Limerick Open: too many low-rated players?

Tim Harding

The results of the Limerick congress are now available at the ICU website and what immediately caught my attention was that IM Miron of Romania won with 6/6 and Killian Delaney was runner-up with 5.5.

Congratulations to them but of course this was a highly unsatisfactory result because they were never paired.

This came about because Miron had scored 5/5 and two players were on 4.5 so he could only meet one of them.

So this tournament is very relevant to the discussion here a few months ago about announced rating floors being flouted by Irish tournament organisers.

There were 57 entries for the Limerick Open and alongside it there was also a tournament for players rated below 1400.
Nobody rated between 1301 and 1399 played in the latter event.
24 players rated below 1400 played in the Open.

Ok, maybe some of these are fast improving juniors who deserved a shot at the higher event but clearly 24 out of 47 below-floor entries is far too many to be accepted.


I don't claim to be a great mathematician but I believe that if the entry to the Open had been restricted to 48 players maximum then this could not have happened.
By my calculations (by all means correct me if I'm wrong) after five rounds there could have been (at most) two players on 5/5 who must then meet, with nobody on 4.5, or else there could have been one on 5/5 and one on 4.5 who would then have played the decisive last round game.

brilliantboy

Yes, how dare they have the cheek to enter an Open tournament

reunion

Tim Harding wrote: »

Ok, maybe some of these are fast improving juniors who deserved a shot at the higher event but clearly 24 out of 47 below-floor entries is far too many to be accepted.

It's an open, there is no floor. Limerick has always been an open. The U-1400 section was created for players that didn't want to play 6 games in which they get beaten (also the open is fide rated which historically wasn't great for someone to get when they just started playing). It is the exact opposite of being relevant to a discussion about organisers not sticking to a rating floor.

Tim Harding wrote: »

I don't claim to be a great mathematician but I believe that if the entry to the Open had been restricted to 48 players maximum then this could not have happened.
By my calculations (by all means correct me if I'm wrong) after five rounds there could have been (at most) two players on 5/5 who must then meet, with nobody on 4.5, or else there could have been one on 5/5 and one on 4.5 who would then have played the decisive last round game.

To get a standalone winner you can have a maximum players of 2^rounds. So the max players in a 6 round tournament would be 2^6 or 64 players. The "issue" you cite is due to: 1. Piotr (~1900) getting a draw off of Killian (~2200) when statistically Killian should have won and Reinhold (~2300) losing to Conor Nolan (~1550). A floor of 1400 wouldn't have stopped these players playing so this "issue" could still occur. Additionally Piotr beat Tom O'Gorman (~2000) and Conor beat Diana Mirza (~1900) and Rory Delaney (~1900).

I would think that Conor has shown that despite his sub-1600 rating he can perform at a 1600+ rating. Similarly for Piotr his sub-1900 rating shows he can perform at a 2000+ rating. So a rating floor should permit some players to play up based on previous performances.

Tim Harding

This is not about individuals; it is about avoiding a situation where the top two players with perfect or near perfect scores don't meet. The problem with allowing so many low-rated players to enter is that in effect it's only a five round tournament bar the odd freak result. A seventh round (surely possible to fit in over a bank holiday weekend) would be one way around this.

As for the math, with 48 players, if no games were drawn, you could have a maximum three players on 4/4 and then maximum two on 5/5 with nobody half a point behind. Or if two leaders drew early on, then at worst you would get a last round decider between a sole player on 5/5 and a sole player on 4.5/5 who must meet. Once you go above 48 players in six rounds then the situation that arose in Limerick could happen.

Of course you cannot rule out tournaments ending in ties.

zeitnot

Tim Harding wrote: »

The results of the Limerick congress are now available at the ICU website and what immediately caught my attention was that IM Miron of Romania won with 6/6 and Killian Delaney was runner-up with 5.5.

Congratulations to them but of course this was a highly unsatisfactory result because they were never paired.

