1. 1. 1. 1. When a player, having the move, plays a pawn to the rank furthest from its starting position, he must exchange that pawn as part of the same move for a new queen, rook, bishop or knight of the same colour on the intended square of arrival. This is called the square of ‘promotion’.
         2. The player's choice is not restricted to pieces that have been captured previously.
         3. This exchange of a pawn for another piece is called promotion, and the effect of the new piece is immediate.

1. 8. There are two different ways of moving the king:
      1. by moving to an adjoining square

1. 1. 2. by ‘castling’. This is a move of the king and either rook of the same colour along the player’s first rank, counting as a single move of the king and executed as follows: the king is transferred from its original square two squares towards the rook on its original square, then that rook is transferred to the square the king has just crossed.

Before white kingside castling / Before black queenside castling

After white kingside castling / After black queenside castling

Before white queenside castling / Before black kingside castling

After white queenside castling / After black kingside castling

1. 1. 1. 1. The right to castle has been lost:
            1. if the king has already moved, or
            2. with a rook that has already moved.
         2. Castling is prevented temporarily:
            1. if the square on which the king stands, or the square which it must cross, or the square which it is to occupy, is attacked by one or more of the opponent's pieces, or
            2. if there is any piece between the king and the rook with which castling is to be effected.
      1. The king is said to be 'in check' if it is attacked by one or more of the opponent's pieces, even if such pieces are constrained from moving to the square occupied by the king because they would then leave or place their own king in check.
      2. No piece can be moved that will either expose the king of the same colour to check or leave that king in check.

1. 1. 1. A move is legal when all the relevant requirements of Articles 3.1-3.9 have been fulfilled.

1. 1. 2. A move is illegal when it fails to meet the relevant requirements of Articles 3.1-3.9
2. 1. 3. A position is illegal when it cannot have been reached by any series of legal moves.

Article 4: The act of moving the pieces

4.1 Each move must be played with one hand only.

1. 1. 1. Only the player having the move may adjust one or more pieces on their squares, provided that he first expresses his intention (for example by saying “j’adoube” or “I adjust”).

1. 1. 2. Any other physical contact with a piece, except for clearly accidental contact, shall be considered to be intent.

1. 3. Except as provided in Article 4.2, if the player having the move touches on the chessboard, with the intention of moving or capturing:
      1. one or more of his own pieces, he must move the first piece touched that can be moved
      2. one or more of his opponent’s pieces, he must capture the first piece touched that can be captured
      3. one or more pieces of each colour, he must capture the first touched opponent’s piece with his first touched piece or, if this is illegal, move or capture the first piece touched that can be moved or captured. If it is unclear whether the player’s own piece or his opponent’s was touched first, the player’s own piece shall be considered to have been touched before his opponent’s.
   4. If a player having the move:
      1. touches his king and a rook he must castle on that side if it is legal to do so
      2. deliberately touches a rook and then his king he is not allowed to castle on that side on that move and the situation shall be governed by Article 4.3.1
      3. intending to castle, touches the king and then a rook, but castling with this rook is illegal, the player must make another legal move with his king (which may include castling with the other rook). If the king has no legal move, the player is free to make any legal move.

1. 4. 4. promotes a pawn, the choice of the piece is finalised when the piece has touched the square of promotion.
   5. If none of the pieces touched in accordance with Article 4.3 or Article 4.4 can be moved or captured, the player may make any legal move.
   6. The act of promotion may be performed in various ways:
      1. the pawn does not have to be placed on the square of arrival,
      2. removing the pawn and putting the new piece on the square of promotion may occur in any order.
      3. If an opponent’s piece stands on the square of promotion, it must be captured.
   7. When, as a legal move or part of a legal move, a piece has been released on a square, it cannot be moved to another square on this move. The move is considered to have been made in the case of:
      1. a capture, when the captured piece has been removed from the chessboard and the player, having placed his own piece on its new square, has released this capturing piece from his hand,
      2. castling, when the player's hand has released the rook on the square previously crossed by the king. When the player has released the king from his hand, the move is not yet made, but the player no longer has the right to make any move other than castling on that side, if this is legal. If castling on this side is illegal, the player must make another legal move with his king (which may include castling with the other rook). If the king has no legal move, the player is free to make any legal move.
      3. promotion, when the player's hand has released the new piece on the square of promotion and the pawn has been removed from the board.
   8. A player forfeits his right to claim against his opponent’s violation of Articles 4.1-4.7 once the player touches a piece with the intention of moving or capturing it.

1. 9. If a player is unable to move the pieces, an assistant, who shall be acceptable to the arbiter, may be provided by the player to perform this operation.

Article 5: The completion of the game

1. 1. 1. The game is won by the player who has checkmated his opponent’s king. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the checkmate position was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7.

COMPETITION RULES 
 
Article 6: The chessclock 
 
6.1 Chessclock’ means a clock with two time displays, connected to each other in such a way that only one of them can run at one time. 
‘Clock’ in the Laws of Chess means one of the two time displays. 
Each time display has a ‘flag’. 
‘Flag-fall’ means the expiration of the allotted time for a player. 
 
6.2.1 During the game each player, having made his move on the chessboard, shall stop his own clock and start his opponent’s clock (that is to say, he shall press his clock). This “completes” the move. A move is also completed if: 
6.2.1.1 the move ends the game (see Articles 5.1.1, 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 9.6.1 and 9.6.2), or 
6.2.1.2 the player has made his next move, when his previous move was not completed. 
 
6.2.2 A player must be allowed to stop his clock after making his move, even after the opponent has made his next move. The time between making the move on the chessboard and pressing the clock is regarded as part of the time allotted to the player. 
Some digital clocks show “ – “ instead of a flag. 
Normally, when the player forgets to press his clock after making his move, the opponent has the following possibilities:   (a) To wait for the player to press his clock. In this case there is a possibility to have a flag fall and the player to lose on time. Some may think that this is quite unfair, but the Arbiter cannot intervene and inform the player. (b) To remind the player to press his clock. In this case the game will continue normally. (c) To make his next move. In this case the player can also make his next move and press his clock. If the game is played with move counter, then one move has been missed by both players. In such a situation the Arbiter should, at an appropriate moment, (when he is sure it will not cause much distraction) intervene and press the lever of the clock once for each player (thus adding one move on the clock for each player). In this way the additional time of the next period (in case there is any) will be added properly (after move the first time control, usually move 40, has been completed). 
 
6.2.3 A player must press his clock with the same hand with which he made his move. It is forbidden for a player to keep his finger on the clock or to ‘hover’ over it. 
6.2.4 The players must handle the chessclock properly. It is forbidden to press it forcibly, to pick it up, to press the clock before moving or to knock it over. Improper clock handling shall be penalised in accordance with Article 12.9. 
6.2.5 Only the player whose clock is running is allowed to adjust the pieces. 
6.2.6 If a player is unable to use the clock, an assistant, who must be acceptable to the arbiter, may be provided by the player to perform this operation. His clock shall be adjusted by the arbiter in an equitable way. This adjustment of the clock shall not apply to the clock of a player with a disability. 
6.3.1 When using a chessclock, each player must complete a minimum number of moves or all moves in an allotted period of time including any additional amount of time with each move. All these must be specified in advance. 
The following situation may happen:    A player makes a move, forgets to press the clock and leaves the table (for example to go to the toilet). After he returns he sees that his clock is running and believing that his opponent has completed his move he makes another move and presses the clock. In this situation the Arbiter must be summoned immediately to clarify the situation (did the opponent make a move or not?) and make the necessary corrections on the clock and the board. 
A game may have more than one period. The requirements of the allotted number of moves and the additional amount of time with each move for each period must be specified in advance. These parameters should not change during a tournament. But, if there is a playoff, it is likely they will then change. 
Sometimes the following happens:    A player displaces some pieces. The opponent keeps his finger on the  clock button to prevent the player pressing his clock. This is forbidden according to this Article. 
If a player makes a move with one hand and presses the clock with the other, it is not considered as an illegal move, but it is penalized according to the article 12.9. 
Where a player presses the clock without making a move, as mentioned in the article 6.2.4, it is considered as an illegal move and it is penalized according to the article 7.5.3. 
It  is  clear  that  the  player  himself  has  to  provide  an  assistant.  He has to introduce this assistant in time to the arbiter, not just before the round.   It  is  usual  that  10  minutes  are  deducted  from  the  time  of  the  player  who  needs  an  assistant. No deduction should be made in the case of a disabled player. An example where a player is unable to use the clock is for religious reasons.  
6.3.2 The time saved by a player during one period is added to his time available for the next period, where applicable.  
In the time-delay mode both players receive an allotted ‘main thinking time’. Each player also receives a ‘fixed extra time’ with every move. The countdown of the main thinking time only commences after the fixed extra time has expired. Provided the player presses his clock before the expiration of the fixed extra time, the main thinking time does not change, irrespective of the proportion of the fixed extra time used. 
6.4 Immediately after a flag falls, the requirements of Article 6.3.1 must be checked. 
6.5 Before the start of the game the arbiter shall decide where the chessclock is placed. 
1. Cumulative (Fischer) mode: Here each player has a main thinking time and receives a fixed extra time (increment) for each move. This increment for his first move is added before the game starts and then immediately after he has completed each of his following moves. If a player completes his move before the remaining time of this increment for the move expires, this remaining time will have been added to the main thinking time.  2. Bronstein mode: The main difference between Fisher mode and Bronstein mode is the handling of the extra time. If the player does not use the whole extra time in Bronstein mode, the remaining part is lost. 3. Time delay mode: Each player receives a main thinking time. When a player has the move the clock will not start counting for a fixed period. After this period expired the clock is counting down the main playing time. 
This means that the arbiter and/or the players have to check if the minimum numbers of moves have been completed.   Consider a game 90 minutes for 40 moves and 30 minutes for the rest of the game. It is normal to investigate whether 40 moves have been made by both players only after a flag has fallen. Unless a digital board is used this when the arbiter may determine the number of moves played from time. 
 
If a move (push) counter is used in a digital clock, then it is possible to establish whether 40 moves have been made before a flag fall, as a “-“ indication appears on the clock in case that the player does not complete the 40 moves before the allotted time. In the majority of the top tournaments the move counter is used. 
Where electronic clocks are used and both clocks show 0.00, the Arbiter can usually establish which flag fell first, with the help of the “-“ or any other flag indication.  Where mechanical clocks are used then article III.3.1 of the Guidelines about games without increment including Quickplay Finishes are applied. 

6.6 At the time determined for the start of the game White’s clock is started. 
6.7.1 The regulations of an event shall specify a default time in advance. If the default time is not specified, then it is zero. Any player who arrives at the chessboard after the default time shall lose the game unless the arbiter decides otherwise. 
6.7.2 If the regulations of an event specify that the default time is not zero and if neither player is present initially, White shall lose all the time that elapses until he arrives, unless the regulations of an event specify or the arbiter decides otherwise. 
6.8 A flag is considered to have fallen when the arbiter observes the fact or when either player has made a valid claim to that effect. 
In individual tournaments the chess clock is normally placed on the right side of the player who has the black pieces. The chess boards shall be placed so that the arbiter is able to check as many clocks as possible at the same time.  In the case of a left-handed player with black pieces, the arbiter might arrange for the players to sit on the other side of the board.  In team competitions the members of the same team usually sit in a row. Then the pieces are set alternate black and white and the clocks all point the same way.  Be careful! It happens quite often in team competitions that a player presses the clock of his neighbour. 
In smaller tournaments the arbiters start all clocks. In tournaments with many players the arbiter announces the start of the round and states that White’s clock is started. The arbiter then goes round the room checking that White’s clock has been started on all boards. Where the push counter is used to add time after the first time control (often 40 moves), it is desirable for arbiters to start all White’s clocks. 
The start of the session is the moment, when the arbiter announces it. If the default time is 0, the arbiter has to declare the game lost for the players who are not present at their chessboards. It is preferable to install a large digital countdown device in the playing hall. For FIDE events with fewer than 30 players an appropriate announcement must be made five minutes before the round is due to start and again one minute before start of the game. Alternatively, a clock should be on the wall inside the playing hall and provide the official time of the tournament. 
If the default time is not 0, it is advisable that the arbiter publicly announces the time of the start of the round and that he writes down the starting time.   If the default time is for example 30 minutes and the round was scheduled to start at  15.00, but actually started at 15.15, then any player who hasn’t arrived by 15.45  loses. 
A flag is considered to have fallen when it is noticed or claimed, not when it physically happened. 
6.9 Except where one of Articles 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3 applies, if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by that player. However, the game is drawn if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves. 
6.10.1 Every indication given by the chessclock is considered to be conclusive in the absence of any evident defect. A chessclock with an evident defect shall be replaced by the arbiter, who shall use his best judgement when determining the times to be shown on the replacement chessclock. 
6.10.2 If during a game it is found that the setting of either or both clocks is incorrect, either player or the arbiter shall stop the chessclock immediately. The arbiter shall install the correct setting and adjust the times and move-counter, if necessary. He shall use his best judgement when determining the clock settings.  
6.11.1 If the game needs to be interrupted, the arbiter shall stop the chessclock. 
6.11.2 A player may stop the chessclock only in order to seek the arbiter’s assistance, for example when promotion has taken place and the piece required is not available. 
6.11.3 The arbiter shall decide when the game restarts. 
6.11.4 If a player stops the chessclock in order to seek the arbiter’s assistance, the arbiter shall determine whether the player had any valid reason for doing so. If the player had no valid reason for stopping the chessclock, the player shall be penalised in accordance with Article 12.9. 
It means that a simple flag fall might not lead the Arbiter to declare the game lost for the player whose flag has fallen. The Arbiter has to check the final position on the chessboard and only if the opponent can checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves, can he declare the game won by the opponent. In case there are forced moves that lead to a checkmate by the player or to a stalemate, then the result of the game is declared as a draw. 
It is desirable to check the clocks during the round, for instance every 30 minutes, and to record the times and the number of moves made, by using a time-control sheet (see at the end of the Manual).   This can be particularly valuable when an increment is used.   If a chess clock must be replaced, it must be done as soon as possible and it is essential to mark it as defective and to separate it from the clocks that work correctly. 
It is essential to write down all the known details of the two clocks before making any adjustment. 
For example, if a fire alarm goes off.  
6.12.1 Screens, monitors, or demonstration boards showing the current position on the chessboard, the moves and the number of moves made/completed, and clocks which also show the number of moves, are allowed in the playing hall. 
6.12.2 The player may not make a claim relying only on information shown in this manner. 

 
Article 7: Irregularities 
 
7.1 If an irregularity occurs and the pieces have to be restored to a previous position, the arbiter shall use his best judgement to determine the times to be shown on the chessclock. This includes the right not to change the clock times. He shall also, if necessary, adjust the clock’s move-counter. 
7.2.1 If during a game it is found that the initial position of the pieces was incorrect, the game shall be cancelled and a new game shall be played. 
 
7.2.2 If during a game it is found that the chessboard has been placed contrary to Article 2.1, the game shall continue but the position reached must be transferred to a correctly placed chessboard. 
7.3 If a game has started with colours reversed then, if less than 10 moves have been made by both players, it shall be discontinued and a new game played with the correct colours. After 10 moves or more, the game shall continue. 
7.4.1 If a player displaces one or more pieces, he shall re-establish the correct position in his own time. 
A player may stop the clocks if he feels disturbed by his opponent or by spectators or is unwell. Going to the toilet is not necessarily a valid reason for stopping the clocks. A disabled player must be treated with due respect. 
An arbiter or player must realise that the information displayed may be incorrect. 
Be aware that the error was found during and not after the game. It is not mentioned how the mistake was found or who found it. If a game is played on an electronic chessboard, it can happen that the computer stops recording the moves. In such cases the operator should inform the arbiter that something has gone wrong and it is the arbiter’s duty to check what has happened. 
After 10 moves or more the game shall continue, otherwise, a new game shall be played with the correct colours. It doesn’t matter what the current position on the chessboard is and how many pieces or pawns have been captured by the ninth move. 
If a game with reversed colours has ended by normal means (for example checkmate, resignation or draw agreement), in less than ten (10) moves, then the result stands. 
7.4.2 If necessary, either the player or his opponent shall stop the chessclock and ask for the arbiter’s assistance. 
7.4.3 The arbiter may penalise the player who displaced the pieces. 
7.5.1 An illegal move is completed once the player has pressed his clock. If during a game it is found that an illegal move has been completed, the position immediately before the irregularity shall be reinstated. If the position immediately before the irregularity cannot be determined, the game shall continue from the last identifiable position prior to the irregularity. Articles 4.3 and 4.7 apply to the move replacing the illegal move. The game shall then continue from this reinstated position. 
7.5.2 If the player has moved a pawn to the furthest distant rank, pressed the clock, but not replaced the pawn with a new piece, the move is illegal. The pawn shall be replaced by a queen of the same colour as the pawn. 
7.5.3 If the player presses the clock without making a move, it shall be considered and penalized as if an illegal move. 
7.5.4 If a player uses two hands to make a single move (for example in case of castling, capturing or promotion) and pressed the clock, it shall be considered and penalized as if an illegal move. 
7.5.5 After the action taken under Article 7.5.1, 7.5.2, 7.5.3 or 7.5.4 for the first completed illegal move by a player, the arbiter shall give two minutes extra time to his opponent; for the second completed illegal move by the same player the arbiter shall declare the game lost by this player. However, the game is drawn if the position is such 
The Arbiter must be very careful here. Suppose player A has the move and his clock is running. Then player B displaces one of his own pieces (by accident). It is not correct that player A starts player B’s clock. A should stop both clocks and summon the arbiter.  This Article should be applied flexibly. 
Most problems happen in Rapidplay or Blitz. The penalty should be according to Article 12.9. A player should not be forfeited immediately for accidentally displacing a piece. If he did it deliberately, perhaps in order to gain time, or does it several times, that is different. 
It is very important that the irregularity must be discovered during the game. After the players have signed the scoresheets or it is clear in another way that the game is over, corrections are not possible. The result stands. Where the irregularity is discovered during the game, it is important, that the game continues by moving the piece with which the illegal move was played or that the piece which was taken is taken by another piece, if possible. 
A move cannot be declared illegal until the player completed his move by stopping his clock. So, the player can correct his move without being penalized, even if he had already released the piece on the board, provided he hasn’t press the clock. Of course, he must comply with relevant parts of article 4. that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves. 
7.6 If, during a game it is found that any piece has been displaced from its correct square, the position before the irregularity shall be reinstated. If the position immediately before the irregularity cannot be determined, the game shall continue from the last identifiable position prior to the irregularity. The game shall then continue from this reinstated position. 
 
 
Article 8: The recording of the moves 
 
8.1.1 In the course of play each player is required to record his own moves and those of his opponent in the correct manner, move after move, as clearly and legibly as possible, in the algebraic notation (Appendix C), on the ‘scoresheet’ prescribed for the competition. 
8.1.2 It is forbidden to write the moves in advance, unless the player is claiming a draw according to Article 9.2, or 9.3 or adjourning a game according to Guidelines I.1.1 
8.1.3 A player may reply to his opponent’s move before recording it, if he so wishes. He must record his previous move before making another. 
8.1.4 The scoresheet shall be used only for recording the moves, the times of the clocks, offers of a draw, matters relating to a claim and other relevant data. 
8.1.5 Both players must record the offer of a draw on the scoresheet with a symbol (=). 
8.1.6 If a player is unable to keep score, an assistant, who must be acceptable to the arbiter, may be provided by the player to write the moves. His clock shall be adjusted by the arbiter in an equitable way. This adjustment of the clock shall not apply to a player with a disability. 
It is advisable that the investigation to determine from which position the game shall be continued takes place by the two players and under the supervision of the arbiter. 
The player is forfeited in case he completes two (2) of ANY of the above illegal moves. However when there are two (2) illegal moves in one move (for example illegal castling made by two hands, illegal promotion made by two hands and illegal capturing made by two hands), they count as one (1) illegal move and the player shall not be forfeited, unless it is the second such transgression. 
Capturing of the opponent’s King is illegal and is penalized accordingly. 
8.2 The scoresheet shall be visible to the arbiter throughout the game. 
8.3 The scoresheets are the property of the organiser of the competition. 
8.4 If a player has less than five minutes left on his clock at some stage in a period and does not have additional time of 30 seconds or more added with each move, then for the remainder of the period he is not obliged to meet the requirements of Article 8.1.1. 
8.5.1 If neither player keeps score under Article 8.4, the arbiter or an assistant should try to be present and keep score. In this case, immediately after a flag has fallen the arbiter shall stop the chessclock. Then both players shall update their scoresheets, using the arbiter’s or the opponent’s scoresheet. 
8.5.2 If only one player has not kept score under Article 8.4, he must, as soon as either flag has fallen, update his scoresheet completely before moving a piece on the chessboard. Provided it is that player’s move, he may use his opponent’s scoresheet, but must return it before making a move. 
8.5.3 If no complete scoresheet is available, the players must reconstruct the game on a second chessboard under the control of the arbiter or an assistant. He shall first record the actual game position, clock times, whose clock was running and the number of 
Notice that it is forbidden to record the move in advance. Only in case of a draw claim (Article 9.2. and 9.3) and adjourning is it allowed.   It is permitted to record the moves as a pair (his opponent’s move and his own), but he must have recorded his previous own move before making his next move.  Even if an opponent has only one legal response, this must not be recorded by the player in advance. 
Nowadays there are generally no problems with this Article. The habit of concealing the move written on the score sheet moves with a pen does not violate this article. But still the arbiter has the right to remove the pen from the score sheet, whenever he wants to check the number of the moves played by the players, provided it does not distract the opponent. 
A player is not allowed to keep the original score sheet. It belongs to the Organisers. The player has to deliver it to the arbiter when the game is finished and should keep a copy (if any). 
 
