2 player in the final round. Of course, this all assumes the #2 player would truly lose the last round to the champ.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Rich / Gene,

I tried to say, that giving me (or leader ) bye or not the strogest opponent is sort of punishment ... at least for me. And I don't know - what I did wrong to be treated this way.

Nothing (any extra rating points) can replace an opportunity to play against strong players. It is my privelegy as leader to pickup the best opponent available.

New rule is removing this privelegy.

Not as many good players are available around at the moment and any chance to have this opportunity is a great gift. This is one of the reason - why I am still acoming to many State tournaments. Just to play checkers ...

Otherwise Federation can send me a check with amount of first prize and I will stay away of showing at tournaments

Sincerely,

Alex

=========================

BTW. It was a joke indeed about 20+ rating points.