It's not completely ideal but I wouldn't say it's "highly" unsatisfactory for a local weekender, where the organisers and players may be more concerned with having a good crowd and a decent prize fund than with the title of champion (how much does that matter for a local weekender?). Swiss events, especially short Swiss events, can be a lottery in many ways anyway.
Of course, since this event and many others already give ample opportunities for players of all ratings to play in the top section, there should be no need to force the Irish Championship to have the same policies. It would be a travesty if the same happened there.

brilliantboy

Tim Harding wrote: »

This is not about individuals; it is about avoiding a situation where the top two players with perfect or near perfect scores don't meet. The problem with allowing so many low-rated players to enter is that in effect it's only a five round tournament bar the odd freak result. A seventh round (surely possible to fit in over a bank holiday weekend) would be one way around this.

I don't know how closely you've looked Tim but there were quite a few freak results throughout the weekend. The only thing that's odd is that it still surprises people when it happens.

If either Delaney or Leichert, or anyone else, wanted to ensure a pairing with Miron then they should have ensured they kept pace with him. As it was they drew their individual game and that meant the pairing software had a choice to make. Why it made that particular choice I don't know.
It's unfortunate for Killian and perhaps he would have proved a sterner test, but you can't deny that Piotr was just as deserving of the opportunity.

Or perhaps we could look at it all another way and say Piotr was the one who should be pissed that he missed out on a potential prize because he had to play a player some 600 points above him in the final round?

reunion

Tim Harding wrote: »

This is not about individuals; it is about avoiding a situation where the top two players with perfect or near perfect scores don't meet. The problem with allowing so many low-rated players to enter is that in effect it's only a five round tournament bar the odd freak result. A seventh round (surely possible to fit in over a bank holiday weekend) would be one way around this.

Like I said 64 players is the maximum to determine a clear winner (if the winner wins all their games). The problem you identify is due to a "freak result" so anything you suggest would not stop a "freak result" (unless it was an all play all). Also I believe a "freak result" is a poor way to phrase outstanding performances by Piotr and Conor. It wasn't just 1 good results, they had a few good results.

A seventh round adds significant costs to players and organisers, which reduces entries which nullifies the need for a 7th round.

EnPassant

reunion wrote: »

A seventh round adds significant costs to players and organisers, which reduces entries which nullifies the need for a 7th round.

In some countries (I think, Sweden) it is common practice to play earlier rounds at a quicker pace.

Eg. instead of having 2 4-hour games on each of the 3 days, you could have 3 or 4 games on day 1 with a shorter time limit with day 2 and day 3 still having the classical time limits of 4 hours per game..

Not saying it is a good idea or not ... just that there are alternatives.

tedjennings

If Tim has his way I at 1350 would never be allowed to get a FIDE rating.
(BTW I played in the Limerick Open but the less said about the better)
FIDE rated tournaments must have minimum 1:30 + 30 sec time control and no more than 2 rounds per day(mostly).
This is why most weekenders cannot be FIDE rated if they want to have a 6 round tournament.
Tim assumes that the swiss system is a perfect system, this of course is untrue, it has flaws.
Much worse would have been if only say 25 players turned up for 6 rounds.
After all you have had the fiasco of a recent COD where one player was leading by 2 points going into the last round and the organizers gave him first prize before the last round had started so he never played the last round!
It is the best system that we have so endure the odd anomaly unless you have a better system.
Ted

sodacat11

tedjennings wrote: »

If Tim has his way I at 1350 would never be allowed to get a FIDE rating.

Why on earth would a 1350 player need a FIDE rating?

FIDE of course will happily rate anyone as it means more money for it but the dilution of rating requirements that we have seen over the years has done nothing but undermine the strength of tournaments everywhere.
I used to play in the Limerick Open and it was a very enjoyable event but then it just became too weak to bother with. If I want to play 13-1600 players I can do so online without any of the expense or hassle involved in attending a weekend tournament and if the games turn out to be mind numbingly boring mis matches then.at least they will be over in under ten minutes.

reunion

sodacat11 wrote: »

Why on earth would a 1350 player need a FIDE rating?

Why does anybody need a FIDE rating?

sodacat11 wrote: »

FIDE of course will happily rate anyone as it means more money for it but the dilution of rating requirements that we have seen over the years has done nothing but undermine the strength of tournaments everywhere.

The payments of organisations to FIDE for ratings has been static for years now (From what I remember reading). So if we had 10 more players this year in comparison to last year wanting a FIDE rating it makes no difference to the price to the ICU.