It happens quite often that in this time trouble phase the player asks the arbiter how many moves are left until the time control. The arbiter shall never give any information about the number of the moves that have been made, even after a player or both players have completed the required number of moves. The arbiter should act, only after a flag fall. He stops both clocks and orders the players to update their scoresheets. The arbiter shall start the clock of the player who has the move, only after they have done this. A player rarely takes too long over this, sometimes contemplating his next move. Then he should be warned. 
Notice that, in this situation, after a flag fall, the arbiter does not stop the clocks.moves made/completed, if this information is available, before reconstruction takes place. 
 
8.6 If the scoresheets cannot be brought up to date showing that a player has overstepped the allotted time, the next move made shall be considered as the first of the following time period, unless there is evidence that more moves have been made or completed. 
8.7 At the conclusion of the game both players shall sign both scoresheets, indicating the result of the game. Even if incorrect, this result shall stand, unless the arbiter decides otherwise. 
 
Article 9: The drawn game 
 
9.1.1 The regulations of an event may specify that players cannot offer or agree to a draw, whether in less than a specified number of moves or at all, without the consent of the arbiter. 
9.1.2 However, if the regulations of an event allow a draw agreement the following shall apply: 
The reconstruction should take place after both clocks have been stopped and should be done away from the other games, so as not to disturb them. 
It is very important for the Arbiter to record the correct result of the games. At the moment the Arbiter sees that a game has been finished, he should go to that board and check if the players have recorded the result of the game and signed both scoresheets. The arbiter should immediately check that both score sheets show the same result. 
This article allows the Chief Arbiter to overrule decisions made by other arbiters, even after the players have signed the scoresheets or the match protocols.  It has also been known for both players to record the wrong result. This permits the arbiter to correct such errors. 
If a competition applies this rule, then the mentioned number of moves or the no agreement at all, should be communicated with the players in the invitation to the tournament. It is advisable for the Arbiter to repeat the rule before the start of the tournament. It is clear that the rule applies only for draw agreements. Articles 9.2, 9.3 and 9.6 still apply during the whole game and give the possibility to the players to have a draw in less that the specified number of moves, which must be accepted by the Arbiter. For example, if two players make a draw by three-fold repetition after 20 moves, in a tournament where there is a draw restriction rule before 30 moves have been completed by both players, then the Arbiter must allow the draw. If neither player claims a draw by three-fold repetition, so that the repetition takes place five times, then the arbiter must step in and declare the game drawn, see 9.6.1. 
9.1.2.1 A player wishing to offer a draw shall do so after having made a move on the chessboard and before pressing his clock. An offer at any other time during play is still valid but Article 11.5 must be considered. No conditions can be attached to the offer. In both cases the offer cannot be withdrawn and remains valid until the opponent accepts it, rejects it orally, rejects it by touching a piece with the intention of moving or capturing it, or the game is concluded in some other way. 
9.1.2.2 The offer of a draw shall be noted by each player on his scoresheet with the symbol (=). 
9.1.2.3 A claim of a draw under Article 9.2 or 9.3 shall be considered to be an offer of a draw. 
9.2.1 The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by a player having the move, when the same position for at least the third time (not necessarily by a repetition of moves): 
9.2.1.1 is about to appear, if he first writes his move, which cannot be changed, on his scoresheet and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move, or 
9.2.1.2 has just appeared, and the player claiming the draw has the move. 
9.2.2 Positions are considered the same if and only if the same player has the move, pieces of the same kind and colour occupy the same squares and the possible moves of all the pieces of both players are the same. Thus positions are not the same if: 
9.2.2.1 at the start of the sequence a pawn could have been captured en passant 
This is a valuable rule for the arbiter and its use should be encouraged. 
The correct sequence of a draw offer is clear:    1.  making a move 2.  offering of a draw 3.  pressing the clock.   If a player deviates from this order, the offer still stands though it has been offered in an incorrect manner.  The arbiter in this case has to penalise the player, according to the Article 12.9.   No conditions can be attached to a draw offer.   Some examples: The player requires the opponent to accept the offer within 2 minutes.  In a team competition: a draw is offered under the condition that another game in the match shall be resigned or shall be drawn as well.    In both cases the offer of a draw is valid, but not the attached condition.   Regarding 9.1.2.3: If a player claims a draw, the opponent has the possibility to agree immediately to the draw. In this case the arbiter does not need to check the correctness of the claim. But be careful. If there is a draw restriction (for example: no draw offers are allowed before 30 moves have been completed by both players) and the claim has been submitted before that move (perhaps after 28 moves), then the claim has to be checked by the Arbiter, even if the opponent would agree to the draw. 
9.2.2.2 a king had castling rights with a rook that has not been moved, but forfeited these after moving. The castling rights are lost only after the king or rook is moved. 
9.3 The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by a player having the move, if: 
9.3.1 he writes his move, which cannot be changed, on his scoresheet and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move which will result in the last 50 moves by each player having been made without the movement of any pawn and without any capture, or 
9.3.2 the last 50 moves by each player have been completed without the movement of any pawn and without any capture. 
9.4 If the player touches a piece as in Article 4.3, he loses the right to claim a draw under Article 9.2 or 9.3 on that move. 
9.5.1 If a player claims a draw under Article 9.2 or 9.3, he or the arbiter shall stop the chessclock (see Article 6.12.1 or 6.12.2). He is not allowed to withdraw his claim. 
9.5.2 If the claim is found to be correct, the game is immediately drawn. 
9.5.3 If the claim is found to be incorrect, the arbiter shall add two minutes to the opponent’s remaining thinking time. Then the game shall continue. If the claim was based on an intended move, this move must be made in accordance with Articles 3 and 4. 
9.6 If one or both of the following occur(s) then the game is drawn: 
9.6.1 the same position has appeared, as in 9.2.2 at least five times. 
9.6.2 any series of at least 75 moves have been made by each player without the movement of any pawn and without any capture. If the last move resulted in checkmate, that shall take precedence. 
Only the player whose move it is, and whose clock is running, is allowed to claim a draw in this way. 
The correctness of a claim must be checked in the presence of both players. It is also advisable to replay the game and not to decide by only using the score sheets. If electronic boards are used it is possible to check it on the computer. 
See comment to article 9.2. 
The player loses his right to claim a draw only on that move. He has always the possibility to make a new claim in the game later, provided the circumstances haven’t changed. 
This claim is not treated as an illegal move. 
It is mentioned that the intended move must be played, but if the intended move is illegal, another move with this piece must be made. All the other details of Article 4 are also valid. 
 
Article 10: Points 
 
10.1 Unless the regulations of an event specify otherwise, a player who wins his game, or wins by forfeit, scores one point (1), a player who loses his game, or forfeits, scores no points (0), and a player who draws his game scores a half point (½). 
10.2 The total score of any game can never exceed the maximum score normally given for that game. Scores given to an individual player must be those normally associated with the game, for example a score of ¾ - ¼ is not allowed. 
 
Article 11: The conduct of the players 
 
11.1 The players shall take no action that will bring the game of chess into disrepute. 
11.2.1 The ‘playing venue’ is defined as the ‘playing area’, rest rooms, toilets, refreshment area, area set aside for smoking and other places as designated by the arbiter. 
11.2.2 The playing area is defined as the place where the games of a competition are played. 
11.2.3 Only with the permission of the arbiter can: 
11.2.3.1 a player leave the playing venue, 
11.2.3.2 the player having the move be allowed to leave the playing area. 
11.2.3.3 a person who is neither a player nor arbiter be allowed access to the playing area. 
 
In 9.6.1 case, the five times need not be consecutive. In both 9.6.1 and 9.6.2 cases the Arbiter must intervene and stop the game, declaring it as a draw. 
Another scoring system from time to time used is for a win 3 points, for a draw 1 point and for a lost game 0 points. The idea is to encourage more positive play. Another is win 3 points, draw 2, loss 1 and forfeit 0. This is to discourage forfeits and may encourage children particularly as they gain a point despite losing. Yet another is win 2, draw 1, loss 0. This avoids ½ on the results sheet. 
This is an Article which can be used for any infringements that are not specifically mentioned in the articles of the Laws of Chess. 
If possible, spectators should not enter the playing area. It is advisable to have all other rooms (smoking areas, toilets, refreshment areas, and so on.) always to be under the control of the Arbiters or assistants. 
11.2.4 The regulations of an event may specify that the opponent of the player having a move must report to the arbiter when he wishes to leave the playing area. 
11.3.1 During play the players are forbidden to use any notes, sources of information or advice, or analyse any game on another chessboard. 
11.3.2.1 During a game, a player is forbidden to have any electronic device not specifically approved by the arbiter in the playing venue. 
However, the regulations of an event may allow such devices to be stored in a player’s bag, provided the device is completely switched off. This bag must be placed as agreed with the arbiter. Both players are forbidden to use this bag without permission of the arbiter. 
11.3.2.2 If it is evident that a player has such a device on their person in the playing venue, the player shall lose the game. The opponent shall win. The regulations of an event may specify a different, less severe, penalty. 
11.3.3 The arbiter may require the player to allow his clothes, bags, other items or body to be inspected, in private. The arbiter or person authorised by the arbiter shall inspect the player, and shall be of the same gender as the player. If a player refuses to cooperate with these obligations, the arbiter shall take measures in accordance with Article 12.9. 
This article should not be confused with Articles 11.2.3.1 and 11.2.3.2. In 11.2.3.1 it is prohibited for any player to leave the playing venue without the permission of the arbiter and in 11.2.3.2 it is prohibited to leave the playing area for the player having the move. But in 11.2.4 it is possible to include, in the regulations, prohibition of the opponent leaving the playing area without permission of the arbiter. 
The regulations about electronic devices are now very strict. No mobile phone is allowed in the playing venue and it makes no difference if it is switched on or off.  If a mobile phone (even switched off) is found with a player, his game is immediately lost and the opponent shall win. The result shall be 1-0 or 0-1. It doesn’t matter if, when the mobile phone is found, the opponent cannot checkmate the offending player by any series of legal moves: he wins the game. The opponent may have cheated earlier. It is different if the game has not yet started. Suppose the following situation occurs: There is no zero‐tolerance. Player A is in the playing hall at the start of the round. His opponent, Player B is absent. Immediately after player A made his first move his mobile rings. The arbiter declares the game lost for Player A. Some minutes later, but still on time, Player B arrives. The score is “‐/+”, it is not a “played” game and it cannot be rated. 
11.3.4 Smoking, including e-cigarettes, is permitted only in the section of the venue designated by the arbiter. 
11.4 Players who have finished their games shall be considered to be spectators. 
11.5 It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever. This includes unreasonable claims, unreasonable offers of a draw or the introduction of a source of noise into the playing area. 
11.6 Infraction of any part of Articles 11.1 – 11.5 shall lead to penalties in accordance with Article 12.9. 
11.7 Persistent refusal by a player to comply with the Laws of Chess shall be penalised by loss of the game. The arbiter shall decide the score of the opponent. 
11.8 If both players are found guilty according to Article 11.7, the game shall be declared lost by both players. 
11.9 A player shall have the right to request from the arbiter an explanation of particular points in the Laws of Chess. 
However, there is the possibility for an arbiter or an organizer to specify in advance (in the regulations of the event) a less severe penalty for a violation of this article (perhaps a fine)  They can also include in the regulations of the event the possibility of bringing such a device to the tournament provided that certain conditions are fulfilled: that it is completely switched off and stored in a separate bag, so that it is not in contact with the player and the player does not have access to the bag during the game, without the arbiter's permission (and he cannot take the bag with him to the toilet, and so on.). 
If possible, this smoking area should be close to the playing area and supervised by an Arbiter or an Assistant. 
It means that the players, who finished their games, have to leave the playing area. Nevertheless, give them a few minutes to watch the other boards, making sure they do not disturb players still in play. 
Even if the draw offers or claims are quite reasonable, repeating them too often can annoy the opponent. The Arbiter must always intervene when the opponent is disturbed or distracted. 
It is very difficult to give a general guideline for the application of this Article, but if an arbiter has to warn the player for the third or fourth time, this is a good reason to declare the game lost. It is necessary to inform the player that Article 11.7 shall be applied at the next infringement. 
11.10 Unless the regulations of an event specify otherwise, a player may appeal against any decision of the arbiter, even if the player has signed the scoresheet (see Article 8.7). 
11.11 Both players must assist the arbiter in any situation requiring reconstruction of the game, including draw claims. 
11.12 Checking three times occurrence of the position or 50 moves claim is a duty of a the players, under supervision of the arbiter. 
 
Article 12: The role of the Arbiter (see Preface) 
 
12.1 The arbiter shall see that the Laws of Chess are observed. 
12.2 The arbiter shall: 
12.2.1 ensure fair play, 
12.2.2 act in the best interest of the competition, 
12.2.3 ensure that a good playing environment is maintained, 
12.2.4 ensure that the players are not disturbed, 
12.2.5 supervise the progress of the competition, 
12.2.6 take special measures in the interests of disabled players and those who need medical attention, 

1. 1. 1. follow the Anti-Cheating Rules or Guidelines

1. 2. The arbiter shall observe the games, especially when the players are short of time, enforce decisions he has made, and impose penalties on players where appropriate.
   3. The arbiter may appoint assistants to observe games, for example when several players are short of time.
   4. The arbiter may award either or both players additional time in the event of external disturbance of the game.
   5. The arbiter must not intervene in a game except in cases described by the Laws of Chess. He shall not indicate the number of moves completed, except in applying Article

8.5 when at least one flag has fallen. The arbiter shall refrain from informing a player that his opponent has completed a move or that the player has not pressed his clock.

1. 7. If someone observes an irregularity, he may inform only the arbiter. Players in other games must not to speak about or otherwise interfere in a game. Spectators are not allowed to interfere in a game. The arbiter may expel offenders from the playing venue.

1. 8. Unless authorised by the arbiter, it is forbidden for anybody to use a mobile phone or any kind of communication device in the playing venue or any contiguous area designated by the arbiter.

1. 9. Options available to the arbiter concerning penalties:
      1. warning,
      2. increasing the remaining time of the opponent,
      3. reducing the remaining time of the offending player,
      4. increasing the points scored in the game by the opponent to the maximum available for that game,
      5. reducing the points scored in the game by the offending person,
      6. declaring the game to be lost by the offending player (the arbiter shall also decide the opponent’s score),
      7. a fine announced in advance,
      8. exclusion from one or more rounds,
      9. expulsion from the competition.

APPENDICES

Appendix A. Rapid chess

1. 1. A ‘Rapid chess’ game is one where either all the moves must be completed in a fixed time of more than 10 minutes but less than 60 minutes for each player; or the time allotted plus 60 times any increment is of more than 10 minutes but less than 60 minutes for each player.

1. 2. Players do not need to record the moves, but do not lose their rights to claims normally based on a scoresheet. The player can, at any time, ask the arbiter to provide him with a scoresheet, in order to write the moves.

1. 1. 1. The Competition Rules shall apply if:
         1. one arbiter supervises at most three games and
         2. each game is recorded by the arbiter or his assistant and, if possible, by electronic means.
      2. The player may at any time, when it is his move, ask the arbiter or his assistant to show him the scoresheet. This may be requested a maximum of five times in a game. More requests shall be considered as a distraction of the opponent.

1. 4. Otherwise the following apply:
      1. From the initial position, once 10 moves have been completed by each player,
         1. no change can be made to the clock setting, unless the schedule of the event would be adversely affected
         2. no claim can be made regarding incorrect set-up or orientation of the chessboard.

In case of incorrect king placement, castling is not allowed. In case of incorrect rook placement, castling with this rook is not allowed.

1. 1. 2. If the arbiter observes an action taken under Article 7.5.1, 7.5.2, 7.5.3 or 7.5.4, he shall act according to Article 7.5.5, provided the opponent has not made his next move. If the arbiter does not intervene, the opponent is entitled to claim, provided the opponent has not made his next move. If the opponent does not claim and the arbiter does not intervene, the illegal move shall stand and the game shall continue. Once the opponent has made his next move, an illegal move cannot be corrected unless this is agreed by the players without intervention of the arbiter.

1. 1. 3. To claim a win on time, the claimant may stop the chessclock and notify the arbiter. However, the game is drawn if the position is such that the claimant cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves.

1. 1. 4. If the arbiter observes both kings are in check, or a pawn on the rank furthest from its starting position, he shall wait until the next move is completed. Then, if an illegal position is still on the board, he shall declare the game drawn.

1. 1. 5. The arbiter shall also call a flag fall, if he observes it.

1. 5. The regulations of an event shall specify whether Article A.3 or Article A.4 shall apply for the entire event.

Appendix B. Blitz

1. 1. A ‘blitz’ game is one where all the moves must be completed in a fixed time of 10 minutes or less for each player; or the allotted time plus 60 times any increment is 10 minutes or less.

1. 2. The penalties mentioned in Articles 7 and 9 of the Competition Rules shall be one minute instead of two minutes.
      1. The Competition Rules shall apply if:
         1. one arbiter supervises one game and
         2. each game is recorded by the arbiter or his assistant and, if possible, by electronic means.
      2. The player may at any time, when it is his move, ask the arbiter or his assistant to show him the scoresheet. This may be requested a maximum of five times in a game. More requests shall be considered as a distraction of the opponent.

1. 4. Otherwise, play shall be governed by the Rapid chess Laws as in Article A.2 and A.4.
   5. The regulations of an event shall specify whether Article B.3 or Article B.4 shall apply for the entire event.

Appendix C. Algebraic notation

FIDE recognises for its own tournaments and matches only one system of notation, the Algebraic System, and recommends the use of this uniform chess notation also for chess literature and periodicals. Score sheets using a notation system other than algebraic may not be used as evidence in cases where normally the score sheet of a player is used for that purpose. An arbiter who observes that a player is using a notation system other than the algebraic should warn the player of this requirement.

Description of the Algebraic System

1. 1. In this description, ‘piece’ means a piece other than a pawn.
   2. Each piece is indicated by an abbreviation. In the English language it is the first letter, a capital letter, of its name. Example: K=king, Q=queen, R=rook, B=bishop, N=knight. (N is used for a knight, in order to avoid ambiguity.)
   3. For the abbreviation of the name of the pieces, each player is free to use the name which is commonly used in his country. Examples: F = fou (French for bishop), L = loper (Dutch for bishop). In printed periodicals, the use of figurines is recommended.
   4. Pawns are not indicated by their first letter, but are recognised by the absence of such a letter. Examples: the moves are written e5, d4, a5, not pe5, Pd4, pa5.
   5. The eight files (from left to right for White and from right to left for Black) are indicated by the small letters, a, b, c, d, e, f, g and h, respectively.
   6. The eight ranks (from bottom to top for White and from top to bottom for Black) are numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, respectively. Consequently, in the initial position the white pieces and pawns are placed on the first and second ranks; the black pieces and pawns on the eighth and seventh ranks.
   7. As a consequence of the previous rules, each of the sixty-four squares is invariably indicated by a unique combination of a letter and a number.

1. 8. Each move of a piece is indicated by the abbreviation of the name of the piece in question and the square of arrival. There is no need for a hyphen between name and square. Examples: Be5, Nf3, Rd1. In the case of pawns, only the square of arrival is indicated. Examples: e5, d4, a5.

A longer form containing the square of departure is acceptable. Examples: Bb2e5, Ng1f3, Ra1d1, e7e5, d2d4, a6a5.

1. 9. When a piece makes a capture, an x may be inserted between:
      1. the abbreviation of the name of the piece in question and
      2. the square of arrival. Examples: Bxe5, Nxf3, Rxd1, see also C.10.
      3. When a pawn makes a capture, the file of departure must be indicated, then an x may be inserted, then the square of arrival. Examples: dxe5, gxf3, axb5. In the case of an ‘en passant’ capture, ‘e.p.’ may be appended to the notation. Example: exd6 e.p.
   10. If two identical pieces can move to the same square, the piece that is moved is indicated as follows:
       1. If both pieces are on the same rank by:
          1. the abbreviation of the name of the piece,
          2. the file of departure, and C.10.1.2 the square of arrival.

1. 10. 2. If both pieces are on the same file by:
          1. the abbreviation of the name of the piece,
          2. the rank of the square of departure, and
          3. the square of arrival.
       3. If the pieces are on different ranks and files, method 1 is preferred. Examples:
          1. There are two knights, on the squares g1 and e1, and one of them moves to the square f3: either Ngf3 or Nef3, as the case may be.
          2. There are two knights, on the squares g5 and g1, and one of them moves to the square f3: either N5f3 or N1f3, as the case may be.
          3. There are two knights, on the squares h2 and d4, and one of them moves to the square f3: either Nhf3 or Ndf3, as the case may be.
          4. If a capture takes place on the square f3, the notation of the previous examples is still applicable, but an x may be inserted: 1) either Ngxf3 or Nexf3, 2) either N5xf3 or N1xf3, 3) either Nhxf3 or Ndxf3, as the case may be.
   11. In the case of the promotion of a pawn, the actual pawn move is indicated, followed immediately by the abbreviation of the new piece. Examples: d8Q, exf8N, b1B, g1R.
   12. The offer of a draw shall be marked as (=).
   13. Abbreviations

0-0 = castling with rook h1 or rook h8 (kingside castling)

0-0-0 = castling with rook a1 or rook a8 (queenside castling) x = captures

+ = check

++ or # = checkmate

e.p. = captures ‘en passant’ The last four are optional.

