Bug #29440 for Games-Tournament-Swiss: Interpretation of C6 with respect to B3 to B6

Hi, I'm filing this bug report, though there's already a discussion about the interpretation of C6 with respect to B3 to B6 at chesschat.org (e.g. [1]). The problem seems to be that the pairing procedure in part C isn't clear about how and at what point of the procedure the 'relative criteria' from B3 to B6 are to be incorporated. There are a few posts from experienced arbiters which suggest that C6 shouldn't be interpreted literal (it refers only to B1 and B2 and says nothing about B3-B6), but instead it should be read like refering to B3-B6 also. This position sounds sensible to me. But unfortunately there aren't enough posts (yet) that one could speak about a clear consensus about that. At the moment, I see two situations where the problem with B3-B6 becomes obvious. Firstly, how and at what point should B3 be integrated when there are players with different scores in a joined last score bracket arising from application of C14 (cmp. [2]). Secondly, there could be situations where following the procedure from C would lead to a downfloat of players even though there are pairings for those players available which don't violate B1 and B2. Since B says that no players should be moved down from a score bracket because of some of B3-B6 are violated, those players shouldn't be moved down. Only there is no point in C, where this is considered. An example of that second problem follows. [I posted it at chesschat.org already [1], but for completeness I'm re-posting it here.] Round 4 Pairing Groups ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Place No Opponents Roles Float Score 1 8 18,5,3 BWB D 3 2 1 11,10,6 WBW u 2.5 3-8 2 12,7,9 BWB 2 4 14,9,7 BWB 2 5 15,8,13 WBW 2 7 17,2,4 WBW 2 9 19,4,2 WBW 2 17 7,14,12 BWB D 2 9-14 3 13,6,8 WBW U 1.5 6 16,3,1 BWB 1.5 10 20,1,15 BWB 1.5 11 1,12,16 BWB d 1.5 15 5,20,10 BWW 1.5 16 6,19,11 WBW 1.5 15-17 13 3,18,5 BWB 1 19 9,16,14 BWB 1 20 10,15,18 WBB 1 18 12 2,11,17 WBW U 0.5 19-20 14 4,17,19 WBW 0 18 8,13,20 WBW 0 The first eight pairings are 8-1, 2-5, 4-17, 9-7, 11-3, 6-15, 10-16 and 13-19. Those are quite obvious. But then 20 is downfloated to 12, forming a score bracket (a homogeneous one, according to A3, last sentence). Unfortunately, 12 was upfloated two times. Therefore, 20-12 doesn't seem to fit according to C1-C9. Next, C10 doesn't seem to be relevant, since we don't have a homogeneous remainder group. Next, C11 applies, but increasing x doesn't help. Next C12 doesn't apply. Neither does C13. Therefore we arrive at C14, decrease p by 1 (to 0) and move both players down to a joined score bracket 20,12,14,18: C6, Bracket tables 1 paired. E4 13&19 C6others: Floating remaining 20 Down. [5] 13 19 20 => [6] 20 12 Next, Bracket 6: 20 12 C1, B1,2 test: ok, no unpairables C2, x=0 C3, p=1 Homogeneous. C4, S1 & S2: 20 & 12 C5, ordered: 20 & 12 C6, B5: table 1 NOK. Floated 20 Not 12 Up, 1 rounds ago C7, last transposition C8, exchange 1: last S1,S2 exchange C9, Dropping B6 for Downfloats C4, S1 & S2: 20 & 12 C5, ordered: 20 & 12 C6, B5: table 1 NOK. Floated 20 Not 12 Up, 1 rounds ago C7, last transposition C8, exchange 1: last S1,S2 exchange C9, Dropping B5 for Downfloats C4, S1 & S2: 20 & 12 C5, ordered: 20 & 12 C6, B5: table 1 NOK. Floated Up 1 rounds ago C7, last transposition C8, exchange 1: last S1,S2 exchange C9, B5,6 already dropped for Downfloats in Bracket 6. C11, x=1, C3, p=1 Homogeneous. C4, S1 & S2: 20 & 12 C5, ordered: 20 & 12 6, B5: table 1 NOK. Floated Up 1 rounds ago C7, last transposition C8, exchange 1: last S1,S2 exchange C9, B5,6 already dropped for Downfloats in Bracket 6. C11, x=p=1 already, no more x increases in Bracket 6. C14, Bracket 6, now p=0 Moving down all Bracket 6, to 7. Bracket 6: 20 12 => Bracket 7: 12 20 14 18 Next, Bracket 7: 12 20 14 18 C1, B1,2 test: ok, no unpairables C2, x=1 C3, p=2 Homogeneous. C4, S1 & S2: 20 12 & 14 18 C5, ordered: 20 12 & 14 18 C6, Bracket tables 1 2 paired. E1 20&14 E4 18&12 C6others: no non-paired players Pairing complete But it could be argued, that 20 and 12 shouldn't be moved down, since there is a pairing (20-12) which doesn't violate B1 and B2, only B5. And according to B, no player should be moved down due to a violotion of B5. [20-12 and 18-14 where the actual pairings in the tournament given (cmp. [4])]. I would like to follow the suggestion of Bill Gletsos to interprete C6 as [3]: "If C6 leads to a violation of B3-B6 then the following parts of section C should be applied, however in doing this no player should be moved down to a lower score bracket to cause B3-B6 to be satisfied." I hope, there will be more insights on this at chesschat.org. But what to do, if not? I would suggest to interprete C6 along the lines Bill Gletsos gave. Best regards Christian [1] http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=6900 [2] http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=168002&postcount=3 [3] http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=168059&postcount=7 [4] http://www.lsvmv.de/turniere/erg/eon_2007a_paar.htm