Can you provide stats to back up your comment (I doubt it)? It also has no relevance here as there is no dilution in an open and an open that has been an open for years.

sodacat11 wrote: »

I used to play in the Limerick Open and it was a very enjoyable event but then it just became too weak to bother with. If I want to play 13-1600 players I can do so online without any of the expense or hassle involved in attending a weekend tournament and if the games turn out to be mind numbingly boring mis matches then.at least they will be over in under ten minutes.

Sounds very pessimistic. if you lose you'll be playing other people who also lose which statistically will be a lower rated players. Sounds like you think you'll lose to those players and have to keep playing 12-1600 rated players. If you think optimistically (and actually backup your rating with a matching performance), you would have played (roughly) 2 rounds of 13-1600, 2 of 16-1800, 1 of 18-2000 and maybe 1 of 2000+.

sodacat11

reunion wrote: »

Why does anybody need a FIDE rating?

A FIDE rating used to be something that had to be earned. As far as I remember the lowest was 2000 or 2100.

reunion wrote: »

"The payments of organisations to FIDE for ratings has been static for years now (From what I remember reading). So if we had 10 more players this year in comparison to last year wanting a FIDE rating it makes no difference to the price to the ICU."

I was under the impression that FIDE rated tournaments were charged for rating according to the number of entrants?

reunion wrote: »

Can you provide stats to back up your comment (I doubt it)?

No stats I'm afraid,I am not anoraky enough for such things. Then again there are lies,damn lies and statistics.

reunion wrote: »

"Sounds very pessimistic. if you lose you'll be playing other people who also lose which statistically will be a lower rated players. Sounds like you think you'll lose to those players and have to keep playing 12-1600 rated players. If you think optimistically (and actually backup your rating with a matching performance), you would have played (roughly) 2 rounds of 13-1600, 2 of 16-1800, 1 of 18-2000 and maybe 1 of 2000+.

Aww shucks, for an outlay of around 200 euro I could have maybe played one 2000 rated player. Silly me, I will make a note to myself to be sure to enter next year.

reunion

sodacat11 wrote: »

A FIDE rating used to be something that had to be earned. As far as I remember the lowest was 2000 or 2100.

At one point it was only for the less than 1500 players who were all titled and FIDE didn't represent most countries as a result. FIDE grew so the rating floor had to drop so they could rate the top players in each country.

sodacat11 wrote: »

I was under the impression that FIDE rated tournaments were charged for rating according to the number of entrants?

They should be, however, the bill is sent to the ICU (national federation) and not the organisers. This fee has not changed in the last few years (I believe, I could be wrong).

sodacat11 wrote: »

No stats I'm afraid,I am not anoraky enough for such things. Then again there are lies,damn lies and statistics.

If you are going to make a broad statement regarding the quality of tournaments, particularly attacking a specific tournament, I'd like to see something to remotely backup your statement. It just breeds misinformation and more misinformation which leads to people believing this misinformation as truth.

sodacat11 wrote: »

Aww shucks, for an outlay of around 200 euro I could have maybe played one 2000 rated player. Silly me, I will make a note to myself to be sure to enter next year.

It is up to yourself if you wish to enter. I was merely pointing out that your view of just playing 12-1600 was a pessimistic one.

Additionally, if you don't want to play players under a threshold, you did the right thing by not playing the open!

tedjennings

sodacat11 wrote: »

Why on earth would a 1350 player need a FIDE rating?

I guess you also object to my being a Match Arbiter between 2 GMs where one of them was rated over 2800 (which I was in Tromso)
Do I detect a whiff of Rating snobbery?

mikhail

sodacat11 wrote: »

A FIDE rating used to be something that had to be earned. As far as I remember the lowest was 2000 or 2100.

Get over yourself. That was a pragmatic decision back in the days before the rating process was as automated. 2000 rated players are not special. Some of them appear to be special little snowflakes with inflated notions of their importance, but in the grand scheme of things 1300s and 2000s are club players, much better than novices and rubbish next to GMs, superGMs or indeed a large toaster equipped with the appropriate software. A FIDE rating is a statistical measure of performance, not a laurel for they-who-hang-rooks-infrequently.