Sample game: 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. d4 exd4 4. e5 Ne4 5. Qxd4 d5 6. exd6 e.p. Nxd6 7. Bg5 Nc6 8. Qe3+ Be7 9. Nbd2 0-0 10. 0-0-0 Re8 11. Kb1 (=)

Or: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. d4 ed4 4. e5 Ne4 5. Qd4 d5 6. ed6 Nd6 7. Bg5 Nc6 8. Qe3

Be7 9 Nbd2 0-0 10. 0-0-0 Re8 11. Kb1 (=)

Or: 1. e2e4 e7e5 2.Ng1f3 Ng8f6 3. d2d4 e5xd4 4. e4e5 Nf6e4 5. Qd1xd4 d7d5 6.

e5xd6 e.p. Ne4xd6 7. Bc1g5 Nb8c6 8. Qd4d3 Bf8e7 9. Nb1d2 0-0 10. 0-0-0 Rf8e8

11. Kb1 (=)

Appendix D. Rules for play with blind and visually disabled players

1. 1. The organiser, after consulting the arbiter, shall have the power to adapt the following rules according to local circumstances. In competitive chess between sighted and visually disabled (legally blind) players either player may demand the use of two boards, the sighted player using a normal board, the visually disabled player using one specially constructed. This board must meet the following requirements:
      1. measure at least 20 cm by 20 cm,
      2. have the black squares slightly raised,
      3. have a securing aperture in each square,
      4. The requirements for the pieces are:
         1. all are provided with a peg that fits into the securing aperture of the board,
         2. all are of Staunton design, the black pieces being specially marked.
   2. The following regulations shall govern play:
      1. The moves shall be announced clearly, repeated by the opponent and executed on his chessboard. When promoting a pawn, the player must announce which piece is chosen. To make the announcement as clear as possible, the use of the following names is suggested instead of the corresponding letters:

A - Anna B - Bella C - Cesar D - David E - Eva

F - Felix G - Gustav H - Hector

Unless the arbiter decides otherwise, ranks from White to Black shall be given the German numbers

1. - eins
2. - zwei
3. - drei
4. - vier
5. - fuenf
6. - sechs

7. - sieben
8. - acht

Castling is announced “Lange Rochade” (German for long castling) and “Kurze Rochade” (German for short castling).

The pieces bear the names: Koenig, Dame, Turm, Laeufer, Springer, Bauer.

1. 1. 2. On the visually disabled player's board a piece shall be considered ‘touched’ when it has been taken out of the securing aperture.
      3. A move shall be considered ‘made’ when:
         1. in the case of a capture, the captured piece has been removed from the board of the player whose turn it is to move,
         2. a piece has been placed into a different securing aperture,
         3. the move has been announced.
      4. Only then shall the opponent's clock be started.
      5. As far as points D.2.2 and D.2.3 are concerned, the normal rules are valid for the sighted player.

D.2.6.1 A specially constructed chessclock for the visually disabled shall be admissible. It should be able to announce the time and number of moves to the visually disabled player.

D.6.2.2 Alternatively an analogue clock with the following features may be considered:

1. 1. 6. 1. 1. a dial fitted with reinforced hands, with every five minutes marked by one raised dot, and every 15 minutes by two raised dots, and
            2. a flag which can be easily felt; care should be taken that the flag is so arranged as to allow the player to feel the minute hand during the last five minutes of the full hour.
      7. The visually disabled player must keep score of the game in Braille or longhand, or record the moves on a recording device.
      8. A slip of the tongue in the announcement of a move must be corrected immediately and before the clock of the opponent is started.
      9. If during a game different positions should arise on the two boards, they must be corrected with the assistance of the arbiter and by consulting both players' game scores. If the two game scores correspond with each other, the player who has written the correct move but made the wrong one must adjust his position to correspond with the move on the game scores. When the game scores are found to differ, the moves shall be retraced to the point where the two scores agree, and the arbiter shall readjust the clocks accordingly.
      10. The visually disabled player shall have the right to make use of an assistant who shall have any or all of the following duties:

1. 1. 10. 1. making either player's move on the board of the opponent,
          2. announcing the moves of both players,
          3. keeping the game score of the visually disabled player and starting his opponent's clock
          4. informing the visually disabled player, only at his request, of the number of moves completed and the time used up by both players,
          5. claiming the game in cases where the time limit has been exceeded and informing the arbiter when the sighted player has touched one of his pieces,
          6. carrying out the necessary formalities in cases where the game is adjourned.
      11. If the visually disabled player does not make use of an assistant, the sighted player may make use of one who shall carry out the duties mentioned in points D.2.10.1 and D.2.10.2. An assistant must be used in the case of a visually disabled player paired with a hearing impaired player.

GUIDELINES

Guidelines I. Adjourned games

1. 1. 1. If a game is not finished at the end of the time prescribed for play, the arbiter shall require the player having the move to ‘seal’ that move. The player must write his move in unambiguous notation on his scoresheet, put his scoresheet and that of his opponent in an envelope, seal the envelope and only then stop the chessclock. Until he has stopped the chessclock the player retains the right to change his sealed move. If, after being told by the arbiter to seal his move, the player makes a move on the chessboard he must write that same move on his scoresheet as his sealed move.
      2. A player having the move who adjourns the game before the end of the playing session shall be considered to have sealed at the nominal time for the end of the session, and his remaining time shall so be recorded.
   2. The following shall be indicated upon the envelope:
      1. the names of the players,
      2. the position immediately before the sealed move,
      3. the time used by each player,
      4. the name of the player who has sealed the move,
      5. the number of the sealed move,
      6. the offer of a draw, if the proposal is current,
      7. the date, time and venue of resumption of play.

1. 3. The arbiter shall check the accuracy of the information on the envelope and is responsible for its safekeeping.
   4. If a player proposes a draw after his opponent has sealed his move, the offer is valid until the opponent has accepted it or rejected it as in Article 9.1.
   5. Before the game is to be resumed, the position immediately before the sealed move shall be set up on the chessboard, and the times used by each player when the game was adjourned shall be indicated on the clocks.
   6. If prior to the resumption the game is agreed drawn, or if one of the players notifies the arbiter that he resigns, the game is concluded.
   7. The envelope shall be opened only when the player who must reply to the sealed move is present.
   8. Except in the cases mentioned in Articles 5, 6.9, 9.6 and 9.7, the game is lost by a player whose recording of his sealed move:
      1. is ambiguous, or

1. 8. 2. is recorded in such a way that its true significance is impossible to establish, or
      3. is illegal.
   9. If, at the agreed resumption time:
      1. the player having to reply to the sealed move is present, the envelope is opened, the sealed move is made on the chessboard and his clock is started,
      2. the player having to reply to the sealed move is not present, his clock shall be started; on his arrival, he may stop his clock and summon the arbiter; the envelope is then opened and the sealed move is made on the chessboard; his clock is then restarted,
      3. the player who sealed the move is not present, his opponent has the right to record his reply on the scoresheet, seal his scoresheet in a fresh envelope, stop his clock and start the absent player’s clock instead of making his reply in the normal manner; if so, the envelope shall be handed to the arbiter for safekeeping and opened on the absent player’s arrival.
   10. Any player who arrives at the chessboard after the default time shall lose the game unless the arbiter decides otherwise. However, if the sealed move resulted in the conclusion of the game, that conclusion shall still apply.
   11. If the regulations of an event specify that the default time is not zero, the following shall apply: If neither player is present initially, the player who has to reply to the sealed move shall lose all the time that elapses until he arrives, unless the regulations of an event specify or the arbiter decides otherwise.
       1. If the envelope containing the sealed move is missing, the game shall continue from the adjourned position, with the clock times recorded at the time of adjournment. If the time used by each player cannot be re-established, the arbiter shall set the clocks. The player who sealed the move shall make the move he states he sealed on the chessboard.
       2. If it is impossible to re-establish the position, the game shall be annulled and a new game shall be played.

1. 13. If, upon resumption of the game, either player points out before making his first move that the time used has been incorrectly indicated on either clock, the error must be corrected. If the error is not then established the game shall continue without correction unless the arbiter decides otherwise.
   14. The duration of each resumption session shall be controlled by the arbiter’s timepiece. The starting time shall be announced in advance.

Guidelines II. Chess960 Rules

1. 1. Before a Chess960 game a starting position is randomly set up, subject to certain rules. After this, the game is played in the same way as regular chess. In particular, pieces and pawns have their normal moves, and each player's objective is to checkmate the opponent's king.
   2. Starting-position requirements

The starting position for Chess960 must meet certain rules. White pawns are placed on the second rank as in regular chess. All remaining white pieces are placed randomly on the first rank, but with the following restrictions:

1. 1. 1. the king is placed somewhere between the two rooks, and
      2. the bishops are placed on opposite-coloured squares, and
      3. the black pieces are placed opposite the white pieces.

The starting position can be generated before the game either by a computer program or using dice, coin, cards, etc.

1. 3. Chess960 castling rules
      1. Chess960 allows each player to castle once per game, a move by potentially both the king and rook in a single move. However, a few interpretations of regular chess rules are needed for castling, because the regular rules presume initial locations of the rook and king that are often not applicable in Chess960.
      2. How to castle. In Chess960, depending on the pre-castling position of the castling king and rook, the castling manoeuvre is performed by one of these four methods:
         1. double-move castling: by making a move with the king and a move with the rook, or
         2. transposition castling: by transposing the position of the king and the rook, or
         3. king-move-only castling: by making only a move with the king, or
         4. rook-move-only castling: by making only a move with the rook.
         5. Recommendations:
            1. When castling on a physical board with a human player, it is recommended that the king be moved outside the playing surface next to his final position, the rook then be moved from its starting position to its final position, and then the king be placed on his final square.
            2. After castling, the rook and king's final positions should be exactly the same positions as they would be in regular chess.
         6. Clarification:

Thus, after c-side castling (notated as 0-0-0 and known as queen-side castling in orthodox chess), the king is on the c-square (c1 for white and c8 for black) and the rook is on the d-square (d1 for white and d8 for black). After g-side castling (notated as 0-0 and known as king-side castling in orthodox chess), the king is on the g-square (g1 for white and g8 for black) and the rook is on the f-square (f1 for white and f8 for black).

1. 1. 1. 7. Notes
            1. To avoid any misunderstanding, it may be useful to state "I am about to castle" before castling.
            2. In some starting positions, the king or rook (but not both) does not move during castling.
            3. In some starting positions, castling can take place as early as the first move.
            4. All the squares between the king's initial and final squares (including the final square) and all the squares between the rook's initial and final squares (including the final square) must be vacant except for the king and castling rook.
            5. In some starting positions, some squares can stay filled during castling that would have to be vacant in regular chess. For example, after c-side castling 0-0-0, it is possible to have a, b, and/or e still filled, and after g-side castling (0-0), it is possible to have e and/or h filled.

Guidelines III. Games without increment including Quickplay Finishes

III.1 A ‘quickplay finish’ is the phase of a game when all the remaining moves must be completed in a finite time.

1. 1. 1. The Guidelines below concerning the final period of the game including Quickplay Finishes, shall only be used at an event if their use has been announced beforehand.
      2. These Guidelines shall apply only to standard chess and rapid chess games without increment and not to blitz games.

1. 3. 1. If both flags have fallen and it is impossible to establish which flag fell first then:
         1. the game shall continue if this occurs in any period of the game except the last period.
         2. the game is drawn if this occurs in the period of a game in which all remaining moves must be completed.
   4. If the player having the move has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may request that an increment extra five seconds be introduced for both players. This constitutes the offer of a draw. If the offer refused, and the arbiter agrees to the request, the clocks shall then be set with the extra time; the opponent shall be awarded two extra minutes and the game shall continue.
   5. If Article III.4 does not apply and the player having the move has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may claim a draw before his flag falls. He shall summon the arbiter and may stop the chessclock (see Article 6.12.2). He may claim on the basis that his opponent cannot win by normal means, and/or that his opponent has been making no effort to win by normal means:
      1. If the arbiter agrees that the opponent cannot win by normal means, or that the opponent has been making no effort to win the game by normal means, he shall declare the game drawn. Otherwise he shall postpone his decision or reject the claim.
      2. If the arbiter postpones his decision, the opponent may be awarded two extra minutes and the game shall continue, if possible, in the presence of an arbiter. The arbiter shall declare the final result later in the game or as soon as possible after the flag of either player has fallen. He shall declare the game drawn if he agrees that the opponent of the player whose flag has fallen cannot win by normal means, or that he was not making sufficient attempts to win by normal means.

1. 5. 3. If the arbiter has rejected the claim, the opponent shall be awarded two extra minutes.
   6. The following shall apply when the competition is not supervised by an arbiter:
      1. A player may claim a draw when he has less than two minutes left on his clock and before his flag falls. This concludes the game. He may claim on the basis:
         1. that his opponent cannot win by normal means, and/or
         2. that his opponent has been making no effort to win by normal means.

In III.6.1.1 the player must write down the final position and his opponent must verify it.

In III.6.1.2 the player must write down the final position and submit an up-to-date scoresheet. The opponent shall verify both the scoresheet and the final position.

1. 1. 2. The claim shall be referred to the designated arbiter.

GLOSSARY OF TERMS IN THE LAWS OF CHESS

The number after the term refers to the first time it appears in the Laws.

adjourn: 8.1. Instead of playing the game in one session it is temporarily halted and then continued at a later time.

algebraic notation: 8.1. Recording the moves using a-h and 1-8 on the 8x8 board.

analyse: 11.3. Where one or more players make moves on a board to try to determine what is the best continuation.

appeal: 11.10. Normally a player has the right to appeal against a decision of the arbiter or organiser.

arbiter: Preface. The person(s) responsible for ensuring that the rules of a competition are followed.

arbiter’s discretion: There are approximately 39 instances in the Laws where the arbiter must use his judgement.

assistant: 8.1. A person who may help the smooth running of the competition in various ways.

attack: 3.1.A piece is said to attack an opponent’s piece if the player’s piece can make a capture on that square.

black: 2.1. 1. There are 16 dark-coloured pieces and 32 squares called black. Or 2. When capitalised, this also refers to the player of the black pieces.

blitz: B. A game where each player’s thinking time is 10 minutes or less.

board: 2.4.Short for chessboard.

Bronstein mode: 6.3.2 See delay mode.

capture: 3.1. Where a piece is moved from its square to a square occupied by an opponent’s piece, the latter is removed from the board. See also 3.7.4.1 i 3.4.7.2.In notation x.

castling: 3.8.2 A move of the king towards a rook. See the article. In notation 0-0 kingside castling, 0-0-0 queenside castling.

cellphone: See mobile phone.

check: 3.9. Where a king is attacked by one or more of the opponent’s pieces. In notation +.

checkmate: 1.2. Where the king is attacked and cannot parry the threat. In notation ++ or #.

chessboard: 1.1. The 8x8 grid as in 2.1.

chessclock: 6.1. A clock with two time displays connected to each other.

chess set: The 32 pieces on the chessboard.

Chess960: A variant of chess where the back-row pieces are set up in one of the 960 distinguishable possible positions

claim: 6.8. The player may make a claim to the arbiter under various circumstances.

clock: 6.1. One of the two time displays.

completed move: 6.2.1 Where a player has made his move and then pressed his clock.

contiguous area: 12.8. An area touching but not actually part of the playing venue. For example, the area set aside for spectators.

cumulative (Fischer) mode: Where a player receives an extra amount of time (often 30 seconds) prior to each move.

dead position: 5.2.2 Where neither player can mate the opponent’s king with any series of legal moves.

default time: 6.7. The specified time a player may be late without being forfeited.

delay (Bronstein) mode: 6.3.2Both players receive an allotted ‘main thinking time’. Each player also receives a ‘fixed extra time’ with every move. The countdown of the main thinking time only commences after the fixed extra time has expired. Provided the player presses his clock before the expiration of the fixed extra time, the main thinking time does not change, irrespective of the proportion of the fixed extra time used.

demonstration board: 6.13. A display of the position on the board where the pieces are moved by hand.

diagonal: 2.4.A straightline of squares of the same colour, running from one edge of the board to an adjacent edge.

disability: 6.2.6 A condition, such as a physical or mental handicap, that results in partial or complete loss of a person's ability to perform certain chess activities.

displaced: 7.4.1 to put or take pieces from their usual place. For example, a pawn from a2 to a4.5; a rook partway between d1 and e1; a piece lying on its side; a piece knocked onto the floor.

draw: 5.2. Where the game is concluded with neither side winning.

draw offer: 9.1.2 Where a player may offer a draw to the opponent. This is indicated on the scoresheet with the symbol (=).

e-cigarette: device containing a liquid that is vaporised and inhaled orally to simulate the act of smoking tobacco.

en passant: 3.7.4.1See that article for an explanation. In notation e.p.

exchange: 1. 3.7.5.3 Where a pawn is promoted. Or 2.Where a player captures a piece of the same value as his own and this piece is recaptured. Or 3. Where one player has lost a rook and the other has lost a bishop or knight.

explanation: 11.9. A player is entitled to have a Law explained.

fair play: 12.2.1 Whether justice has been done has sometimes to be considered when an arbiter finds that the Laws are inadequate.

file: 2.4. A vertical column of eight squares on the chessboard.

Fischer mode: See cumulative mode.

flag: 6.1. The device that displays when a time period has expired.

flag-fall: 6.1. Where the allotted time of a player has expired.

forfeit: 4.8.1. To lose the right to make a claim or move. Or 2. To lose a game because of an infringement of the Laws.

handicap: See disability.

I adjust: See j’adoube.

illegal: 3.10.1.A position or move that is impossible because of the Laws of Chess.

impairment: See disability.

increment: 6.1. An amount of time (from 2 to 60 seconds) added from the start before each move for the player. This can be in either delay or cumulative mode.

intervene: 12.7. To involve oneself in something that is happening in order to affect the outcome.

j’adoube: 4.2. Giving notice that the player wishes to adjust a piece, but does not necessarily intend to move it.

kingside: 3.8.1.The vertical half of the board on which the king stands at the start of the game.

legal move: See Article 3.10a.

made: 1.1. A move is said to have been ‘made’ when the piece has been moved to its new square, the hand has quit the piece, and the captured piece, if any, has been removed from the board.

mate: Abbreviation of checkmate. minor piece. Bishop or knight. mobile phone: 11.3.2. Cellphone.

monitor: 6.13. An electronic display of the position on the board.

move: 1.1. 1. 40 moves in 90 minutes, refers to 40 moves by each player. Or 2. having the move refers to the player’s right to play next. Or 3. White’s best move refers to the single move by White.

move-counter: 6.10.2. A device on a chessclock which may be used to record the number of times the clock has been pressed by each player.

normal means: G.5. Playing in a positive manner to try to win; or, having a position such that there is a realistic chance of winning the game other than just flag-fall.

organiser. 8.3. The person responsible for the venue, dates, prize money, invitations, format of the competition and so on.

over-the-board: Introduction. The Laws cover only this type of chess, not internet, nor correspondence, and so on.

penalties: 12.3. The arbiter may apply penalties as listed in 12.9 in ascending order of severity.

piece: 2. 1. One of the 32 figurines on the board. Or 2. A queen, rook, bishop or knight. playing area: 11.2. The place where the games of a competition are played.

playing venue: 11.2. The only place to which the players have access during play.

points: 10. Normally a player scores 1 point for a win, ½ point for a draw, 0 for a loss. An alternative is 3 for a win, 1 for a draw, 0 for a loss.

press the clock: 6.2.1 The act of pushing the button or lever on a chess clock which stops the player’s clock and starts that of his opponent.

promotion: 3.7.5.3 Where a pawn reaches the eighth rank and is replaced by a new queen, rook, bishop or knight of the same colour.

queen: As inqueen a pawn, meaning to promote a pawn to a queen.

queenside: 3.8.1. The vertical half of the board on which the queen stands at the start of the game.

quickplay finish: G. The last part of a game where a player must complete an unlimited number of moves in a finite time.

rank: 2.4. A horizontal row of eight squares on the chessboard.

rapid chess: A. A game where each player’s thinking time is more than 10 minutes, but less than 60.

repetition: 5.3.1. 1. A player may claim a draw if the same position occurs three times.

2. A game is drawn if the same position occurs five times.

resigns: 5.1.2 Where a player gives up, rather than play on until mated.

rest rooms: 11.2. Toilets, also the room set aside in World Championships where the players can relax.

result: 8.7. Usually the result is 1-0, 0-1 or ½-½. In exceptional circumstances both players may lose (Article 11.8), or one score ½ and the other 0. For unplayed games the scores are indicated by +/- (White wins by forfeit), -/+ (Black wins by forfeit), -/- (Both players lose by forfeit).

regulations of an event: 6.7.1 At various points in the Laws there are options. The regulations of an event must state which have been chosen.

sealed move: E. Where a game is adjourned the player seals his next move in an envelope.

scoresheet: 8.1. A paper sheet with spaces for writing the moves. This can also be electronic.

screen: 6.13. An electronic display of the position on the board.

spectators: 11.4. People other than arbiters or players viewing the games. This includes players after their games have been concluded.

standard chess: G3. A game where each player’s thinking time is at least 60 minutes.

stalemate: 5.2.1Where the player has no legal move and his king is not in check.

square of promotion: 3.7.5.1 The squarea pawn lands on when it reached the eighth rank.

supervise: 12.2.5Inspect or control.

time control: 1. The regulation about the time the player is allotted. For example, 40 moves in 90 minutes, all the moves in 30 minutes, plus 30 seconds cumulatively from move 1. Or2. A player is said ‘to have reached the time control’, if, for example he has completed the 40 moves in less than 90 minutes.

time period: 8.6.A part of the game where the players must complete a number of moves or all the moves in a certain time.

touch move: 4.3. If a player touches a piece with the intention of moving it, he is obliged to move it.

vertical: 2.4. The 8th rank is often thought as the highest area on a chessboard. Thus each file is referred to as ‘vertical’.

white: 2.2. 1. There are 16 light-coloured pieces and 32 squares called white. Or 2. When capitalised, this also refers to the player of the white pieces.

zero tolerance: 6.7.1. Where a player must arrive at the chessboard before the start of the session.

