30 Jan 08
Originally posted by zebanoYeah, I know. The only explanation I can think of. I don't think they could get away with cheating on this, though. I'm pretty sure it was covered by CLO (chess life online), with regular updates.
IF someone doesn't show, it has a different code than a bye in the crosstables.
30 Jan 08
1 edit
Originally posted by GalaxyShieldI don't understand what you're getting at. If you have a plausible explanation for why the crosstable shows two full-point byes for Paul, I'm sure we'd all be happy to be educated on the matter.
Yeah, I know. The only explanation I can think of. I don't think they could get away with cheating on this, though. I'm pretty sure it was covered by CLO (chess life online), with regular updates.
Edit - And while we're at it, does anyone also have a plausible reason why the two players with a perfect 4.0 score didn't play each other in the last round? I'm really suspicious about that one, too.
30 Jan 08
Originally posted by Mad RookAlthough I think Truong is one of the most dishonest people I've ever come across in the chess world (*), I have thought of a possible explanation for this tournament.
I don't understand what you're getting at. If you have a plausible explanation for why the crosstable shows two full-point byes for Paul, I'm sure we'd all be happy to be educated on the matter.
Edit - And while we're at it, does anyone also have a plausible reason why the two players with a perfect 4.0 score didn't play each other in the last round? I'm really suspicious about that one, too.
When I was young I went along to watch a junior tournament. I was too old to play in it myself (I think it was an under 14 tournament and I was 15) but there were an odd number of players so I was invited to play the person who had the bye each round.
Obviously my games became easier with every round as the person with the bye was the person with the least number of points who hadn't already had the bye, and eventually I scored 4.5/5. I wasn't given a prize or anything but the TD did thank me at the prizegiving for giving the extra player a game each round.
I wonder if this is what happened at this event? In press releases of this tournament (e.g. http://texastechchess.blogspot.com/2007/11/chase-watters-wins-spice-cup-open.html) Watters is reported as the sole winner, so perhaps Truong was just there to make up the numbers? Of course that doesn't quite gel with the fact that his opponents were given zero if they played and lost to him, but it would, I think, explain why Watters and Truong didn't play each other in the last round.
(*) Here is one example of Paul Truong's dishonesty: http://christopherfalter.blogspot.com/2007/06/paul-truong-has-question-to-answer.html
30 Jan 08
Originally posted by Fat LadySo you're saying that Paul might have been a house player? But how can a house player be awarded two full-point byes? I can't see how that could possibly happen. This tournament is just all too weird. 🙄
Although I think Truong is one of the most dishonest people I've ever come across in the chess world (*), I have thought of a possible explanation for this tournament.
When I was young I went along to watch a junior tournament. I was too old to play in it myself (I think it was an under 14 tournament and I was 15) but there were an odd number of players ...[text shortened]... sty: http://christopherfalter.blogspot.com/2007/06/paul-truong-has-question-to-answer.html
30 Jan 08
2 edits
Maybe Polgar and Truong are trying to get their ratings up to more impressive figures? When I looked at Truong's tournament record there were several Polgar tournaments in which he only played weak opposition and gained a few grading points: http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlTnmtHst.php?12123950
This has had the effect of pushing his rating above 2300.
Here is another dodgy last round pairing: http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?200402293330-12123950
After three rounds, both Polgar and Truong had bravely battled past their worthy competitors (none of whom were rated higher than 1716) to achieve a perfect 3/3 score. You might have expected an exciting last round game to decide the winner, but the TD fumbled the ball and gave Polgar a down float to someone on 1/3 and Truong a down float to the poor guy on 0/3!
30 Jan 08
For the Nov 2007 Spice Cup Open tournament that Paul played in, I count a total of nine full-point byes awarded to various players for this 5-round event. Four full-point byes were awarded in Round 4.
This just makes no sense whatsoever. I would say that the chief TD has some explaining to do.
30 Jan 08
Originally posted by Fat LadyIt is possible that they requested that they not be paired. In my area this usually happens for a couple of reasons (most to least important):
Maybe Polgar and Truong are trying to get their ratings up to more impressive figures? When I looked at Truong's tournament record there were several Polgar tournaments in which he only played weak opposition and gained a few grading points: http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlTnmtHst.php?12123950
This has had the effect of pushing his rating above 2300.
...[text shortened]... and gave Polgar a down float to someone on 1/3 and Truong a down float to the poor guy on 0/3!
a. we try not to pair family members
b. Scholastic tournaments, we try not to pair kids from the same school
c. we try to avoid pairing people from the same club (because they play each other all the time anyway).
That said, all these rules go out the window in the final two rounds so that the winners have to work for their bread. I suppose it might be then understandable to avoid pairing them under one of these curcumstances
a. They agreed to not take any prize money
b. These were special tournaments done so that these people could have a chance to play a serious game with a master level player (and presumably analyze afterwards).
All in all, it sounds dodgy.
30 Jan 08
Originally posted by zebanoWould have been tricky when I was a kid - our city championship was pretty much our school championship!
It is possible that they requested that they not be paired. In my area this usually happens for a couple of reasons (most to least important):
a. we try not to pair family members
b. Scholastic tournaments, we try not to pair kids from the same school
Realistically, though, you wouldn't let those principles override more important ones (such as not getting two byes!), would you?
30 Jan 08
2 edits
Originally posted by mtthwAbsolutely not. But if there are 4 people in a group with 2/3 and two of them are teammates or siblings, I will probably avoid pairing them.
Would have been tricky when I was a kid - our city championship was pretty much our school championship!
Realistically, though, you wouldn't let those principles override more important ones (such as not getting two byes!), would you?
And as I pointed out those are only in effect for the first couple of rounds, all house rules are out the final two rounds.
30 Jan 08
Originally posted by zebanoThat reminds me of a tournament involving the two strongest players in the area - Harriet Hunt and her brother Adam. They are both strong IMs now and I think they were rated about 2300 at the time.
It is possible that they requested that they not be paired. In my area this usually happens for a couple of reasons (most to least important):
a. we try not to pair family members
b. Scholastic tournaments, we try not to pair kids from the same school
c. we try to avoid pairing people from the same club (because they play each other all the time anyway). ...[text shortened]... with a master level player (and presumably analyze afterwards).
All in all, it sounds dodgy.
Harriet had had a great tournament and only needed a draw in the last round to win outright. She was paired against Adam, who was out of the running for the major prizes. After a very competitive and hard fought game Adam beat Harriet, thus depriving her of first place. If there was ever a case for a pre-arranged draw, this was it, but I had to admire their fighting spirit!