I say we should rescale prize money in this country to reflect the size of the section's entry. That'd soon shut up mediocre twits about deigning to play the players who've been subsidising their events forever.

ComDubh

Can't people make a point without sarcasm or calling each other twits and snowflakes etc?

checknraise

As a participant of the Limerick Open I would just like to thank the organisers for what was an extremely well organised and enjoyable tournament. Numbers were up quite a bit on last year so the format for the tournament is working. There did seem to be a few regular Munster players missing so definitely room for the tournament to grow.

Only suggestion I would make for next year would be to seed the tournament on fide rating over ICU where possible as it is a fide tournament and fide ratings should take precedence.

sodacat11

tedjennings wrote: »

sodacat11 wrote: »

Why on earth would a 1350 player need a FIDE rating?

I guess you also object to my being a Match Arbiter between 2 GMs where one of them was rated over 2800 (which I was in Tromso)
Do I detect a whiff of Rating snobbery?

Alas my rating is not high enough to be snobbish or precious about it.

I don't know what you being an arbiter has to do with anything but I can understand your enjoyment of the opportunity to do a bit of name dropping.

My point is that the reason we have ratings at all is to differentiate between players of different strengths. The reason that this is desirable is purely so that players can be grouped with their peers. A practical example would be that a 2500 GM cannot play in an elite super GM tournament for the world's very top players or for us lesser lights we can identify which tournaments are likely to provide us with opposition of roughly equal strength.
Somehow over the years people have become completely obsessed with ratings so much so that they almost use them as a measure of their worth as human beings. This often leads to an inferiority complex among lower rated people and they somehow feel that they have to justify their existence in the chess world by playing "up" all the time or by constantly boasting about some freak result or other that they may have had against a higher rated player (always neglecting to mention that that same player had the flu that day or had been shot in the rear end on his way to the venue).
Every time I express my simple wish to be able to play in tournaments against players of equal strength (I will have the same view when my rating eventually drops to 1200) I get a torrent of abuse and a flood of opposition (mostly from low rated players) yet this is what the rating system was created for.
I would much rather play a player rated withing 150 points of myself than be paired with someone like Carlsen or Karjakin in a tournament because I know that it would be a proper game of chess. Most chess players seem to prefer to play a Super GM just so that they could boast about it afterwards. Now that is snobbery.

cdeb

I think many players have agreed with your comments about rating floors being, shall we say, flexible. And I think in fairness, the issue has been tightened up in recent years.

But the Limerick Open is an Open; there's a hint in the name. I can appreciate they're not for everyone - I remember playing Tramore and I (as a 1500) played 1100, 2000, 900, 1900 and 1800. The only game that was reasonably competitive was my draw against the 1900.

But I think there's a place in the calendar for an Open. If you enter it, you should know what to expect. If you don't want to enter it, fine.

sodacat11

cdeb wrote: »

I think many players have agreed with your comments about rating floors being, shall we say, flexible. And I think in fairness, the issue has been tightened up in recent years.

But the Limerick Open is an Open; there's a hint in the name. I can appreciate they're not for everyone - I remember playing Tramore and I (as a 1500) played 1100, 2000, 900, 1900 and 1800. The only game that was reasonably competitive was my draw against the 1900.

But I think there's a place in the calendar for an Open. If you enter it, you should know what to expect. If you don't want to enter it, fine.

Yes, fair points. I have no problem with opens and have enjoyed Limerick in the past, it's a fine tournament and the problem does not lie with them, it lies with the players who should be in the under 1400 section thinking that they are too good to do so.
I have played in the Prague Open for the last ten or eleven years and in the beginning it was a wonderful tournament where you were unlikely to meet more than a couple of under 1900 players. In recent years though more and more very low rated players have begun entering and many games are just non events against people who really should be in the lower section. It has now got to the point that it is just not enjoyable anymore and not worth the expense involved so I will no longer go. My non participation will not lower the average rating or cause hordes of others to withdraw but do tournament organisers really want to turn away regular paying customers like myself? Probably the very reason low rated players play up in tournaments is to meet ageing guys like me who are likely to gift them rating points but in their pursuit of easy prey all they are doing is making the species extinct. How many 1900- 2200 players aged over forty are regular participants in Irish tournaments? Again I don't have statistics but I would imagine it is a lot less than it used to be. Is this really what we want?

mikhail

ComDubh wrote: »

Can't people make a point without sarcasm or calling each other twits and snowflakes etc?