50-move rule: 5.3.2 A player may claim a draw if the last 50 moves have been completed by each player without the movement of any pawn and without any capture.

75-move rule: 9.6.2The game is drawn if the last 75 moves have been completed by each player without the movement of any pawn and without any capture.

GUIDELINES FOR THE ORGANISERS

Introduction

Evolution of the FIDE Laws of Chess has given more freedom to the organisers about the regulations of a specific event. The Competition Rules enable organisers to choose options which are the best, in their opinion, for a given tournament. But greater freedom means greater responsibility.

The FIDE Laws of Chess regulate many of the specific rules, but not always. For example, in Rapid chess and Blitz, the regulations of an event shall specify if the entire event shall be played according to the Competition Rules or with some exceptions. Apart of that, is good to remind the player of such important things as the default time and the conditions when a draw can be agreed.

If the organisers forget to make these matters clear in advance, it will not be any use making an announcement at the start of a round. Players may not be present and, anyway, do not listen.

To avoid such situations, the FIDE Rules Commission has decided to prepare Guidelines for the Organisers. These are divided in three parts: what must be specified in the regulations of the event; what the RC recommends be specified; and optional rules. The RC strongly recommends to the organisers that their choice should always be exercised in conjunction with the Chief Arbiter.

1. Rules that must be specified in the tournament regulations
2. 1. Default time

According to the article 6.7.1 of the FIDE Laws of Chess, the regulations of an event shall specify a default time. If the default time is not specified, then it is zero.

1. 2. Using the Competition Rules in Rapid chess or Blitz

According to the article A.5/B.5 of the FIDE Laws of Chess, the regulations of an event shall specify if the entire event shall be played according to the Competition Rules (all articles from 6 to the 12 of the FIDE Laws of Chess) or with some exceptions as described in the article A.4/B.4.

1. 3. Standard chess and Rapid chess without an increment – less than two minutes draw claim

The regulation of the event shell specify if the game is played according to Guidelines III (Quickplay Finishes), as described in the article III.2.1. If yes, than the regulations of an event shall specify the procedure for the player having the move and less than two minutes left on his clock for a draw claim. There are two options: according to the article III.4 of the FIDE Laws of Chess, an increment extra five seconds be introduced for both players or according to the article III.5 of the FIDE Laws of Chess, a draw claim procedure shall follow. If these matters are not specified, then, for example, king and knight v king and knight can be played on until one flag falls.

2. Rules that are recommended to be specified in the tournament regulations
3. 1. Draw condition

According to the article 9.1.1 of the FIDE Laws of Chess, the regulations of an event may specify that players cannot offer or agree to a draw, whether in less than a specified number of moves or at all, without the consent of the arbiter. If the draw condition is not specified then, according to the article 5.3.2 of the FIDE Laws of Chess, players can offer or agree to a draw when both have made at least one move.

1. 2. Electronic device

According to the article 11.3.2.1 of the FIDE Laws of Chess, the regulations of an event may allow to the player to have an electronic device not specifically approved by the arbiter in the playing venue, provided that this device is stored in a player’s bag and the device is completely switched off. This bag must be placed as agreed with the arbiter. Neither player is allowed are to use this bag without permission of the arbiter. If the above permission is not specified, then is forbidden to have any electronic device in the playing venue.

3. Optional Rules that may be specified in the tournament regulations
4. 1. Scoring

According to the article 10.1 of the FIDE Laws of Chess, the regulations of an event may specify a different scoring system. For example a player who wins his game, or wins by forfeit, scores three points (3), a player who draws his game scores a two points (2), a player who loses his game scores one point (1), a player who loses by default scores zero points (0). If not specified, normal scoring is used (1, ½, 0).

1. 2. Leaving the playing area

According to Article 11.2.4 of the FIDE Laws of Chess, the regulations of an event may specify that the opponent of the player having a move must report to the arbiter when he wishes to leave the playing area. If this is not specified, there is no obligation for the opponent to communicate his intention to leave.

1. 3. Appeal procedure

According to the article 11.10 of the FIDE Laws of Chess, the regulations of an event may specify that a player cannot appeal against any decision of the arbiter, if he has signed the scoresheet. If not specified, the player may appeal even after signing the scoresheet. It is strongly recommended that an Appeal Committee should be set up in advance.

1. 4. Adjourned games – elapsed time before arrival of the players

According to the article I.11 of the FIDE Laws of Chess, the regulations of an event may specify the procedure regarding elapsed time before arrival of the players. If not specified, than the player who has to reply to the sealed move shall lose all the time that elapses until he arrives, even if both players are not present initially.

FIDE COMPETITION (TOURNAMENT) RULES

Approved by the 1986 General Assembly, 2007 PB

Amended by the 1989, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1998, 2006, 2010, 2014 General Assemblies and 2011 Executive Board.

Preface

All chess competitions shall be played according to the FIDE Laws of Chess (E.I.01A). The FIDE Competition Rules shall be used in conjunction with the Laws of Chess and shall apply to all official FIDE competitions. These Rules shall also be applied to all FIDE-rated competitions, amended where appropriate. The organisers, competitors and arbiters involved in any competition are expected to be acquainted with these Rules before the start of the competition. In these Rules the words ‘he’, ‘him’ and ‘his’ shall be considered to include ‘she’ and ‘her’.

National Laws take precedence over FIDE Rules.

1. Scope
2. 1. Where an event has a situation not covered by internal rules, these Rules shall be considered to be definitive.
   2. These Rules apply to the following levels of competition.

L1: Official FIDE events as defined by the FIDE Events Commission (D.IV.01.1) or FIDE World Championship and Olympiad Commission (D.I, D.II)

L2: Competitions where FIDE titles and title norms can be earned L3: FIDE Rated Competitions

L4: All other competitions

Rules that apply to specific types of competitions shall have the competition level indicated. Otherwise the rules shall apply to all levels of competitions.

1. 3. These competition rules may contain regulations defined by other FIDE Commissions, which are listed in the FIDE Handbook. Where possible, references to these external regulations shall be shown.

2. The Chief Organiser (CO)
3. 1. The federation or administrative body responsible for the organisation of a competition may entrust the technical organisation to a CO. He, together with the federation or organising body, may appoint an Organising Committee to be responsible for all financial, technical and organisational matters.

Other rules hereunder may apply also to the role of the CO. He and the Chief Arbiter (see 3) must work closely together in order to ensure the smooth running of an event.

3. The Chief Arbiter (CA)
4. 1. The duties of the CA are as specified by the Laws of Chess, other FIDE Rules and the other Rules of the Competition. During the event he also has to keep the record of each round; to oversee the proper course of the competition; to ensure order in the playing venue: players’ comfort during play; to supervise the work of the technical staff of the competition.
   2. Prior to the start of the competition:
      1. he may draw up additional rules in consultation with the CO;
      2. he shall check all the conditions for play, including the playing venue, playing area, lighting, heating, air conditioning, ventilation, noise, security and so on.;
      3. he must acquire through the CO all the necessary equipment, ensure a sufficient number of arbiters, auxiliary technical staff and assistants are engaged and ensure that conditions for the arbiters are satisfactory. Whether the playing conditions meet the requirements of these FIDE Rules is his final decision.
   3. At the conclusion of the event the CA shall report as appropriate.

4. Preparation of the Playing Hall

Refer to the Technical Commission Rules

5. Chess Equipment

Refer to the Technical Commission Rules

6. Play
7. 1. All games must be played in the playing area at the times specified in advance by the organisers, unless otherwise decided by the CA (in consultation with the CO).
   2. If possible, a separate area outside the playing area shall be provided where smoking is permitted. This shall be easily accessible from the playing area. If local ordinances totally prohibit smoking on the premises, the players and officials shall be given easy access to the outside.
   3. If mechanical chess clocks are used, they shall be set so that each unit registers six o’clock at the first time control.
   4. For FIDE events (L1) with 30 players or more, at any stage, a large digital countdown device shall be installed in the playing hall. For FIDE events with fewer than 30 players an appropriate announcement shall be made five minutes before the game is due to start and again one minute before the start of the game.
   5. After the finish of the game, the score sheets shall be signed. Then: the arbiter or the players shall place the kings in the middle of the board to indicate the result of the game. For a win by White, the kings shall be placed on e4 and d5 (the white centre squares); for a win by Black, the kings shall be placed on d4 and e5 (the black centre squares), for a draw, the kings shall be placed on d4 and d5 or on e4 and e5.

But, if electronic boards are used, an illegal move shall be made, before placing the kings in the centre.

1. 6. Where it is clear results have been arranged (E.I.01A.11.1), the CA shall impose suitable penalties (E.I.01A.12).
   7. A glossary of common relevant terms in several languages should be available to the arbiter.

7. Pairings
8. 1. Responsibility for the drawing of lots and the actual pairings rests with the CA.
   2. The drawing of lots for the first round of a round-robin competition shall be arranged by the CO, to be open to the players.
   3. In L1, L2: round robin competitions and preferable Swisses, the drawing of lots shall take place at least 12 hours before the start of the first round. In L1 all participants shall attend the ceremony of drawing of lots. A player who has not arrived on time for the drawing of lots may be included at the discretion of the CA. The first-round pairings shall be announced as soon as possible thereafter.
   4. If a player withdraws or is excluded from a competition after the drawing of lots but before the beginning of the first round, or there are additional entries, the announced pairings shall remain unaltered. Additional pairings or changes may be made at the discretion of the CA in consultation with the players directly involved, but only if these minimise amendments to pairings that have already been announced.

1. 5. The pairings for a round robin should be made in accordance with the Berger tables (Annex 1), adjusted where necessary for double-round events.
   6. If the pairings are to be restricted in any way - for example, players from the same federation shall, if possible, not meet in the last three rounds - this shall be communicated to the players as soon as possible, but not later than the start of the first round.
   7. For round-robin competitions this restricted drawing of lots may be done by using the Varma tables, reproduced in Annex 2, which can be used for competitions of 9 to 24 players
   8. For the pairings of a Swiss-system competition the pre-announced pairing system and program shall apply. (C.04)

8. Unplayed Games

“Player” in 8.1 -8.3.3, includes a “team” where appropriate.

1. 1. If a player has lost a game by default for insufficient reason, he shall be expelled unless the CA decides otherwise.
   2. Round robins
      1. Each player has entered into a contract to play throughout the tournament.
      2. When a player withdraws or is expelled from a tournament, the effect shall be as follows:
         1. If a player has completed less than 50 % of his games, the results shall remain in the tournament table (for rating and historical purposes, but they shall not be counted in the final standings. The unplayed games of the player are indicated by (-) in the tournament table and those of his opponents by (+). If neither player is present this will be indicated by two (-).
         2. If a player has completed at least 50 % of his games, the results shall remain in the tournament table and shall be counted in the final standings. The unplayed games of the player are shown as above.
   3. Swisses
      1. If a player withdraws, the results shall remain in the cross-table for ranking purposes. Only games that are actually played shall be rated
      2. If a player cannot play a particular round it is essential to inform the Pairings Controller and CA before the pairings for that round are made.

1. 1. 3. In an L2, L3 or L4 tournament: If, after the round has started two players do not have a game, then they can be paired against each other. This is only allowed when the arbiter and both players agree and they have not already played in this tournament. The arbiter shall adjust the clock times in an equitable manner.
      4. In an L2, L3 or L4 tournament the rules may permit a player to take a half point bye in a given round. It is only allowed if adequate notice has been given and is agreed to by the arbiter.

Such permission might not be granted to a player who receives conditions, or who has been given a free entry to the tournament. It is not permitted in the last round of a tournament.

9. Conduct of the Players
10. 1. Once a player has formally accepted an invitation, he must play except in exceptional circumstances (force majeure), such as illness or incapacity. Acceptance of another invitation is not considered to be a valid reason for not participating or for withdrawing.
    2. All the participants should be dressed in a suitable manner.
    3. A player who does not wish to continue a game and leaves without resigning or notifying the arbiter is discourteous. He may be penalised, at the discretion of the CA, for poor sportsmanship (E.I.01A.12.9)
    4. A player shall not speak about any game while it is in progress, except as allowed in the Laws of Chess.
    5. In a team competition a player must not stand behind the opposing team during play.
    6. All complaints concerning the behaviour of players or captains shall be made to the arbiter.

A player is not permitted to complain directly to his opponent (E.I.01A.11.5)

10. Penalties, Appeals
11. 1. When there is a dispute, the CA or CO as appropriate should make every effort to resolve matters by reconciliation. It is possible that such means will fail and the dispute is such that penalties are appropriate but not specifically defined by the Laws

of Chess or the Competition Rule. Then the CA (in consultation with the CO) shall have discretionary power to impose penalties. He should seek to maintain discipline and offer other solutions which may placate the offended parties.

1. 2. In all competitions there shall be an Appeals Committee (AC). The CO shall ensure that the AC is elected or appointed before the start of the first round, usually at the drawing of lots, or players’ meeting. It is recommended that the AC consist of a Chairman, at least two members and two reserve members. The Chairman, the members and reserve members shall, if possible, be from different federations, if it is an international competition. No member of the AC involved in the dispute shall rule in that dispute. Such a committee should have an odd number of voting members. Members of the AC shall not be younger than 21 years old.
   3. A player or a registered official representing a player or team may appeal against any ruling made by the CA or CO or one of their assistants. Such an official may include the player's team captain, head of delegation or other person as defined in the rules of the event.,
   4. An appeal shall be accompanied by a fee and submitted in written form not later than the deadline. Both fee and deadline shall be fixed in advance. The decisions of the AC shall be final. The fee is returnable if the appeal is successful. The fee (or part of it) may also be returned if the appeal is unsuccessful but considered reasonable in the view of the committee.

11. TV, Filming, Photography
12. 1. Television cameras that are noiseless and unobtrusive are permitted in the playing venue and contiguous areas with the approval of the CO and CA. The CA shall ensure the players are not disturbed or distracted in any way by the presence of TV, video cameras or other equipment.
    2. Only authorised photographers may take photographs in the playing venue. Use of flash in the playing area is restricted to the first ten minutes of the first round and the first five minutes of each subsequent round, unless the CA decides otherwise.

The Competition Rules may include other rules due to the peculiarities of the event. The authorised photographers may take photographs without flash during the rest of the round in the playing area, only with the permission of the CA

12. Team Captain’s Role in Team competitions

A team competition is one where the results of individual games contribute equally to the final score of a defined group of players.

1. 1. Depending on the rules of the specific competition, the captain shall be required to deliver at a specific time a written list naming the players in his team participating in

each round, to communicate to his players the pairings, to sign the protocol indicating the results in the match at the end of play.

1. 2. A team captain is allowed to leave or re-enter the playing venue only with the permission of the arbiter.
   3. The team captain must not stand behind the opposing team during play.
   4. If the team captain wishes to speak to one of his players, he shall first approach the arbiter. The team captain shall then speak to the player in the presence of an arbiter, using a language the arbiter can understand. The same procedure shall be followed if a player needs to speak to the captain.
   5. A team captain is entitled to advise the players of his team to make or accept an offer of a draw unless the regulations of the event stipulate otherwise. He shall not intervene in a game in any other way. He must not discuss any position on any board during play.
   6. The team captain may delegate his functions to another person, provided he informs the CA of this in writing in advance.

Examples of chess pieces:

 

Original Staunton chess pieces, left to right: pawn, rook, knight, bishop, queen, and king

A modern Staunton set, in wood

 

World Chess set approved by FIDE for the 2013 Candidate Tournament in London

1. 2. 2.4.      Colour of the pieces

The "black" pieces should be brown or black, or of other dark shades of these colours. The "white" pieces may be white or cream, or of other light colours. The natural colour of wood (walnut, maple, etc.) may also be used for this purpose. The pieces should not be shiny and should be pleasing to the eye.

The initial position of the pieces – see FIDE Laws of Chess art.2

1. Chess boards
2. Material and colour

For the World or Continental top level competitions wooden boards should be used. For other FIDE registered tournaments boards made of wood, plastic or card are recommended. In all cases boards should be rigid. The board may also be of stone or marble with appropriate light and dark colours, provided the Chess Organiser and Chief Arbiter find it acceptable. Natural wood with sufficient contrast, such as birch, maple or European ash against walnut, teak, beech, etc., may also be used for boards, which must have a dull or neutral finish, never shiny. Combination of colours such as brown, green, or very light tan and white, cream, off-white ivory, buff, etc., may be used for the chess squares in addition to natural colours.

1. 2. Size of the square and the board

The side of the square should measure 5 to 6 cm. Referring to 2.2 the side of a square should be at least twice the diameter of a pawn's base (that means four pawns on one square). A comfortable table of suitable height may be fitted in with a chessboard. If the table and the board are separate from one another, the latter must be fastened and thus prevented from moving during play.

4. Chess tables

For all official FIDE tournaments, the length of the table is 110 cm (with 15% tolerance). The width is 85 cm (for each player at least 15 cm). The height of the table is 74 cm. The chairs should be comfortable for the players. Special dispensation should be given for children's events. Any noise when moving the chairs must be avoided.

5. Chess clocks

For the FIDE World or Continental Championships and Olympiads electronic chess clocks must be used. For other FIDE registered tournaments organisers are recommended to use also electronic chess clocks.

If mechanical chess clocks are used, they should have a device (a "flag") signalling precisely when the hour hand indicates the end of each hour. The flag must be arranged so that its fall can be clearly seen, helping the arbiters and players to check time. The clock should not be reflective, as that may make it difficult to see. It should run as silently as possible in order not to disturb the players during play.

The same type of clock should be used throughout the tournament.

1. 1. Requirements for electronic chess clocks
   2. 1. In approved clocks, when one clock reaches zero in an increment mode time control, the other clock does not run further and retains its last display. For Rapid and Blitz tournaments, when one of the clocks reaches zero, the other clock may be set to continue to run until it also reaches zero.
      2. It is advantageous in Rapid and Blitz play as, when both flags have fallen, the game is drawn. If a player does not notice the flag fall of his opponent's clock, his clock will also display zero so that the game is drawn.
      3. When the approved clocks are used, the player whose flag falls first has a disadvantage and the other player, who has some time left on his clock, has a definite advantage. This is a disparity to the players.
         1. Clocks must function in full accordance with the FIDE laws of chess.
         2. The display at all times should show the time available to complete a player's next move (It is preferable to display seconds from beginning).
         3. The displays must be legible from a distance of at least 3 metres.
         4. A player must have a clearly visible indication which clock is running from a distance of 10 metres.

1. 1. 1. 5. For standard play games, where the time control has been passed, a sign on the display must signal clearly which player passed the time control first.
         6. For battery powered clocks, a low-battery indication is required.
         7. The clock must continue to function correctly for at least 10 hours after the low battery indication.
         8. Special attention should be given to the correct announcement of passing time controls.
         9. In case of cumulative or time delay modes, the clock should not add any additional time when a player passes the last time control.
         10. In case of time penalties, it should be possible for time and move counter corrections to be executed by an arbiter within 60 seconds.
         11. It must be impossible to erase or change the data in display with one simple action.
         12. Clocks must have a brief user manual for the clock.
         13. Electronic chess clocks used for FIDE events must be endorsed by the FIDE Technical Commission.
   2. 1. The electronic chess clocks endorsed by FIDE
      2. DGT XL (year 2007)
      3. DGT 2010 (year 2010)
      4. Silver Timer (year 2007)
      5. Sistemco (year 2009)
      6. DGT 3000 (year 2014)

1. Electronic score sheets
2. General remarks
   1. An electronic score sheet is a replacement for paper versions. It makes it easier to reconstruct games for publication where no other means of move registration is used.
   2. It is a device where a player can notate his and his opponent's moves during a game electronically.
   3. Basic rules for this electronic score sheet (device):
      1. The device is dedicated for notating chess games (not a multipurpose computer).
      2. The device fully complies with FIDE rules.
      3. The game notation complies with FIDE Laws of Chess, whereas the use of figurines is allowed.

• 1. 1. 4. The device can be linked to the owner or player through some unique identification of the device.
        5. The device logs user actions during game mode to prevent or detect foul play.
        6. It is foreseen that both players and tournament organizations will buy and use their own devices.
        7. The device should have approximately the size of A5-A6 (paper size).
  2. Game mode
     1. This is the mode where the player notates his game. The switch from any other mode to game mode can be made by the player himself when the game is finished or by the tournament organization or arbiter.
     2. The following rules apply to the electronic score sheet in game mode:
        1. During the game it is not possible to switch to any other mode.
        2. The game notation is clearly visible for the arbiter, with the restriction that not all moves need to be visible.
        3. The state of the device being in game mode is clearly visible for everyone.
        4. It is not allowed to go out of game mode by accident or deliberately, without notifying this to the player, his opponent or arbiter. This is also clearly visible to all parties.
        5. If the battery has low power this must be signalled. When this is signalled, the battery must hold out at least 8 hours to make it possible to notate a complete game.
        6. A minimum of 7 moves must be visible in a move list.
        7. Graphical input through a chess board with figurines is allowed.
        8. Scrolling through the move list is allowed, as is correcting of incorrect entered moves.
        9. A game finishes when a result is noted and both players signed the score sheet. The arbiter signature is optional.
        10. The players are obliged to submit the text of their game to the Organizer with reference to article 8.3 of the Laws of Chess.
        11. On entering moves:
• It is allowed to enter an illegal move;

• It is allowed to enter the clock time, draw offers and other abbreviation according to Laws of chess. Input of clock times should be possible using a figurine notation;
• It is allowed to enter only moves of white or black during time trouble;
• It is allowed to enter a dash for a move during time trouble;
• The device is not allowed to correct or signalling illegal moves automatically;
• If a stale mate or check mate is missed or an illegal move is made by the player, the device must be able to record following moves.
• An automatic move counter should be available
  2. 1. 12. The device must be able to restart the notation.
  3. Arbiter mode
     1. The arbiter mode is an optional mode for the device. This mode is created to give the arbiter some extra features supporting his job.
     2. If there is an arbiter mode available the following rules apply:
        1. Only the arbiter (or a representative of the tournament organization) is allowed to enter this mode during a game.
        2. In this mode legality checks may be done on the moves played in the game:
           • Threefold repetition of a position (fivefold repetition)
           • 50 moves rule (75 moves rule)
           • Detection of stalemate or checkmate.
           • The arbiter can take moves back in case an illegal move is detected.
  4. Owner mode
     1. The owner mode is an optional mode for the device. This is a mode where the producer may add some chess features for creating an attractive product for their customers.
     2. If there is owner mode available the following rules apply:
        1. The identification of the owner shall be possible in owner's mode.
        2. This mode is only allowed when not playing a game. Otherwise it is completely locked out.
        3. No chess program is allowed i.e. this is not a chess computer.

