29 Jan 08
13 edits
Originally posted by chessisvanityInteresting. Why do you suppose Mr. Smith should be deprived of a perfect score if he won every game he played, only because he had no opponent in one round? Do you still think he should get only 1/2 if his would-be opponent who elected not to play was rated 400 points lower than Mr. Smith?
3.5 a bye being like a draw.
As I see it, if you show up to the board and nobody beats you or plays you to a draw, you have won and are entitled to a full point.
Additionally, I think players who elect to not play in a round should be given 0 points rather than the 1/2 that they are given. I've never understood the rationale behind this tradition.
In what other realm of competition is a tie declared when one competitor simply chooses not to play a scheduled match? None that I know of, but that's precisely what you're calling for.
It's really a matter of equity. If either opponent claims to have any equity in the full point that is at stake, it is his responsibility to arrive at the board and demonstrate it. If one fails to even attempt such a demonstration, I see no reason not to award the full point to the other player.
29 Jan 08
2 edits
Originally posted by chessisvanityIt sounds to me like your beef is not with the system of awarding points for byes but rather with the eligibility requirements of competing in an Under section.
the way i see it....round 1 means anybody at the end of the rating spectrum should get this point.....not a god damn ringer who is now 1600...competing in a class he shouldnt be in....
29 Jan 08
This is the worst tournament I've ever seen for byes:
http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?200711110231-12123950
Paul Truong (AKA Mr Susan Polgar) was given two 1 point byes, allowing him to win the tournament with a perfect 5/5! He was White in all three of the games he actually played.