I question the intelligence of someone who objects to low rated players in an open. I think someone who resents others having something that he feels made him special is being precious. If you want to argue those points, you're welcome to. I find the arguments being presented smug and superior, and my sarcasm was in response to that.

cdeb

sodacat11 wrote: »

the problem [...] lies with the players who should be in the under 1400 section thinking that they are too good to do so.

Nonsense. Are there any other Opens on the Irish tournament calendar? Why should players turn down the one chance a year they get to play much higher-rated players?

This is all a complete non-issue.

sodacat11

mikhail wrote: »

I question the intelligence of someone who objects to low rated players in an open. I think someone who resents others having something that he feels made him special is being precious. If you want to argue those points, you're welcome to. I find the arguments being presented smug and superior, and my sarcasm was in response to that.

This is exactly the kind of thinking that I was talking about. Mikhail thinks that because he can't attain a certain standard then everyone else should be brought down to his. I certainly do not resent others having 1800+ ratings. I wish everyone could play to that standard. If they could then I would play a lot more than I now do.

cdeb

sodacat11 wrote: »

Mikhail thinks that because he can't attain a certain standard then everyone else should be brought down to his.

What part of the quoted post makes you think that?

Because I can't see it stated anywhere.

brilliantboy

sodacat11 wrote: »

This is exactly the kind of thinking that I was talking about. Mikhail thinks that because he can't attain a certain standard then everyone else should be brought down to his. I certainly do not resent others having 1800+ ratings. I wish everyone could play to that standard. If they could then I would play a lot more than I now do.

Or a lot less

mikhail

sodacat11 wrote: »

Mikhail thinks that because he can't attain a certain standard then everyone else should be brought down to his.

That accusation is baseless. I'm not the one arguing that some people shouldn't be rated, or that I'm too good to have to play anyone.

sodacat11

mikhail wrote: »

That accusation is baseless. I'm not the one arguing that some people shouldn't be rated, or that I'm too good to have to play anyone.

I am not arguing that I am too good to play anyone, me playing a 2600 GM is just as nonsensical as my playing a 1300. All I am arguing is that players of vastly different ratings should be kept apart.

ComDubh

mikhail wrote: »

I question the intelligence of someone who ...

Isn't this what causes these debates to spiral downwards in a pointless slagging match? Which is why boards discourages personal attacks like this? And backseat moderating like I'm doing now

sodacat11 wrote: »

All I am arguing is that players of vastly different ratings should be kept apart.

I agree. It's not about elitism. Most sports try to avoid mismatches as they are a bit of a waste of time for all involved. Of course it's a good thing that there are Opens like Limerick and people know what they are getting into when they enter, but some/many stronger players will be inclined to stay away from them.

sodacat11

It is funny that people accuse me of thinking that I am too good to play anyone when all I want to do is to be able to play people reasonably above or below my own rating. I would argue that it is the people who insist on playing "up" that are the elitist and arrogant ones
If they are good enough to play above their station then why isn't this reflected in their ratings?????

brilliantboy

sodacat11 wrote: »

If they are good enough to play above their station then why isn't this reflected in their ratings?????

That's a very good question. It's clear the current rating system is flawed.

mikhail

ComDubh wrote: »

Isn't this what causes these debates to spiral downwards in a pointless slagging match? Which is why boards discourages personal attacks like this? And backseat moderating like I'm doing now

Yes, I'm getting frustrated. Sorry all.

I agree. It's not about elitism. Most sports try to avoid mismatches as they are a bit of a waste of time for all involved. Of course it's a good thing that there are Opens like Limerick and people know what they are getting into when they enter, but some/many stronger players will be inclined to stay away from them.

The thread is about Limerick. No one is arguing that tiered events are bad. Someone is arguing that an Open should not be open. Someone else argued that FIDE ratings should be reserved for strongish players. I find those positions ludicrous.

sodacat11 wrote: »

It is funny that people accuse me of thinking that I am too good to play anyone when all I want to do is to be able to play people reasonably above or below my own rating. I would argue that it is the people who insist on playing "up" that are the elitist and arrogant ones
If they are good enough to play above their station then why isn't this reflected in their ratings?????