6. 1. 1. 4. No other then chess related activities are allowed.
         5. For anybody it is easy to see that the device is in owner mode.
7. 1. Testing Clocks and equipment
   2. The FIDE Technical Commission is competent to decide whether or not any piece of equipment is suitable for use in FIDE competitions. The Commission may recommend the use of other types of chess sets in addition to those mentioned above. It may make a list of equipment with satisfactory standards, the specimen of which would be kept at the FIDE Secretariat.
   3. If necessary FIDE will determine the general conditions for other equipment needed in chess competitions, such as score sheets, demonstration boards, etc.
8. Tournament halls for the FIDE World or Continental Championships and Olympiads
   1. Inspection and preparation of the Playing Hall
      1. All areas to which players have access during play should be inspected carefully and repeatedly by the Chief Organiser and the Chief Arbiter.
      2. Space for spectators must be prepared. The distance between the chess boards and the spectators should be not less than one meter, for top level tournaments 1.5 meters.
      3. Lighting of a standard similar to that used for examinations should be about 800 lux. Lighting should not cast shadows or cause pinpoints of light to be reflected from the pieces. Beware of direct sunlight, especially if this varies during play.

For a high-level tournaments The organizer should have the possibility (the device) to adjust the light in the hall - quality of lighting covering a larger area to the same level of flux requires a greater number of lumens.

1. 1. 4. It is highly recommended that the hall be carpeted. The noise made by moving chairs must be avoided.
      5. The extraneous noise levels close to the tournament hall must be checked too.
   2. 1. Space for players and arbiters
      2. It is recommended that the minimal space of 4 square meters be available for each player in individual matches and round robin tournaments. For other tournaments 2 square meters may be adequate. (Please refer to Diagram-A)

Some definitions and recommendations regarding sizes L : Length of the table.

L = 110 cm, tolerances: +20 cm, -10 cm W : Width of the table.

W = 85 cm, tolerances: +5 cm, -5 cm. S  : Horizontal space between table rows.

S = 3m, tolerances: +1.5 m, -0.5 m. R    : Vertical space between table rows. R = 3m, tolerances: +1.5 m, -0.5 m.

1. 1. 2. There should be a minimum of 2.5 meters between rows of players. It is best not to have long, unbroken rows. Where possible, players should play on individual tables at least for top boards or top matches in the events. (Please refer to Diagram-B)

Diagram B

Basic tournament hall placement styles

Dual Row For large events (open tournaments, youth champ. etc) (an arbiter may check two table in a same time)

Single Row Preferable style for individual competitions

Multi Row For team competitions (should be avoided for individual events as much as possible)

 

8. 1. 3. Special tables with the connection to the Internet for arbiters should be arranged too.
      4. Games should not be placed too close to doors.
      5. Playing conditions for all players in the event (especially for both players in a game) should be equalled as much as possible. Exceptions are mentioned in (b).
9. 1. Broadcasting
   2. All official FIDE events must be broadcast on the Internet
      1. All games from World Championship Matches, World Cup, Olympiad, World Team Championship and GP FIDE.
      2. At least 10 games from each age category of World Youth and Cadet Championships.
      3. As many games as possible from all other championships, but at least 30 games.
      4. Delay of broadcasting should be decided by the Chief Organiser and Chief Arbiter.
11. Requirements on treatment of disabled chess players
    1. General remarks
       1. These guidelines will be used for all FIDE rated events.
       2. No one has the right to refuse to meet a disabled player against whom he has been correctly paired.
       3. All chess venues must either be accessible to all, or an acceptable alternative venue with full supervision shall be available to those who cannot access the nominated venue.
       4. A circular shall be sent out when all competitors are known. This circular contains an entry form with the usual points and questions, asking whether any potential competitor has an impairment that will require special circumstances. The competitor has to inform the organisers about the special circumstances at least 20 days before the start of the event.
       5. No disabled player shall be "penalised" in accordance with the Articles

1. 1. 6. 6.7 and 8.1.6 of the Laws of Chess because of disability.
      7. It is recommended, that in all events there should be a tournament physician. The Chief Organiser and the Chief Arbiter shall know the phone number of the local hospital and physician.
      8. It is recommended that each national chess federation appoints an officer for matters regarding disabilities.
      9. It is strongly recommended that all organisers of chess events adopt these guidelines.

1. 2. 1. Special arrangements for participants
      2. Any impaired competitor who reasonably requests in time the placing of their equipment in a particular seat or orientation, has the right to do so, provided that this does not disadvantage his opponent or other competitors. The event organizer has to ensure that the needs of both players are catered for.
      3. All relevant information shall be displayed before the start of the event, including maps of the venue showing the location of toilets, refreshments and emergency exits.
      4. If a competitor cannot access the refreshments, arrangements should be made for their needs to be met.
      5. If a competitor cannot press his own clock or move his own pieces, an assistant shall be available unless the opponent is willing to do so. If the opponent is acting as an assistant the Chief Arbiter may decide to give him extra thinking time.
      6. If a player has made a prior request, copies of all notices should be available in large print. If a player is unable to read large print, then the notices must be read to him.
      7. It is recommended that all team events have the rule that if a visiting team indicates that it has a player with an impairment coming with them, giving sufficient notice, that the home team does everything which is reasonable to ensure that that player can participate.
   3. 1. Organisation of the tournament hall
      2. Only one game per table: in case an assistant is needed the tables should be larger (2 m width in order to place the assistants for the disabled) and should be placed separately.
      3. The corridors between rows of tables should be twice as large (wheel chairs)
      4. The arbiters should be clearly accessible to all players.
      5. Foresee additional contact points for electricity: some visually disabled players use a lamp for their chess board. This lamp should not disturb the opponent.
      6. Put the blind chess players at the same place as much as possible (they will know the way to the rest room and back in very short time!) and give them the same assistant during the whole tournament.
   4. 1. Assistants
      2. The assistants should have a minimum knowledge of chess; the language is less important since most of the handicapped players only speak their mother tongue.

10. 4. 2. Assistants for blind players should know the name of the pieces in their language
       3. Assistants for blind players should inform the player when they are leaving the chess board temporarily.
       4. The assistant should always write the moves: this is an important help for the arbiter.
    5. 1. Tournament organisation and Chief Arbiter
       2. Organise a players meeting for all players before the first round, preferably in the tournament hall.
       3. If possible only one round per day should be played.
       4. After making the pairings the chief arbiter should decide manually on which board everyone should play: some players (visually handicapped) should always play at the same board whereas the largest space should be foreseen for wheelchair players.
       5. Draw proposals or claims can easily go via the assistant. All players push the clock themselves, except the players who are physically unable to do so.
       6. In the case there is a time trouble situation with visually disabled players the arbiter should bear in mind that the (not visually disabled) opponent can reply almost immediately. The tournament regulations should therefore release the visually disabled player from the obligation to record the moves during the last five minutes, even when the game is played with an increment of at least 30 seconds. The visually handicapped player should then update his score sheet after the time trouble.
11. Requirements on treatment of school tournaments
    1. General remarks
       1. These guidelines shall be observed for all school tournaments played under FIDE auspices or that are to be FIDE rated and ideally should also be followed by national and regional school tournaments, especially those that may be nationally rated.

These guidelines may also be useful indications for ordinary school chess which is often described as "non-competitive" (games are usually played without clocks and not usually notated) in cases where the organizer is trying to introduce players to the world of "competitive" chess.

1. 1. 2. Every player should have the accompanying person who will be an attendant.
      3. The attendant may help the player to find the table.
      4. During a game all attendants, parents, coaches are treating as spectators. They should stay in place for spectators and cannot interfere with a game in progress. In case of questionable situation may contact only the arbiter or the organizer.
      5. Attendants can't use any mobile phone or electronic device in the playing hall.
      6. Using cameras with flash is restricted to the first five minutes of each round.

 

1. 3. Organisers and their duties
      1. Organisers are obliged to prepare the invitation and the regulation that shall be as comprehensive as possible, stating clearly the expected conditions and giving all details which may be of use to the participants:
         • name, address (including e-mail, fax and telephone numbers) of the organizers,
         • date and venue of the event,
         • the hotel(s) where the players are to stay (including e-mail and telephone numbers), also regarding provided the board and lodging,
         • requirements for the participants (e.g. registration date),
         • tournament schedule (with the annotation of players confirmation, approximate game-time and estimated time of awards ceremony),
         • the rate of play and tie-break system,
         • the default-time,
         • the prizes, gifts, diploma and important diploma for the participation.

1. 1. 2. The chief organiser should be present in the playing hall during the tournament. He is responsible for preparing the playing hall, opening ceremony and awards ceremony.
      3. It is recommended to insure one arbiter for every 30 players.
      4. Before the first round the organiser is obliged to explain to players the tournament regulations and the remind them some basic rules:
         • finding the table (numbered), chessboard and the proper colour of the pieces,
         • announce that players who lose their game play the next round (unless the rules of a competition specify otherwise),
         • touch move rule,
         • castling (the first king, later rook, using one hand),
         • using the chess clock (start and stop),
         • illegal move and it's consequence,
         • mobile phone and it's consequence,
         • the way of claiming (stop the clock and ask the arbiter),
         • the way of announcing the result.

• • • • announce, that the arbiter will collect the result at the table of player. He will also check the names of the players before writing the result.

Note: Some children run to their parents very fast and forget to report the result. Sometimes they give false results when coming to the arbiters place or they change the colour. After that the arbiter has less time to intervene or check who won the game.

1. 4. Tournament conditions
      1. If it is possible, all of the games should be played in one playing hall, e.g. in the school gym. The minimal space of two square meters should be available for each player.
      2. In other cases each playing hall should have at least one arbiter.
      3. The tables and chairs should be adjusted to the children's height and to the chessboard size.
      4. It is highly recommended that the chess equipment used in a competition is the same for all participants and all games.
      5. Chess pieces should be made of wood, plastic or an imitation of these materials.
      6. Pieces for FIDE Tournaments should be used. If the organizer has difficulties to prepare this kind of equipment, he can use the chessboard with the minimum square size of 55 mm and king's height 90 mm (Staunton no 5). The chessboard with the square size 38 mm and king's height 75 mm (Staunton no 4) is also acceptable in the school tournaments.
      7. It is necessary to prepare additional chess sets, pieces and chess clocks because they not once are damaged during school tournaments.
      8. Each chessboard should have coordinates.
      9. The playing hall should be good marked with the sign indicating the playing area, the spectators’ area, arbiters and organizers tables as well as rest rooms etc.
      10. If players are taking part in a few groups, it is recommended to indicate the name of the group using different colours and other characters. The same colour can be used for marking the pairings, results etc. It is easier for children to remember colours and find the right group.
      11. Space for spectators must be prepared and clearly marked. It can be another room or the separated place in the playing hall. The distance between the chessboards and the spectators should not be less than one meter. The rope barrier is requested.
      12. It is not allowed for the spectators to walk between the chessboard or stay vis-a-vis a supporting player.
      13. Players become spectators when their game finishes. Players are not allowed to play skittles games in the playing hall.

1. 4. 14. The advertising board should be prepared to display the start lists, pairings, results and other tournament information.
      15. No food or drink, except for bottled water, will be permitted in the competition area. Bottled water cannot be placed on the table.
   5. Rate of play and results
      1. There must be no more than 5-6 hours play for all rounds in one day. Examples: one day 6 round G=15' and 5 rounds G-30' or three days with two rounds G-60'. It could be connected with the possibility of achieving the local chess category.
      2. Tournaments without chess clocks. After 20 minutes the arbiters give the clock to the players with e.g. 5 minutes for each player to complete the game.
      3. Player who wins his game, or wins by forfeit, scores one point (1), a player who loses his game, or forfeits, scores no points (0), and a player who draws his game scores a half point (½).
   6. Tie-break system
      1. The tie-break system shall be decided in advance and announced prior to the start of the tournament. The arbiter should be ready to clearly clarify the calculations rules of tie-break system to the children and spectators. If all tie-breaks fail, the tie shall be broken by drawing of lots.
      2. A play-off is the best system, but it is not always appropriate, because it required the additional time. However it is recommended that play-offs be arranged in the case of the first place in the championship or qualifying places.
      3. The tie-break in Swiss Tournaments:
         1. The Buchholz Cut 1 (the sum of the scores of each of the opponents of a player reduced by the lowest score of the opponent)
         2. The Buchholz System (the sum of the scores of each of the opponents of a player)
         3. The greater number of wins.
         4. The greater number of wins with Black (unplayed games shall be counted as played with White).
      4. The tie-break in Round-Robin Tournaments:
         1. The greater number of wins.
         2. Sonneborn-Berger (the sum of the scores of the opponents a player has defeated and half the scores of the players with whom he has drawn).
         3. Koya System (the number of points achieved against all opponents who have achieved 50 % or more)
         4. The greater number of wins with Black (unplayed games shall be counted as played with White)

 

TYPES OF TOURNAMENTS

To establish the pairings for a chess tournament the following systems may be used:

1. Round Robin System

In a Round Robin Tournament all the players play each other. Therefore the number of rounds is the number of participants minus one, in case of an even number of players. If there is an odd number of participants, the number of rounds is equal to the number of players.

Usually the Berger Tables are used to establish the pairings and the colours of each round.

If the number of players is odd, then the player who was supposed to play against the last player has a free day in every round.

The best system for players is a Double Round Robin Tournament, because in such a system all players have to play two games against each opponent, one with white pieces and another one with black pieces. But mainly there is not time enough for it and other systems have to be used.

An example of a cross table of the final ranking of a Round Robin Tournament:

 

2009 China (Nanjing) Pearl Spring Chess Tournament
Final Ranking crosstable after 10 Rounds
Rk.		Name	Rtg	FED	1	2	3	4	5	6	Pts.	TB1	TB2	TB3
1	GM	CARLSEN MAGNUS	2772	NOR	***	1 ½	½ 1	1 1	1 ½	1 ½	8	6	0	35
2	GM	TOPALOV VESELIN	2813	BUL	0 ½	***	½ ½	½ 1	½ ½	½ 1	6	2	0	24,5
3	GM	WANG YUE	2736	CHN	½ 0	½ ½	***	½ ½	½ ½	½ ½	5	0	0	21,5
4	GM	JAKOVENKO DMITRY	2742	RUS	0 0	½ 0	½ ½	***	½ 1	½ ½	4	1	0	17,3
5	GM	RADJABOV TEIMOUR	2757	AZE	0 ½	½ ½	½ ½	½ 0	***	½ ½	4	0	1	20
6	GM	LEKO PETER	2762	HUN	0 ½	½ 0	½ ½	½ ½	½ ½	***	4	0	1	19,3

 

2. Swiss Systems

In FIDE, there are five different Swiss systems to be used for pairings:

1. 1. The Dutch System

It is the usual Swiss system for open tournaments well known by players and organizers, and will be described in detail later (see paragraph 8: “Annotated rules for the Dutch Swiss System”);

1. 2. The Lim System

The pairings are made from to top score group down before the middle group, then from the bottom score group to the middle group and finally the middle score group;

1. 3. The Dubov System

The objective of this system is to equalize the rating average (ARO) of all players. Therefore, in a score group, the white‐seeking players are sorted according to their ARO, the black‐seeking players according to their rating. Then, the white‐seeking player with the highest ARO is paired against the black‐seeking player with the lowest rating;

1. 4. The Burstein System,

The players in a score group are sorted according to their Sonneborn‐Berger points (then Buchholz, then Median) and then the top ranked player is paired against the last ranked player, the second ranked player against the last but one, and so on, with floaters coming from the middle.

It was used to pair teams in the Olympiad before 2006;

1. 5. The Olympiad Pairing System used in Olympiad since 2006

This system is similar to the Lim system for individual tournaments with only small amendments (reduced requirements for colour preference and floating) for team pairings.

 

An example of a cross table of the final ranking of a Swiss Tournament:

½

Final ranking
Rank	SNo.		Name	IRtg	FED	1.Rd.			2.Rd.			3.Rd.			4.Rd.			5.Rd.			6.Rd.			7.Rd.			8.Rd.			9.Rd.			Pts	Res.	BH.	BH.	BL	Vict	Rtg+/-	Ra	Rp
1	6	IM	J. Thybo	2466	DEN	30	b	1	6	w	0	54	b	1	18	w	1	8	b	1	24	w	1	4	b	½	7	b	½	13	w	1	7	0	46½	50½	5	6	13,6	2371	2591
2	9	IM	J. Plenca	2440	CRO	33	w	1	37	b	½	27	w	½	59	b	1	15	w	½	25	b	½	53	w	1	16	b	1	7	w	1	7	0	40½	44	4	5	13,0	2336	2556
3	2	GM	B. Deac	2559	ROU	11	b	½	38	w	1	22	b	1	16	b	1	9	w	½	12	b	1	7	w	½	5	w	½	4	b	½	6½	0	48	52½	5	4	1,2	2387	2551
4	7	IM	L. Livaic	2461	CRO	66	w	1	32	b	1	21	w	1	14	b	½	7	w	0	29	b	1	1	w	½	24	b	1	3	w	½	6½	0	45	48½	4	5	14,4	2415	2581
5	3	IM	M. Santos Ruiz	2505	ESP	46	w	1	24	b	½	17	w	½	37	b	1	10	w	1	16	b	½	14	w	½	3	b	½	20	w	1	6½	0	44	48½	4	4	3,2	2357	2523
6	33		J. Radovic	2330	SRB	68	w	1	1	b	1	14	w	0	53	b	1	29	w	½	26	b	½	12	w	1	10	b	½	15	w	1	6½	0	44	47½	4	5	30,1	2377	2543
7	1	IM	H. Martirosyan	2570	ARM	25	w	0	60	b	1	46	w	1	48	b	1	4	b	1	9	w	1	3	b	½	1	w	½	2	b	0	6	0	47	51	5	5	-5,1	2390	2510
8	39		I. Akhvlediani	2303	GEO	77	w	1	12	b	1	9	w	½	15	b	½	1	w	0	23	b	½	48	w	1	31	b	1	10	w	½	6	0	45½	48	4	4	25,3	2343	2464
9	8	IM	N. Morozov	2461	MDA	62	b	1	56	w	1	8	b	½	20	w	1	3	b	½	7	b	0	15	w	½	18	w	½	25	b	1	6	0	44	48	5	4	5,9	2385	2510
10	17	FM	B. Haldorsen	2397	NOR	57	w	1	55	b	½	25	w	½	27	b	1	5	b	0	38	w	1	11	b	1	6	w	½	8	b	½	6	0	43½	47½	5	4	4,1	2307	2432
11	45	FM	M. Askerov	2281	RUS	3	w	½	17	b	0	73	w	1	43	b	1	21	w	1	19	b	½	10	w	0	53	b	1	26	w	1	6	0	42½	45½	4	5	32,2	2373	2498
12	12	FM	I. Janik	2418	POL	79	b	1	8	w	0	40	b	1	41	w	1	28	b	1	3	w	0	6	b	0	54	w	1	24	w	1	6	0	42	44½	4	6	3,9	2326	2451
13	11	IM	M. Costachi	2418	ROU	72	w	½	40	b	½	66	w	1	21	b	½	37	w	1	15	b	½	17	w	1	14	b	1	1	b	0	6	0	41½	44½	5	4	6,8	2350	2475
14	4	FM	A. Sorokin	2486	RUS	67	b	1	44	w	1	6	b	1	4	w	½	24	b	0	20	w	1	5	b	½	13	w	0	17	b	½	5½	0	46	49½	5	4	-3,2	2375	2455
15	18		S. Tica	2389	CRO	64	b	1	54	w	1	28	b	½	8	w	½	2	b	½	13	w	½	9	b	½	39	w	1	6	b	0	5½	0	45	49	5	3	1,7	2318	2398
16	63		K. Yayloyan	2142	ARM	53	w	1	59	b	1	41	b	1	3	w	0	19	b	1	5	w	½	24	b	½	2	w	0	18	b	½	5½	0	44½	48	5	4	61,6	2410	2492
17	32	FM	D. Tokranovs	2334	LAT	49	b	½	11	w	1	5	b	½	19	w	0	79	b	1	28	w	1	13	b	0	38	w	1	14	w	½	5½	0	43½	46	4	4	10,1	2321	2401
18	23	FM	J. Haug	2379	NOR	60	w	½	45	b	½	39	w	1	1	b	0	66	w	1	33	b	1	26	w	½	9	b	½	16	w	½	5½	0	41½	45	4	3	-0,9	2283	2363
19	15	FM	M. Warmerdam	2399	NED	39	w	½	72	b	½	23	w	1	17	b	1	16	w	0	11	w	½	56	b	1	25	w	½	22	b	½	5½	0	41½	44½	4	3	-4,8	2275	2355
20	21	IM	A. Sousa	2386	POR	63	w	1	25	b	½	55	w	1	9	b	0	57	w	1	14	b	0	27	w	1	34	w	1	5	b	0	5½	0	41	45	4	5	6,2	2351	2431
21	30	FM	R. Lagunow	2357	GER	75	b	1	76	w	1	4	b	0	13	w	½	11	b	0	30	w	½	62	b	1	28	w	½	39	b	1	5½	0	39½	42	5	4	-2,2	2247	2327
22	28	IM	A. Perez Garcia	2361	ESP	78	b	1	58	w	½	3	w	0	57	b	0	63	w	1	45	b	1	23	w	1	26	b	½	19	w	½	5½	0	39	42	4	4	-1,1	2263	2343
23	56	FM	M. Jogstad	2259	SWE	31	b	0	80	w	1	19	b	0	76	w	1	35	b	1	8	w	½	22	b	0	47	w	1	42	b	1	5½	0	38½	40½	5	5	15,1	2262	2329
24	36		G. Kouskoutis	2314	GRE	70	b	1	5	w	½	34	b	1	26	b	1	14	w	1	1	b	0	16	w	½	4	w	0	12	b	0	5	0	47	50½	5	4	14,7	2368	2409
25	44	FM	T. Lazov	2289	MKD	7	b	1	20	w	½	10	b	½	42	w	½	44	b	1	2	w	½	31	w	½	19	b	½	9	w	0	5	0	45½	50	4	2	25,7	2423	2466
26	10	FM	J. Vykouk	2440	CZE	38	b	½	49	w	1	47	b	1	24	w	0	56	b	1	6	w	½	18	b	½	22	w	½	11	b	0	5	0	42	46	5	3	-12,2	2287	2330
27	40	FM	I. Lopez Mulet	2302	ESP	80	b	1	31	w	½	2	b	½	10	w	0	36	b	1	42	w	½	20	b	0	68	w	1	34	b	½	5	0	41½	43½	5	3	6,3	2294	2319
28	57	FM	V. Sevgi	2240	TUR	50	w	1	43	b	1	15	w	½	29	b	½	12	w	0	17	b	0	46	w	1	21	b	½	32	w	½	5	0	41	45½	4	3	26,6	2362	2405
29	16	FM	R. Haria	2398	ENG	36	b	1	47	w	½	58	b	1	28	w	½	6	b	½	4	w	0	39	b	0	40	w	½	54	b	1	5	0	40½	4½	5	3	-9,4	2276	2319
30	49	FM	C. Meunier	2270	FRA	1	w	0	68	b	1	50	w	1	31	b	0	48	w	½	21	b	½	41	b	1	42	w	35	b	½	5	0	40½	44	5	3	18,9	2349	2392
31	13		S. Drygalov	2415	RUS	23	w	1	27	b	½	37	w	0	30	w	1	55	b	½	62	w	1	25	b	½	8	w	0	33	b	½	5	0	40	44	4	3	-10,8	2285	2328
32	37		K. Nowak	2314	POL	86	-	+	4	w	0	81	b	½	36	w	½	39	b	½	58	w	1	42	b	½	35	w	½	28	b	½	5	0	38½	40	4	2	-8,4	2244	2192
33	52	FM	K. Karayev	2266	AZE	2	b	0	74	w	½	49	b	½	75	w	1	41	b	1	18	w	0	47	b	½	56	w	1	31	w	½	5	0	37½	40	4	3	4,8	2244	2287
34	5	IM	V. Dragnev	2483	AUT	40	w	½	61	b	1	24	w	0	55	b	0	72	w	1	37	b	1	44	w	1	20	b	0	27	w	½	5	0	37	40	4	4	-17,0	2287	2330
35	29		V. Lukiyanchuk	2358	UKR	61	w	0	52	b	1	57	w	½	45	b	½	23	w	0	60	b	1	66	w	1	32	b	½	30	w	½	5	0	36	39½	4	3	-14,7	2197	2240
36	59	FM	C. Patrascu	2227	ROU	29	w	0	83	b	1	43	w	½	32	b	½	27	w	0	59	b	1	50	w	½	44	b	½	53	w	1	5	0	35½	37	4	3	20,1	2302	2329
37	38	FM	K. Koziol	2313	POL	74	b	1	2	w	½	31	b	1	5	w	0	13	b	0	34	w	0	58	b	½	62	w	1	41	b	½	4½	0	42	44½	5	3	3,0	2326	2321
38	53		M. Friedland	2264	ISR	26	w	½	3	b	0	69	w	1	51	w	1	42	b	½	10	b	0	55	w	1	17	b	0	43	w	½	4½	0	40½	44	4	3	14,2	2357	2357
39	58		J. Thorgeirsson	2232	ISL	19	b	½	42	w	½	18	b	0	82	w	1	32	w	½	51	b	1	29	w	1	15	b	0	21	w	0	4½	0	40½	42	4	3	14,1	2314	2285
40	48	FM	S. Tifferet	2273	ISR	34	b	½	13	w	½	12	w	0	73	b	1	53	w	0	61	b	1	43	w	½	29	b	½	48	w	½	4½	0	39	42	4	2	10,3	2340	2340

 

3. Scheveningen System

The Scheveningen system is mainly used for teams. In such a team competition, each player of one team meets each player of the opposing team. The number of rounds therefore is equal to the number of players in a team. Scheveningen system, the players of first half of one team meet all players of the first half of the opposing team and players of the second half of one team play against players of the second half of the other team. Example: Team A and B have eight players each. A1, A2, A3 and A4 play versus B1, B2, B3 and B4. At the same time A5, A6, A7 and A8 play versus B5, B6, B7 and B8. Finally four rounds are necessary

In a Semi‐

Standard Tables

Match on 2 Boards
Round 1 A1-B1 A2-B2
Round 2 B2-A1 B1-A2

Match on 3 Boards
Round 1 A1-B1 A2-B2 B3-A3
Round 2 B2-A1 A2-B3 B1-A3
Round 3 A1-B3 B1-A2 A3-B2

Match on 4 Boards
Round 1 A1-B1 A2-B2 B3-A3 B4-A4
Round 2 B2-A1 B1-A2 A3-B4 A4-B3
Round 3 A1-B3 A2-B4 B1-A3 B2-A4
Round 4 B4-A1 B3-A2 A3-B2 A4-B1

Match on 5 Boards
Round 1 A1-B1 A2-B2 A3-B3 B4-A4 B5-A5
Round 2 B2-A1 B3-A2 B4-A3 A4-B5 A5-B1
Round 3 A1-B3 A2-B4 B5-A3 B1-A4 A5-B2
Round 4 B4-A1 B5-A2 A3-B1 A4-B2 B3-A5
Round 5 A1-B5 B1-A2 B2-A3 A4-B3 A5-B4

Match on 6 Boards
Round 1 B1-A1 B5-A2 A3-B4 A4-B2 A5-B3 B6-A6
Round 2 B2-A1 A2-B1 B3-A3 B4-A4 A5-B6 A6-B5
Round 3 A1-B3 A2-B2 B1-A3 B6-A4 B5-A5 A6-B4
Round 4 A1-B4 B6-A2 A3-B5 A4-B1 B2-A5 B3-A6
Round 5 B5-A1 B4-A2 A3-B6 B3-A4 A5-B1 A6-B2
Round 6 A1-B6 A2-B3 B2-A3 A4-B5 B4-A5 B1-A6

Match on 7 Boards
Round 1 A1-B1 A2-B2 A3-B3 A4-B4 B5-A5 B6-A6 B7-A7
Round 2 B2-A1 B3-A2 B4-A3 A4-B5 A5-B6 A6-B7 B1-A7
Round 3 A1-B3 A2-B4 A3-B5 B6-A4 B7-A5 B1-A6 A7-B2
Round 4 B4-A1 B5-A2 A3-B6 A4-B7 A5-B1 B2-A6 B3-A7
Round 5 A1-B5 A2-B6 B7-A3 B1-A4 B2-A5 A6-B3 A7-B4
Round 6 B6-A1 A2-B7 A3-B1 A4-B2 B3-A5 B4-A6 B5-A7
Round 7 A1-B7 B1-A2 B2-A3 B3-A4 A5-B4 A6-B5 A7-B6

Match on 8 Boards
Round 1 A1-B1 A2-B2 A3-B3 A4-B4 B5-A5 B6-A6 B7-A7 B8-A8
Round 2 B2-A1 B3-A2 B4-A3 B1-A4 A5-B6 A6-B7 A7-B8 A8-B5
Round 3 A1-B3 A2-B4 A3-B1 A4-B2 B7-A5 B8-A6 B5-A7 B6-A8
Round 4 B4-A1 B1-A2 B2-A3 B3-A4 A5-B8 A6-B5 A7-B6 A8-B7
Round 5 A1-B5 A2-B6 A3-B7 A4-B8 B1-A5 B2-A6 B3-A7 B4-A8
Round 6 B6-A1 B7-A2 B8-A3 B5-A4 A5-B2 A6-B3 A7-B4 A8-B1
Round 7 A1-B7 A2-B8 A3-B5 A4-B6 B3-A5 B4-A6 B1-A7 B2-A8
Round 8 B8-A1 B5-A2 B6-A3 B7-A4 A5-B4 A6-B1 A7-B2 A8-B3

Match on 9 Boards
Round 1 A1-B1 A2-B2 A3-B3 A4-B4 A5-B5 B6-A6 B7-A7 B8-A8 B9-A9
Round 2 B2-A1 B3-A2 B4-A3 B5-A4 A5-B6 A6-B7 A7-B8 A8-B9 B1-A9
Round 3 A1-B3 A2-B4 A3-B5 A4-B6 B7-A5 B8-A6 B9-A7 B1-A8 A9-B2
Round 4 B4-A1 B5-A2 B6-A3 A4-B7 A5-B8 A6-B9 A7-B1 B2-A8 B3-A9
Round 5 A1-B5 A2-B6 A3-B7 B8-A4 B9-A5 B1-A6 B2-A7 A8-B3 A9-B4
Round 6 B6-A1 B7-A2 A3-B8 A4-B9 A5-B1 A6-B2 B3-A7 B4-A8 B5-A9
Round 7 A1-B7 A2-B8 B9-A3 B1-A4 B2-A5 B3-A6 A7-B4 A8-B5 A9-B6
Round 8 B8-A1 A2-B9 A3-B1 A4-B2 A5-B3 B4-A6 B5-A7 B6-A8 B7-A9
Round 9 A1-B9 B1-A2 B2-A3 B3-A4 B4-A5 A6-B5 A7-B6 A8-B7 A9-B8

Match on 10 Boards
Round 1 A1-B1 A2-B2 A3-B8 B9-A4 B5-A5 A6-B3 A7-B4 B6-A8 B7-A9 B10-A10
Round 2 B2-A1 B1-A2 B4-A3 A4-B7 A5-B10 B8-A6 B3-A7 A8-B5 A9-B6 A10-B9
Round 3 A1-B3 A2-B8 A3-B1 B2-A4 B6-A5 A6-B4 A7-B10 B7-A8 B9-A9 B5-A10
Round 4 B4-A1 B3-A2 A3-B9 B1-A4 A5-B7 B10-A6 A7-B6 B8-A8 A9-B5 A10-B2
Round 5 A1-B5 A2-B4 B2-A3 A4-B3 B1-A5 B9-A6 B7-A7 A8-B10 B8-A9 A10-B6
Round 6 B6-A1 A2-B7 B5-A3 B4-A4 A5-B8 A6-B1 A7-B9 A8-B2 B10-A9 B3-A10
Round 7 A1-B7 B5-A2 A3-B10 A4-B6 B4-A5 B2-A6 B1-A7 B9-A8 A9-B3 A10-B8
Round 8 B8-A1 B6-A2 B3-A3 B10-A4 A5-B9 A6-B5 A7-B2 A8-B1 A9-B4 B7-A10
Round 9 A1-B9 A2-B10 A3-B6 A4-B8 B2-A5 A6-B7 B5-A7 B3-A8 B1-A9 B4-A10
Round 10 B10-A1 B9-A2 B7-A3 A4-B5 A5-B3 B6-A6 B8-A7 A8-B4 A9-B2 A10-B1

4. Skalitzka System

When using a Round Robin system for three teams it is necessary to organize three rounds and in each round one team is without an opponent. Skalitzka system gives a possibility to find a ranking for three teams by playing only two rounds and to avoid that a team has no opponent. Each team has to be composed of an even number of players, all of them ranked in a fixed board order. Before the pairing is made one team is marked by capital letters, then second one by small letters and the third one by figures. Then the pairings are:

 

round 1	round 2
A ‐ a	1 ‐ A
b ‐ 1	a ‐ 2
2 ‐ B	B ‐ b
C ‐ c	3 ‐ C
d ‐ 3	c ‐ 4
4 ‐ D	D ‐ d
E ‐ e	5 ‐ E
f ‐ 5	e ‐ 6
6 ‐ F	F ‐ f

 

5. Other systems.
6. 1. Matches

Most matches between two players are played over a restricted number of games. Matches may be rated by FIDE if they are registered in advance with FIDE and if both players are rated before the match. After one player has won the match all subsequent games are not rated.

1. 2. Knock -out

The main advantage of a knock‐out system is to create a big final match. The whole schedule is known in advance. Mostly a knock‐out match consists of two games. As it is necessary to have a clear winner of each round another day for the tie‐break games has to be foreseen. Such tie‐ break games usually are organized with two rapid games followed by two or four blitz games. If still the tie is unbroken, one final “sudden death match” shall be played. The playing time should be 5 minutes for White and 4 minutes for Black, or a similar playing time. White has to win the game, for Black a draw is sufficient to win the match. See chapter “Tie‐break Systems”.

RESTRICTED DRAWING OF LOTS

Approved by the 1987 General Assembly

Introduction:

In certain cases, regulations state that the drawing of lots should be carried out in such a way that players of the same federation do not meet in the last three rounds, if possible.

This may be done by using the Varma tables, reproduced below, which can be modified for tournaments of from 10 to 24 players.

Directions for "restricted" drawing of tournament numbers

1. 1. 1. In the case of 19 or 20 participants, the players of the same group (A, B, C or

D) as indicated below, will not meet in the last three rounds: (6, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 17, 18)

(1, 2, 3, 11, 12, 13, 14)

(5, 10, 19)

(4, 20)

The arbiter shall prepare beforehand, unmarked envelopes each containing one of the above numbers. The envelopes containing a group of numbers are then placed in unmarked larger envelopes.

1. 1. 2. The order in which players draw lots is listed beforehand as follows: The players of the federation with the most number of representatives shall draw first. Where two or more federations have the same number of representatives, precedence is determined by the alphabetical order of the FIDE country code. Among players of the same federation, precedence is determined by the alphabetical order of their names.
      3. For example, the first player of the first contingent with the largest number of players shall choose one of the large envelopes containing at least enough numbers for his contingent, and then draw one of the numbers from this envelope. The other players from the same contingent shall also draw their numbers from the same envelope. The numbers that remain are available for use by other players.
      4. The players of the next contingent then draw lots and the procedure is followed until all players have drawn their numbers.
      5. The following Varma Tables can be used for 10 to 20 players. 9/10 players

1.   (3, 4, 8);

2.   (5, 7, 9);

3. (1, 6);

4. (2, 10)

11/12 players

1. (4, 5, 9, 10);

2. (2, 6, 7);

 

3. (1, 8, 12);

4. (3, 11)

13/14 players

1. (4, 5, 6, 11, 12);

2.   (1, 2, 8, 9);

3.   (7, 10, 13);

4. (3, 14)

15/16 players

1. (5, 6, 7, 12, 13, 14);

2. (1, 2, 3, 9, 10);

3. (8, 11, 15);

4. (4, 16)

17/18 players

1. (5, 6, 7, 8, 14, 15, 16);

2. (1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 12);

3. (9, 13, 17);

4. (4, 18)

19/20 players

1. (6, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 17, 18);

2. (1, 2, 3, 11, 12, 13, 14);

3. (5, 10, 19);

4.   4, 20)

21/22 players

1. (6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 17, 18, 19, 20);

2. (1, 2, 3, 4, 12, 13, 14, 15);

3. (11, 16, 21);

4. (5, 22)

23/24 players

1. (6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 19, 20, 21, 22);

2. (1, 2, 3, 4, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17);

3. (12, 18, 23);

4. (5, 24)

 

FIDE SWISS RULES (04)

Basic rules for Swiss Systems (C.04.01)

The following rules are valid for each Swiss system unless explicitly stated otherwise.

1. The number of rounds to be played is declared beforehand.
2. Two players shall not play against each other more than once.
3. Should the number of players to be paired be odd, one player is unpaired. This player receives a pairing-allocated bye: no opponent, no colour and as many points as are rewarded for a win, unless the rules of the tournament state otherwise.
4. A player who has already received a pairing-allocated bye, or has already scored a (forfeit) win due to an opponent not appearing in time, shall not receive the pairing-allocated bye.
5. In general, players are paired to others with the same score.
6. For each player the difference between the number of black and the number of white games shall not be greater than 2 or less than –2.

Each system may have exceptions to this rule in the last round of a tournament.

7. No player shall receive the same colour three times in a row.

Each system may have exceptions to this rule in the last round of a tournament.

8. 1. In general, a player is given the colour with which he played less games.

2. If colours are already balanced, then, in general, the player is given the colour that alternates from the last one with which he played.

i. The pairing rules must be such transparent that the person who is in charge for the pairing can explain them.

General handling rules for Swiss Tournaments (C.04.2)

1. Pairing Systems

1. The pairing system used for a FIDE rated Swiss tournament should be one of the published FIDE Swiss Systems.

Accelerated methods are acceptable if they were announced in advance by the organizer and are published in section C.04.5.

2. In derogation of the previous rule, unpublished pairing systems or accelerated methods may be permitted, provided that a detailed written description of their rules:
   1. be submitted in advance to the Qualification Commission (QC) and temporarily authorized by them; and
   2. be explicitly presented to the participants before the start of the tournament.

3. While reporting a tournament to FIDE, the Arbiter shall declare which official FIDE Swiss system and acceleration method (if any) were used, or provide the temporary authorization(s) given by the QC as per the previous rule.
4. The Swiss Pairing Systems defined by FIDE and not deprecated (see C.04.4) pair the players in an objective, impartial and reproducible way.

In any tournament where such systems are used, different arbiters, or different endorsed software programs, must be able to arrive at identical pairings.

5. It is not allowed to alter the correct pairings in favour of any player.

Where it can be shown that modifications of the original pairings were made to help a player achieve a norm or a direct title, a report may be submitted to the QC to initiate disciplinary measures through the Ethics Commission.

2. Initial Order

1. Before the start of the tournament, a measure of the player’s strength is assigned to each player. The strength is usually represented by rating lists of the players. If one rating list is available for all participating players, then this rating list should be used.

It is advisable to check all ratings supplied by players. If no reliable rating is known for a player, the arbiters should make an estimation of it as accurately as possible.

2. Before the first round the players are ranked in order of, respectively
   1. Strength (rating)
   2. FIDE-title (GM-IM- WGM-FM-WIM-CM-WFM-WCM-no title)
   3. alphabetically (unless it has been previously stated that this criterion has been replaced by another one)
3. This ranking is used to determine the pairing numbers; the highest one gets #1 etc. If, for any reason, the data used to determine the rankings were not correct, they can be adjusted at any time. The pairing numbers may be reassigned accordingly to the corrections.

No modification of a pairing number is allowed after the fourth round has been paired.

3. Late Entries

1. According to FIDE Tournament Rules, any prospective participant who has not arrived at the venue of a FIDE competition before the time scheduled for the drawing of lots shall be excluded from the tournament unless he shows up at the venue in time before a pairing of another round.

An exception may be made in the case of a registered participant who has given written notice in advance that he will be unavoidably late.

2. Where the Chief Arbiter decides to admit a latecomer,
   • if the player's notified time of arrival is in time for the start of the first round, the player is given a pairing number and paired in the usual way.

• • if the player's notified time of arrival is in time only for the start of the second (or third) round ("Late Entry"), then the player is not paired for the rounds which he cannot play. Instead, he receives no points for unplayed rounds (unless the rules of the tournament say otherwise), and is given an appropriate pairing number and paired only when he actually arrives.

3. If there are late entries, the Pairing Numbers that were given at the start of the tournament are considered provisional. The definitive Pairing Numbers are given only when the List of Participants is closed, and corrections made accordingly in the results charts.

4. Pairing, colour and publishing rules
5. 1. Adjourned games are considered draws for pairing purposes only.
   2. A player who is absent without notifying the arbiter will be considered as withdrawn, unless the absence is explained with acceptable arguments before the next pairing is published.
   3. Players who withdraw from the tournament will no longer be paired.
   4. Players known in advance not to play in a particular round are not paired in that round and score zero (unless the rules of the tournament say otherwise).
   5. Only played games count in situations where the colour sequence is meaningful. So, for instance, a player with a colour history of BWB=W (i.e. no valid game in round-4) will be treated as if his colour history was =BWBW. WB=WB will count as =WBWB, BWW=B=W as ==BWWBW and so on.
6. 6. Two paired players, who did not play their game, may be paired together in a future round.
   7. The results of a round shall be published at the usual place of communication at announced time due to the schedule of the tournament.
   8. If either
      • a result was written down incorrectly, or
      • a game was played with the wrong colours, or
      • a player's rating has to be corrected (and playing numbers possibly recomputed as in C.04.2.C.3),

and a player communicates this to the arbiter within a given deadline after publication of results, the new information shall be used for the standings and the pairings of the next round. The deadline shall be fixed in advance according to the timetable of the tournament.

If the error notification is made after the pairing but before the end of the next round, it will affect the next pairing to be done.