As above, I've been too heated here. Apologies.

You're barely above the cutoff you're forever championing, and I've repeatedly seen or heard you complaining about players who have every chance of beating you playing in your section. You can talk about standards all you like, but it looks awfully like self-interest to me.

And for the record, the last time you played up a section was February. The last time I played up was several years ago.

reunion

cdeb wrote: »

Nonsense. Are there any other Opens on the Irish tournament calendar?

There is the Irish Open weekender.

sodacat11 wrote: »

it lies with the players who should be in the under 1400 section thinking that they are too good to do so.

It's an open. The Under 1400 section is there because people below 1400 were playing someone double their rating. The Open came first then the U-1400 came after. So it's not the case that this was a 1400+ section that the organisers decided to change to an open.

sodacat11 wrote: »

I am not arguing that I am too good to play anyone, me playing a 2600 GM is just as nonsensical as my playing a 1300. All I am arguing is that players of vastly different ratings should be kept apart.

Just to be clear, a 1300 playing a 1950 is not the same as a 1950 playing a 2600 (GM or not). Rating is not linear particularly as higher the rating lower the K factor. It is very feasible and possible for a 1300 to play at a 1950 rating instead of a 1950 playing at a 2600 rating. A more accurate description would be a 1950 playing something like a 2300.

So don't play in an open (which you didn't), you clearly don't understand what an open is or don't believe you can beat lower rated opponents to face players who, on paper, have the same rating as you (Or you like complaining).

You've made an irrelevant off-topic point about other tournaments not relevant here. So let's go back on topic here.

sodacat11

mikhail wrote: »

And for the record, the last time you played up a section was February. The last time I played up was several years ago.

My FIDE rating was 2045 and my ICU was 1995, Bunratty accepts FIDE ratings so I did NOT play up............just for the record.

Unless I am wrong, although Limerick is an open there is also a section for under 1400s. My view is that the under 1400s should stick to that and if they are good enough then try to win it. Apart from not wasting the time of better players it would improve their chess.

reunion

sodacat11 wrote: »

My FIDE rating was 2045 and my ICU was 1995, Bunratty accepts FIDE ratings so I did NOT play up............just for the record.

Bunratty Site wrote:

Players will only play in the section that their latest published ICU rating (usually the January list for ICU and Feb 1st for FIDE)

Just for the record, you were rated 1990 in February FIDE list this year, so yes you did take advantage of the 50 point rule you dislike and played up. Granted you probably applied when your rating was 2000+ with FIDE but you were, under the rules, under the rating requirement.

sodacat11 wrote: »

...My view ...

It's your view, you have expressed it, so how about we move on?

tedjennings

To my knowledge the only FIDE rated event in Ireland is that has a minimum rating is the Irish Championship.
If you play in the Munster/Leinster leagues you take your chances.
I also was Deputy Arbiter for the Rilton Cup in Stockholm.
The format is as follows:
Rilton Cup Minimum rating 2200 (this is to be able to earn Norms)
Rilton Elo any player under 2200
Rilton 1800 any player under 1800
Rilton Elo any player under 1600
The point is if people want a different format they have 2 options:
1) ..........Lobby existing tournaments to change (Limerick will not change)
2) ....Run you own tournament with your own rating rules.

zeitnot

tedjennings wrote: »

To my knowledge the only FIDE rated event in Ireland is that has a minimum rating is the Irish Championship.

There's no minimum rating for the Irish Championship. Up to 14 places are expressly set aside for a variety of causes, including nomination by various officials, without any rating requirement whatsoever. So if you're a friend of the organiser, to take just one example, you don't have to be rated 900, let alone 1900.
Matters are so ludicrous that it's hard to believe the championship is in good health. Oh wait ... it's not in good health, it's in a death spiral.

sodacat11

tedjennings wrote: »

To my knowledge the only FIDE rated event in Ireland is that has a minimum rating is the Irish Championship.
]

The Gonzaga Masters is for 1800 and over