If the error notification is made after the end of the next round, the correction will be made after the tournament for submission to rating evaluation only.

1. 9. After a pairing is complete, sort the pairs before publishing them.

The sorting criteria are (with descending priority)

• • • the score of the higher ranked player of the involved pair;
    • the sum of the scores of both players of the involved pair;
    • the rank according to the Initial Order (C.04.2.B) of the higher ranked player of the involved pair.
  • Once published, the pairings shall not be changed unless they are found to violate C.04.1.b (Two players shall not play against each other more than once).

FIDE (Dutch) System (C.04.3)

Version approved at the 87th FIDE Congress in Baku 2016

A Introductory Remarks and Definitions

1. 1. Initial ranking list

See C.04.2.B (General Handling Rules - Initial order)

1. 2. Order

For pairings purposes only, the players are ranked in order of, respectively

1. 1. 1. score
      2. pairing numbers assigned to the players accordingly to the initial ranking list and subsequent modifications depending on possible late entries or rating adjustments

 

1. 3. Scoregroups and pairing brackets

A scoregroup is normally composed of (all) the players with the same score. The only exception is the special "collapsed" scoregroup defined in A.9.

A (pairing) bracket is a group of players to be paired. It is composed of players coming from one same scoregroup (called resident players) and of players who remained unpaired after the pairing of the previous bracket.

A (pairing) bracket is homogeneous if all the players have the same score; otherwise it is heterogeneous.

A remainder (pairing bracket) is a sub-bracket of a heterogeneous bracket, containing some of its resident players (see B.3 for further details).

1. 4. Floaters and floats

1. 1. 1. A downfloater is a player who remains unpaired in a bracket, and is thus moved to the next bracket. In the destination bracket, such players are called "moved- down players" (MDPs for short).
      2. After two players with different scores have played each other in a round, the higher ranked player receives a downfloat, the lower one an upfloat.

A player who, for whatever reason, does not play in a round, also receives a downfloat.

 

1. 5. Byes

See C.04.1.c (Should the number of players to be paired be odd, one player is unpaired. This player receives a pairing-allocated bye: no opponent, no colour and as many points as are rewarded for a win, unless the regulations of the tournament state otherwise).

 

1. 6. Colour differences and colour preferences

The colour difference of a player is the number of games played with white minus the number of games played with black by this player.

The colour preference is the colour that a player should ideally receive for the next game. It can be determined for each player who has played at least one game.

1. 1. 1. An absolute colour preference occurs when a player’s colour difference is greater than +1 or less than -1, or when a player had the same colour in the two latest rounds he played. The preference is white when the colour difference is less than -1 or when the last two games were played with black. The preference is black when the colour difference is greater than +1, or when the last two games were played with white.
      2. A strong colour preference occurs when a player‘s colour difference is +1 (preference for black) or -1 (preference for white).
      3. A mild colour preference occurs when a player’s colour difference is zero, the preference being to alternate the colour with respect to the previous game he played.
      4. Players who did not play any games have no colour preference (the preference of their opponents is granted).

 

1. 7. Topscorers

Topscorers are players who have a score of over 50% of the maximum possible score when pairing the final round of the tournament.

 

1. 8. Pairing Score Difference (PSD)

The pairing of a bracket is composed of pairs and downfloaters.

Its Pairing Score Difference is a list of score-differences (SD, see below), sorted from the highest to the lowest.

For each pair in a pairing, the SD is defined as the absolute value of the difference between the scores of the two players who constitute the pair.

For each downfloater, the SD is defined as the difference between the score of the downfloater, and an artificial value that is one point less than the score of the lowest ranked player of the current bracket (even when this yields a negative value).

 

Note: The artificial value defined above was chosen in order to be strictly less than the lowest score of the bracket, and generic enough to work with different scoring-point systems and in presence of non-existent, empty or sparsely populated brackets that may follow the current one.

PSD(s) are compared lexicographically (i.e. their respective SD(s) are compared one by one from first to last - in the first corresponding SD(s) that are different, the smallest one defines the lower PSD).

 

1. 9. Round-Pairing Outlook

The pairing of a round (called round-pairing) is complete if all the players (except at most one, who receives the pairing-allocated bye) have been paired and the absolute criteria C1-C3 have been complied with.

If it is impossible to complete a round-pairing, the arbiter shall decide what to do. Otherwise, the pairing process starts with the top scoregroup, and continues bracket by bracket until all the scoregroups, in descending order, have been used and the round- pairing is complete.

However, if, during this process, the downfloaters (possibly none) produced by the bracket just paired, together with all the remaining players, do not allow the completion of the round-pairing, a different processing route is followed. The last paired bracket is called Penultimate Pairing Bracket (PPB). The score of its resident players is called the "collapsing" score. All the players with a score lower than the collapsing score constitute the special "collapsed" scoregroup mentioned in A.3.

The pairing process resumes with the re-pairing of the PPB. Its downfloaters, together with the players of the collapsed scoregroup, constitute the Collapsed Last Bracket (CLB), the pairing of which will complete the round-pairing.

Note: Independently from the route followed, the assignment of the pairing-allocated bye (see C.2) is part of the pairing of the last bracket.

Section B describes the pairing process of a single bracket.

Section C describes all the criteria that the pairing of a bracket has to satisfy.

Section E describes the colour allocation rules that determine which players will play with white.

 

B Pairing Process for a bracke

1. 1. Parameters definitions
      1. M0 is the number of MDP(s) coming from the previous bracket. It may be zero.
      2. MaxPairs is the maximum number of pairs that can be produced in the bracket under consideration (see C.5).

Note:   MaxPairs is usually equal to the number of players divided by   two and rounded downwards. However, if, for instance, M0 is greater than the number of resident players, MaxPairs is at most equal to the number of resident players.

1. 1. 3. M1 is the maximum number of MDP(s) that can be paired in the bracket (see C.6).

Note: M1 is usually equal to the number of MDPs coming from the previous bracket, which may be zero. However, if, for instance, M0 is greater than the number of resident players, M1 is at most equal to the number of resident players.

Of course, M1 can never be greater than MaxPairs.

1. 2. Subgroups (original composition)

To make the pairing, each bracket will be usually divided into two subgroups, called S1 and S2.

S1 initially contains the highest N1 players (sorted according to A.2), where N1 is either M1 (in a heterogeneous bracket) or MaxPairs (otherwise).

S2 initially contains all the remaining resident players.

When M1 is less than M0, some MDPs are not included in S1. The excluded MDPs (in number of M0 - M1), who are neither in S1 nor in S2, are said to be in a Limbo.

Note: the players in the Limbo cannot be paired in the bracket, and are thus bound to double-float.

1. 3. Preparation of the candidate

S1 players are tentatively paired with S2 players, the first one from S1 with the first one from S2, the second one from S1 with the second one from S2 and so on.

In a homogeneous bracket: the pairs formed as explained above and all the players who remain unpaired (bound to be downfloaters) constitute a candidate (pairing).

 

In a heterogeneous bracket: the pairs formed as explained above match M1 MDPs from S1 with M1 resident players from S2. This is called a MDP-Pairing. The remaining resident players (if any) give rise to the remainder (see A.3), which is then paired with the same rules used for a homogeneous bracket.

Note:  M1 may sometimes be zero. In this  case, S1 will be empty and   the MDP(s) will all be in the Limbo. Hence, the pairing of the heterogeneous bracket will proceed directly to the remainder.

A candidate (pairing) for a heterogeneous bracket is composed by a MDP-Pairing and a candidate for the ensuing remainder. All players in the Limbo are bound to be downfloaters.

 

1. 4. Evaluation of the candidate

If the candidate built as shown in B.3 complies with all the absolute and completion criteria (from C.1 to C.4), and all the quality criteria from C.5 to C.19 are fulfilled, the candidate is called "perfect" and is (immediately) accepted. Otherwise, apply B.5 in order to find a perfect candidate; or, if no such candidate exists, apply B.8.

 

1. 5. Actions when the candidate is not perfect

The composition of S1, Limbo and S2 has to be altered in such a way that a different candidate can be produced.

The articles B.6 (for homogeneous brackets and remainders) and B.7 (for heterogeneous brackets) define the precise sequence in which the alterations must be applied.

After each alteration, a new candidate shall be built (see B.3) and evaluated (see B.4).

 

1. 6. Alterations in homogeneous brackets or remainders

Alter the order of the players in S2 with a transposition (see D.1). If no more transpositions of S2 are available for the current S1, alter the original S1 and S2 (see B.2) applying an exchange of resident players between S1 and S2 (see D.2) and reordering the newly formed S1 and S2 according to A.2.

 

1. 7. Alterations in heterogeneous brackets

Operate on the remainder with the same rules used for homogeneous brackets (see B.6).

Note: The original subgroups of the remainder, which will be used throughout all the remainder pairing process, are the ones formed right after  the  MDP-Pairing.  They  are  called  S1R  and  S2R  (to  avoid  any

 

confusion with the subgroups S1 and S2 of the complete heterogeneous bracket).

If no more transpositions and exchanges are available for S1R and S2R, alter the order of the players in S2 with a transposition (see D.1), forming a new MDP-Pairing and possibly a new remainder (to be processed as written above).

If no more transpositions are available for the current S1, alter, if possible (i.e. if there is a Limbo), the original S1 and Limbo (see B.2), applying an exchange of MDPs between S1 and the Limbo (see D.3), reordering the newly formed S1 according to A.2 and restoring S2 to its original composition.

1. 8. Actions when no perfect candidate exists

Choose the best available candidate. In order to do so, consider that a candidate is better than another if it better satisfies a quality criterion (C5-C19) of higher priority; or, all quality criteria being equally satisfied, it is generated earlier than the other one in the sequence of the candidates (see B.6 or B.7).

C Pairing Criteria

 

Absolute Criteria

No pairing shall violate the following absolute criteria:

1. 1. see C.04.1.b (Two players shall not play against each other more than once)
   2. see C.04.1.d (A player who has already received a pairing-allocated bye, or has already scored a (forfeit) win due to an opponent not appearing in time, shall not receive the pairing-allocated bye).
   3. non-topscorers (see A.7) with the same absolute colour preference (see A6.a) shall not meet (see C.04.1.f and C.04.1.g).

Completion Criterion

1. 4. if the current bracket is the PPB (see A.9): choose the set of downfloaters in order to complete the round-pairing.

Quality Criteria

To obtain the best possible pairing for a bracket, comply as much as possible with the following criteria, given in descending priority:

1. 5. maximize the number of pairs (equivalent to: minimize the number of downfloaters).

1. 6. minimize the PSD (This basically means: maximize the number of paired MDP(s); and, as far as possible, pair the ones with the highest scores).
   7. if the current bracket is neither the PPB nor the CLB (see A.9): choose the set of downfloaters in order first to maximize the number of pairs and then to minimize the PSD (see C.5 and C.6) in the following bracket (just in the following bracket).
   8. minimize the number of topscorers or topscorers' opponents who get a colour difference higher than +2 or lower than -2.
   9. minimize the number of topscorers or topscorers' opponents who get the same colour three times in a row.
   10. minimize the number of players who do not get their colour preference.
   11. minimize the number of players who do not get their strong colour preference.
   12. minimize the number of players who receive the same downfloat as the previous round.
   13. minimize the number of players who receive the same upfloat as the previous round.
   14. minimize the number of players who receive the same downfloat as two rounds before.
   15. minimize the number of players who receive the same upfloat as two rounds before.
   16. minimize the score differences of players who receive the same downfloat as the previous round.
   17. minimize the score differences of players who receive the same upfloat as the previous round.
   18. minimize the score differences of players who receive the same downfloat as two rounds before.
   19. minimize the score differences of players who receive the same upfloat as two rounds before.

D Rules for the sequential generation of the pairings

Before any transposition or exchange take place, all players in the bracket shall be tagged with consecutive in-bracket sequence-numbers (BSN for short) representing their respective ranking order (according to A.2) in the bracket (i.e. 1, 2, 3, 4,...).

1. 1. Transpositions in S2

A transposition is a change in the order of the BSNs (all representing resident players) in S2.

All the possible transpositions are sorted depending on the lexicographic value of their first N1 BSN(s), where N1 is the number of BSN(s) in S1 (the remaining BSN(s) of S2 are ignored in this context, because they represent players bound to constitute the remainder in case of a heterogeneous bracket; or bound to downfloat in case of a homogeneous bracket - e.g. in a 11-player homogeneous bracket, it is 6-7-8-9-10, 6-7- 8-9-11, 6-7-8-10-11,..., 6-11-10-9-8, 7-6-8-9-10,..., 11-10-9-8-7 (720 transpositions); if

the bracket is heterogeneous with two MDPs, it is: 3-4, 3-5, 3-6,..., 3-11, 4-3, 4-5,...,

11-10 (72 transpositions)).

1. 2. Exchanges in homogeneous brackets or remainders (original S1 ↔ original S2)

An exchange in a homogeneous brackets (also called a resident-exchange) is a swap of two equally sized groups of BSN(s) (all representing resident players) between the original S1 and the original S2.

In order to sort all the possible resident-exchanges, apply the following comparison rules between two resident-exchanges in the specified order (i.e. if a rule does not discriminate between two exchanges, move to the next one).

The priority goes to the exchange having:

1. 1. 1. the smallest number of exchanged BSN(s) (e.g exchanging just one BSN is better than exchanging two of them).
      2. the smallest difference between the sum of the BSN(s) moved from the original S2 to S1 and the sum of the BSN(s) moved from the original S1 to S2 (e.g. in a bracket containing eleven players, exchanging 6 with 4 is better than exchanging 8 with 5; similarly exchanging 8+6 with 4+3 is better than exchanging 9+8 with 5+4; and so on).
      3. the highest different BSN among those moved from the original S1 to S2 (e.g. moving 5 from S1 to S2 is better than moving 4; similarly, 5-2 is better than 4- 3; 5-4-1 is better than 5-3-2; and so on).
      4. the lowest different BSN among those moved from the original S2 to S1 (e.g. moving 6 from S2 to S1 is better than moving 7; similarly, 6-9 is better than 7- 8; 6-7-10 is better than 6-8-9; and so on).
2. 3. Exchanges in heterogeneous brackets (original S1 ↔ original Limbo)

An exchange in a heterogeneous bracket (also called a MDP-exchange) is a swap of two equally sized groups of BSN(s) (all representing MDP(s)) between the original S1 and the original Limbo.

In order to sort all the possible MDP-exchanges, apply the following comparison rules between two MDP-exchanges in the specified order (i.e. if a rule does not discriminate between two exchanges, move to the next one) to the players that are in the new S1 after the exchange.

The priority goes to the exchange that yields a S1 having:

1. 1. 1. the highest different score among the players represented by their BSN (this comes automatically in complying with the C.6 criterion, which says to minimize the PSD of a bracket).
      2. the lowest lexicographic value of the BSN(s) (sorted in ascending order).

Any time a sorting has been established, any application of the corresponding D.1, D.2 or D.3 rule, will pick the next element in the sorting order.

E Colour Allocation rules

Initial-colour

It is the colour determined by drawing of lots before the pairing of the first round. For each pair apply (with descending priority):

1. 1. Grant both colour preferences.
   2. Grant the stronger colour preference. If both are absolute (topscorers, see A.7) grant the wider colour difference (see A.6).
   3. Taking into account C.04.2.D.5, alternate the colours to the most recent time in which one player had white and the other black.
   4. Grant the colour preference of the higher ranked player.
   5. If the higher ranked player has an odd pairing number, give him the initial-colour; otherwise give him the opposite colour.

Note:         Always    consider    sections    C.04.2.B/C   (Initial    Order/Late Entries) for the proper management of the pairing numbers.

Other FIDE-approved Pairing Systems

Use of these systems is deprecated unless for a system there is a FIDE endorsed program (see, in Appendix C.04.A, the Annex-3 "List of FIDE Endorsed Programs") with a free pairing-checker (see A.5 in the same appendix) able to verify tournaments run with this system.

Dubov System Burstein System Lim System

FIDE-approved Accelerated Systems

In Swiss tournaments with a wide range of (mostly reliable) playing strengths, the results of the first round(s) are usually quite predictable. In the first round, only a few percent of the games have a result other than "win to the stronger part". The same may happen again in round two. It can be shown that, in title tournaments, this can prevent players from achieving norms.

An accelerated pairing is a variation of Swiss pairings in which the first rounds are modified in such a way as to overcome the aforementioned weaknesses of the Swiss system, without compromising the reliability of the final rankings.

It is not appropriate to design an entirely new pairing system for acceleration, but rather design a system that works together with existing FIDE-defined pairing systems. This result is normally achieved by rearranging score brackets in some way that is not only dependent on the points that the players have scored. For instance, one of the possible methods is to add so-called "virtual points" to the score of some higher rated players (who are supposedly stronger) and henceforth build the score brackets based on the total score (real score + virtual points).

The following chapters will describe the methods that were statistically proven to accomplish the aforementioned goals. The Baku Acceleration Method is presented first, because it was the first that, through statistical analysis, was proven to be good and stable (and is also easy to explain).

Other accelerated methods may be added, as long as they can be proven, through statistical analysis, to get better results than already described methods or, if their effectiveness is comparable, to be simpler.

Unless explicitly specified otherwise, each described acceleration method is applicable to any Swiss Pairing System.

Baku Acceleration

1. 1. 1. Premise

In its current presentation, the Baku Acceleration Method is applicable for tournaments that last nine rounds or more, and in which the standard scoring point system (one point for a win, half point for a draw) is used.

1. 1. 2. Initial Groups Division

Before the first round, the list of players to be paired (properly sorted) shall be split in two groups, GA and GB.

The first group (GA) shall contain the first half of the players, rounded up to the nearest even number. The second group (GB) shall contain all the remaining players.

Note:  for instance, if there are 161 players in the tournament, the   nearest even number that comprises the first half of the players (i.e. 80.5) is 82. The formula 2 * Q (2 times Q), where Q is the number of players

divided by 4 and rounded upwards, may be helpful in computing such number - that, besides being the number of GA-players, is also the pairing number of the last GA-player.

1. 1. 3. Late entries

If there are entries after the first round, those players shall be accommodated in the pairing list according to C.04.2.B/C (Initial Order/Late Entries).

The last GA-player shall be the same as in the previous round.

Note 1:      In such circumstances, the pairing number of the last GA-player may be different by the one set accordingly to Rule 2.

Note 2:      After the first round, GA may contain an odd number of players.

1. 1. 4. Virtual points

Before pairing the first three rounds, all the players in GA are assigned a number of points (called virtual points) equal to 1.

Such virtual points are reduced to 0.5 before pairing the fourth and the fifth round.

Note:         Consequently, no virtual points are given to players in GB or to any player after the fifth round has been played.

 

1. 1. 5. Pairing score

The pairing score of a player (i.e. the value used to define the scoregroups and internally sort them) is given by the sum of his standings points and the virtual points assigned to him.

Computer Swiss Pairing Programs endorsed by FIDE:

http://pairings.fide.com/approved‐programs.html.

Some examples of FIDE (Dutch) Pairings

with Baku 2016 Swiss Rules

In the Baku 2016 FIDE Congress, the new Rules for the FIDE (Dutch) Swiss system were approved. The Rules were thoroughly rewritten, and are now far easier to understand and use. It is now time to begin to put them into practice – let us therefore peer together into some examples of pairings – we will start with a very simple one and proceed to situations that are a bit more difficult. Before reading the examples, however, it is strongly advisable to carefully read the new Rules, which can be found (together with more interesting material about pairings) in the Systems of Pairing and Programs Commission (SPP) webpage, http://pairings.fide.com.

All the examples here come from one same tournament, whose crosstable is this:

 

ID NAME      Rtg  Pts |  1     2     3     4     5     6     7     8     9

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Alice       2600 6.5 | +W7   +B9   =W4   +B5   =W12  =W2   -B3   +B10  +W6

2 Bob       2550 6.0 | =B8   -W12  +W11  +B6   +W4   =B1   =B5   +W9   =B3

3 Charline  2500 5.0 | -W9   -B11  +W10  -B12  +W6   +B8   +W1   =B4   =W2

4 David     2450 6.0 | +B10  =W5   =B1   +W8   -B2   +W9   +B12  =W3   =B7

5 Eleanor   2400 4.5 | +W11  =B4   +W12  -W1   -B9   =B7   =W2   =B8   =W10

6 Frank     2350 4.0 | =B12  =W8   =B9   -W2   -B3   +B10  =W7   +W11  -B1

7 Gale      2300 4.0 | -B1   +W10  =B8   =W9   -B11  =W5   =B6   =W12  =W4

8 Hans      2250 4.0 | =W2   =B6   =W7   -B4   -W10  -W3   +B11  =W5   +B12

9 Isabelle  2200 4.0 | +B3   -W1   =W6   =B7   +W5   -B4   =W10  -B2   =B11

10 Jack      2150 3.0 | -W4   -B7   -B3   +W11  +B8   -W6   =B9   -W1   =B5

11 Karima    2100 3.0 | -B5   +W3   -B2   -B10  +W7   =B12  -W8   -B6   =W9

12 Leonard   2050 4.0 | =W6   +B2   -B5   +W3   =B1   =W11  -W4   =B7   -W8

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Example 1 – The very basics

In the second round, the first scoregroup is:

Player    Score       Col. hist.    Opp. hist.

1	1,0	B	7
4	1,0	W	10
5	1,0	B	11
9	1,0	W	3

 

To make the pairing, we must first determine the colour preferences of the players and divide the bracket into subgroups: S1=[1W, 4B] and S2=[5W, 9B] (B,W are strong colour preferences). Now we pair the first player of S1 to the first of S2, the second to the second, and so on, as usual, obtaining the candidate pairing 1-5, 4-9, which we must now evaluate against all the pairing criteria.

This candidate is legal (which means that it complies with all the relevant absolute criteria), and therefore we do not discard it at once; but it is nonetheless a definitely poor pairing, as we are disregarding two colour preferences, while we could – and therefore should – disregard zero. In the pairing jargon, we say that the candidate has a failure value equal to two for criterion C.10 (which tells us to minimise the number of disregarded colour preferences). Hence, we temporarily store the candidate (it might still be used, should we find nothing better), but proceed to look for a worthier one.

To look for a better pairing, the first alteration to try is always a transposition in S2; in this bracket, there is only one possible (the rules to generate transpositions, as well as exchanges, are in Section D of the FIDE Dutch rules), which lends S2=[9B, 5W]. Now, the candidate pairing is 1-9, 5-4 and, evaluating it against the pairing criteria, we promptly realize that it complies with them all – it is therefore a perfect candidate, which we immediately chose, thus terminating the pairing process for the bracket.

To complete it, however, yet another step is required: we must check that the rest of the players can actually be paired – this is informally called the “Requirement Zero”, and the test is a “completion test”. A failure in this test would mean that the pairing of the current bracket does not allow the pairing for the whole round to come to fruition. In such a case, we discard the candidate and change the pairing rules – but we do not need to worry about this just now: in early rounds, every participant may be legally paired with almost everyone else, so the probability of such an event is virtually zero – and, in fact, the completion test is passed. We will go back to the matter later on.

Example 2 – A complaining floater

In the fourth round, player #11 got the second downfloat running… we want to show him that his pairing is correct! Here is the pre-pairing situation:

Player    Score       Col. hist.    Float hist.      Opp. hist.

…

12	1,5	WBB		6 2 5
3	1,0	WBW		9 11 10
11	1,0	BWB	↓	5 3 2
10	0,0	WBB		4 7 3

Player #12 here is a “Moved-down player” (MDP) – that is, a player that downfloated from the previous bracket – so this bracket is heterogeneous. From now on, we will also need the float history of the players (which we only seldom need in early rounds). Here, we can see that player #11 just downfloated. By the way, this bracket shall of course give a downfloater, because the number of players is odd.

The pairing of heterogeneous brackets is built in two phases. In the first phase, we compose the MDP-Pairing, which is a partial pairing containing the MDP(s) (or, at least, as many of them as possible). In the second phase, we complete the candidate with the pairs containing only resident players (viz., those players that belong to the scoregroup); and then, only after the candidate is complete, we evaluate it as a whole.

The first phase is actually very simple: we start as usual by preparing the subgroups, annotating the colour preferences and the float status for each player: S1=[12W*], S2=[3B, 11W↓] (B*, W* are absolute colour preferences), then pair it in the usual way. The only difference is that in subgroup S1 we will put not half the players, as we would do in a homogeneous bracket, but all the MDPs that we are going to pair.

The first possible MDP-Pairing contains the pair 12-3. The remaining players (here, we have just one!) constitute the remainder {11W↓}, which we are going to pair in the second phase. With three players, we can build just one pair; hence, the remainder will yield no pairs at all and the candidate (which is built putting together the pairs from the

MDP-Pairing, the pairs from the pairing of the remainder and the possible downfloaters) is 12-3, 11 to float.

We must now evaluate this candidate – which means that we must verify its compliance with each of the relevant paring criteria. We readily verify that this candidate complies with all the pairing criteria but C.12 (Minimize the number of players who receive the same downfloat as the previous round). Hence, the candidate is legal but not perfect – let us call it the “temporary-best” (or “champ”). We therefore store it and proceed to look for something better – but, if nothing better is available, we will retrieve it and use it as “the” pairing.

To get the next candidate, we apply a transposition (there is only one), obtaining S2=[11W↓, 3B], which yields the candidate 12-11, 3 to float. This candidate is legal and therefore we evaluate it – but only to learn that it does not comply with criterion

C.10 (Minimize the number of players who do not get their colour preference). We must now compare the current temporary-best with this new candidate: the latter fails on C.10, while the former fails on C.12. Since C.10 is more important than C.12, we discard the new candidate and keep the old temporary-best.

Now there are no more transpositions, but we must continue to look for a perfect candidate – or use up all the possible ones. The next step would be to try an exchange between S1 and the Limbo (which means, to try and change the MDPs to be paired), but there are no more MDPs.

The last attempt is to reduce the number of MDPs to pair – this means, in practice, to make player #12 join the Limbo, from which it cannot help but float again, and pair players 11-3 between themselves. In a homogeneous bracket, a similar exchange would have been possible – but here player #12 is a MDP! This means that its score is higher than that of the residents – making it float causes a worse PSD, and thus a failure on criterion C.6 (Minimize the PSD), which is more important than both C.10 and C.12. Thus, also this candidate is discarded.

Well, we have now exhausted all the possible pairings, but found no perfect candidates: hence, we must choose the “less imperfect” one, which is of course the current temporary-best – and contains player #11 as a floater.

 

Example 3

The third example is rather typical, and still it is not a difficult one – but it definitely requires some patience. In round four, the two-point scoregroup contains only one player, who shall downfloat to the next bracket:

Player Score Col. hist. Float hist. Opp. hist.

4	2,0	BWB	↑	10 5 1
2	1,5	BWW	↑	8 12 11
6	1,5	BWB		12 8 9
7	1,5	BWB		1 10 8
8	1,5	WBW		2 6 7
9	1,5	BWW		3 1 6
12	1,5	WBB		6 2 5
3	1,0	WBW		9 11 10
11	1,0	BWB	↓	5 3 2

 

Player #4 is a MDP. Player #2 just upfloated (by the way, the same holds true for player #4 – but we may ignore it, because that player is certainly not going to upfloat now), and we foresee a downfloater (again, because the number of players is odd). Four players expect White and three expect Black, so we should be able to form three pairs, with no disregarded colour preferences (x=0).

As always, we first compose the MDP-Pairing, then we complete the candidate with the pairs containing only resident players, and finally we evaluate it.

First, we prepare the subgroups, annotating the colour preferences and the float status for each player: S1=[4W], S2=[2B*↑, 6W, 7W, 8B, 9B*, 12W*]. The first possible MDP-Pairing contains the pair 4-2. The remaining players constitute the remainder

{6W, 7W, 8B, 9B*, 12W*}, which we are going to pair in the second phase. Once again, we divide the players (of the remainder) in two subgroups: S1R=[6W, 7W], S2R=[8B, 9B*, 12W*], thus obtaining the remaining pairs of the candidate as 6-8, 7- 9, 12 to float. Now we must evaluate the candidate, which is not legal, because players #6 and #8 already played each other in a previous round.

We discard the candidate at once, and proceed with a transposition in the remainder – that is, in the subgroup S2R. We might observe, however, that player #6 already met all the players in S2R, and therefore no transposition at all can yield a legal pairing. We may therefore be “smart” and jump ahead to try a resident exchange, viz. an exchange of players between S1R and S2R.

The first such exchange is between players #7 (the lower in S1R) and #8 (the higher in S2R), and gives the new subgroups S1R=[6W, 8B] and S2R=[7W, 9B*, 12W*]. This gives a candidate 4-2, 6-7, 8-9, 12 to float which is legal, so that we may at least evaluate it. The first thing to verify is that the chosen downfloater (#12) can be paired in the next bracket (criterion C.7), and we find no problems here. Two colour preferences are disregarded, so we have a double failure for criterion C.10. Moreover, player #2 upfloats for the second time running, so we have one failure for criterion C.13 too. In conclusion, the candidate is legal but not perfect – as usual, we store it as temporary-best and proceed to look for something better.

To get the next candidate, we apply a transposition, obtaining S2R=[7W, 12W*, 9B*]. The resulting candidate (4-2, 6-7, 12-8, 9 to float) still has one failure for C.10 and one for C.13 – however, it is better than the previous one, so we store this one and discard the latter, but we keep looking for a perfect one.

Any other transposition yields illegal candidates (let’s remember that 6-9 and 6-12 are forbidden), so we should now try the following resident exchange, which gives S1R=[6W, 9B*], S2R=[7W, 8B, 12W*]. The only legal candidate that we did not already try is (after a transposition) 4-2, 6-7, 12-9, 8 to float – but it is easy to verify that this is not better than the current champ, so we discard it and keep the latter.

We should then proceed examining all exchanges and transpositions, one by one, but we might already suspect that this can be long and tedious work… luckily, we may avoid some useless effort and save some precious time by looking into the remainder

{6W, 7W, 8B, 9B*, 12W*} in a “smarter” way. The key lies in player #6: since it has already played with #8, #9, and #12, the only legal candidates containing #6 must have the pair 6-7 in them, which gives a failure for C.10. However, if we make #6 downfloat, we may build the pairs 7-9, 12-8, thus disregarding no colour preferences at all (please note that 7-8, 12-9 would give an illegal candidate, because #7 and #8 already met eachother). This yields the candidate 4-2, 7-9, 12-8, 6 to float, which contains only one failure for criterion C.13, and therefore becomes the new temporary-best.

This is the best we may do with the current MDP-Pairing; yet, it is not a perfect candidate, so our quest is not over… The next step is looking for a better MDP-Pairing; let us therefore start again with the original subgroups: S1=[4W], S2=[2B*↑, 6W, 7W, 8B, 9B*, 12W*].

We might observe that we have one C.13 failure because #4 has been paired with #2, who was an upfloater in the previous round. To get a better pairing, we need to pair player #4 with someone else, and this requires one or more transpositions in S2 – which, in practice, means to try to pair #4 with each member of S2 in turn. However, the pairings 4-6 and 4-7, although legal, introduce (at least) one failure for C.10 – therefore, no candidate originating from those MDP-Pairings can be better than the current temporary-best, and there is no point in examining them. The first potentially interesting pairing is 4-8, which is legal and yields the remainder {2B*↑, 6W, 7W, 9B*, 12W*}.

We are now interested only in (legal) candidates better than the temporary-best (if any)

– that is, with perfect colour matching – and this is only possible after exchanging #6 for #7: S1R=[2B*↑, 7W], S2R=[6W, 9B*, 12W*]. This yields the candidate 4-8, 6-2, 7-9, 12 to float. Its evaluation shows that all criteria are complied with (in particular, the downfloater optimises the pairing in the next bracket) and therefore the candidate is, at long last, perfect! We immediately choose it (discarding the previous temporary- best, now useless) and proceed to perform the completion test for Requirement Zero – which is (luckily) successful.

 

Example 4

In this last example taken from round 5 (after that round, the pairings become quite challenging), player #7 got a “double-downfloat” – let us see why. Actually, this pairing involves the last three scoregroups, and is a bit (but not very much) more difficult than the previous ones.

Player Score Col. hist. Float hist. Opp. hist.

5	2,5	WBWW		11 4 12 1
7	2,0	BWBW		1 10 8 9
9	2,0	BWWB		3 1 6 7
6	1,5	BWBW		12 8 9 2
8	1,5	WBWB	↑	2 6 7 4
3	1,0	WBWB	↑	9 11 10 12
10	1,0	WBBW	↑	4 7 3 11
11	1,0	BWBB	↓↓	5 3 2 10

 

The first bracket is heterogeneous, with player #5 as a MDP: [5B*][7b, 9w] (w, b= mild colour preferences). This bracket is easily paired: after a transposition, player #5, who has an absolute preference for Black, is paired with the only White-seeker, which is #9, while player #7 downfloats. In the destination bracket, player #7 is compatible, so criterion C.7 is satisfied – actually, all the relevant criteria are complied with, so the candidate is perfect.

However, before proceeding to the next scoregroup, we must prove that the remaining players, together with the floater, allow at least one legal pairing (in early rounds we may usually omit this check, as it is practically always satisfied – but not now!). It is important to appreciate that, in performing this test, we are not looking for “the pairing”. All we want is to show that at least one pairing exists for the remaining players and the quality of this pairing is not important in the least: its mere existence is proof that the round-pairing can be completed, and therefore we will not need to go back to this bracket again. Actually, for example we might pair 7-11, 6-10, 8-3.

Now we proceed to the next bracket, which is [7b][6b, 8w↑]. It is easy to proof that this bracket gives no perfect candidate; in the end, we settle for the (final) temporary-best: 6-7, 8 to float. However, here comes the twist: the remaining players, who are now {8, 3, 10, 11}, cannot be paired, and therefore we have a Requirement Zero failure.

We must restart from the current bracket [7b][6b, 8w↑], which becomes the Penultimate Pairing Bracket (PPB). This bracket is now subject to a new and special rule: it must provide the downfloaters needed to pair the rest of the players. All those remaining players are put together in a big melting pot, which is called the Special Collapsed Scoregroup (SCS). This special scoregroup may therefore contain players with different scores (and indeed this is usually the case, although this does not happen here) and, together with the downfloaters from the PPB, forms the Collapsed Last Bracket (CLB).

Actually, players #3, #10, and #11 are all incompatible with each other – and therefore, to complete the pairing, we apparently need three MDPs, one for each of them. Well, the PPB contains just three players – hence, we obtain zero pairs from the PPB (which is, sometimes, a perfectly legitimate pairing) and send the three required floaters in the CLB.

We must now pair the CLB. It contains players with different scores, so, in general, we must pay attention to the Pairing Score Difference (PSD). Because of this, in the bracket we want to annotate also the scores of the players: {(2.0)7b, (1.5)6b, (1.5)8w↑, (1.0)3w↑, (1.0)10b↑, (1.0)11W*↓↓}.

For this bracket, we must find the best possible pairing. This may seem a tough task, but actually most possible candidates are illegal, because many players already played with each other (of course, this is more or less usual in a CLB). The legal pairings are therefore comparatively few, and usually the best strategy is simply to evaluate them all and apply the “Sieve pairing method”. In the present case, player #7 has already played with #8 and #10. Moreover, it cannot be paired with #6 because the rest would not be paired. Hence, we have only four legal candidates complying with criteria C.1-

C.5. The first criterion to check is now C.6 to minimise the PSD (see C.04.3.A.8 in the FIDE Swiss Rules):

7-3, 6-10, 8-11              PSD={1.0, 0.5, 0.5}

7-3, 6-11, 8-10              PSD={1.0, 0.5, 0.5}

7-11, 6-10, 8-3              PSD={1.0, 0.5, 0.5}

7-11, 6-3, 8-10              PSD={1.0, 0.5, 0.5}

Actually, all the candidates have the same PSD – and of course, this is no coincidence: since the SCS contained no different scores, all pairings with its resident must end up with the same score differences. Now, criteria C.7, C.8 and C.9 do not apply, so we proceed to C.10 to check for colour matching.

1. 7b-3w, 6b-10b, 8w-11W*

2.   7b-3w, 6b-11W*, 8w-10b

3.   7b-11W*, 6b-10b, 8w-3w

4.   7b-11W*, 6b-3w, 8w-10b

The first and third candidates contain each two disregarded colour preferences, so we discard them and keep the second and fourth, which are perfectly colour matched.

1.   7b-3w↑, 6b-11W*, 8w↑-10b↑

2.   7b-11W*, 6b-3w↑, 8w↑-10b↑

We have no strong colour preferences, so criterion C.11 does not apply. Since we have no prospective downfloaters, also criterion C.12 does not apply. We proceed to criterion C.13, regarding the repetition of upfloats: the first candidate fails once on pair 3-7, whilst the second one fails once on pair 3-6. As the failure values are equal, the candidates are still “tied” and we must proceed. We skip criteria C.14, C15, and C.16 (they are not relevant) and reach criterion C.17 (Minimize the score differences of players who receive the same upfloat as the previous round). Here, at last, we have a difference: in the first candidate, the score difference of the player who receives the second upfloat in a row, which is #3, is 1.0; in the second candidate, the score difference of the player who receives the second upfloat in a row, which incidentally is again #3, is 0.5. Hence, the failure value for this criterion is greater for the first candidate. The latter is therefore discarded too, and we finally remain with the only surviving candidate, which is also the required pairing: 11-7, 3-6, 8-10.

Conclusion

I hope that these examples may be of help in studying the new FIDE (Dutch) Swiss Rules. I strongly suggest to all those interested in this matter to pay a visit the FIDE Systems of Pairings and Programs Commission (SPP) webpage (http://pairings.fide.com).

 

Tournament development with the FIDE (Dutch) System

An example of a six-round tournament (With Baku 2016 FIDE C.04 Swiss Rules) By Mario Held (Member of FIDE Systems of Pairings and Programs Commission)

 

PART ONE – THE RULES

 

ANNOTATED RULES FOR THE FIDE (DUTCH) SWISS SYSTEM

Hereafter, we present the general rules for Swiss Systems (FIDE Handbook C.04.1 and C.04.2) and the Rules for the FIDE (Dutch) System (FIDE Handbook C.04.3), together with some notes to explain them.

The first part contains rules that define the technical requirements any Swiss pairing system must obey, whilst the second part targets a set of various aspects relating to the handling of tournaments, from the fairness of the systems to the management of late entrants, and several rules that are common to all the FIDE approved systems.

The third part contains the Rules for the FIDE (Dutch) Swiss System, which in its turn is comprised of the following sections:

1. Introductory Remarks and Definitions: containing the basic concepts about the system and its control variables; namely, the last paragraph (A.9) is an essential description of the pairing process that will be described and regulated in detail by section (B).
2. Pairing process for a bracket: this section explains how to build a candidate pairing, determine its quality (checking it against the pairing criteria), and, when necessary, improve the quality of the pairing (by looking for better candidates).
3. Pairing Criteria: defining limitations to the possible pairings of the players. Some of those limitations are common to all Swiss pairing systems, while others are specific to the FIDE (Dutch) system and give origin to some of its peculiarities.
4. Rules for the sequential generation of the pairings: this section defines the transposition and exchange procedures, showing how to “stir” the players list when natural pairing is not possible (because two players have already played against each other, or because of colours incompatibility, and so on)
5. Colour Allocation Rules: after the completion of the pairing, each player receives its colour according to these rules.

With reference to previous versions, the FIDE (Dutch) rules have been almost completely reworded, in order to make them simpler and more intuitive. The algorithm, which used to occupy the whole section C, has now been completely evicted from the rules, together with the whole old section B. Instead of the latter, a new section C contains a revised list of the pairing quality criteria, which is both more detailed and clearer than the previous one.

For all this rewording, the real changes in the pairings address only a few cases, while a vast majority of the pairings remain just the same as they were with the previous rules 1.

We would like to suggest you to carefully study the Rules until you feel you master their principles and meanings, before starting to study the tournament example.

1. Readers may find detailed information about those changes in the documents relating Abu Dhabi 2015 and Baku 2016 FIDE Congresses, in the FIDE Swiss Pairings Program Commission website http://www.pairings.fide.com.

 

1. 4. FIDE SWISS RULES
      1. Basic rules for Swiss Systems

The following rules are valid for each Swiss system unless explicitly stated otherwise.

1. The number of rounds to be played is declared beforehand.
2. Two players shall not play each other more than once.
3. Should the number of players to be paired be odd, one player is unpaired. This player receives a pairing-allocated bye: no opponent, no colour and as many points as are rewarded for a win, unless the rules of the tournament state otherwise.
4. A player who has already received a pairing- allocated bye, or has already scored a (forfeit) win due to an opponent not appearing in time, shall not receive the pairing-allocated bye.
5. In general, players are paired to others with the same score.

After the start of the tournament, we are not allowed to change the number of rounds (however, this may become inevitable by force of circumstances).

This is the only principle of Swiss Systems we cannot dispense with (unless doing differently is absolutely inevitable...)!

Please note that this rule allows event organizers to establish a different value for byes (e.g. half a point) instead of the usual whole point.

However, and whatever its value is, a pairing allocated bye (“PAB”) cannot be assigned to any player who has already received a previous one, or a forfeit win. The allocation of a PAB, though, is not prevented by a previous bye “on request”1 (when such a provision is permitted by the tournament rules).

The location of this principle before colour balancing rules highlights its greater importance with respect to the latter. It is because of this rule that we cannot make players float to suit colour

1       In the previous versions of the Swiss Rules, any number of points got without playing, like e.g. a requested “Half Point Bye”, did prevent the allocation of a PAB.

6. For each player the difference of the number of black and the number of white games shall not be greater than 2 or less than –2.

Each system may have exceptions to this rule in the last round of a tournament.

7. No player will receive the same colour three times in a row.

Each system may have exceptions to this rule in the last round of a tournament.

8. 1. In general, a player is given the colour with which he played less games.

2. If colours are already balanced, then, in general, the player is given the colour that alternates from the last one with which he played.

1. The pairing rules must be such transparent that the person who is in charge for the pairing can explain them.

preferences that are not absolute (see C.04.3:A.6.a).

We should emphasize that the exceptions to rules f and g for the last round are possible, but not compulsory. The FIDE (Dutch) system adopts them, tough in practice only when there are very good reasons to do so. Other systems do not do the same - e.g., the Dubov Swiss System definitely refuses to make such exceptions, which seem not to be consistent with the basic principles of that system.

This rule warrants the good colour balancing typical of all FIDE approved Swiss Systems.

Sometimes, players ask the Arbiter to justify, or explain, the pairings, which, nowadays, are most usually prepared with the help of a software program (which should be a FIDE endorsed one, if only possible). However, we want to remember that, even if the pairings are made by means of a computer, it is always the arbiter who takes responsibility for the pairing, not the software.

1. 1. 2. General handling rules for Swiss Tournaments

 

1. Pairing Systems

1. The pairing system used for a FIDE rated tournament shall be either one of the published FIDE Swiss Systems or a detailed written description of the rules shall be explicitly presented to the participants.
2. While reporting a tournament to FIDE, the Arbiter shall declare which of the official FIDE Swiss systems was used. If another system was used, the Arbiter shall submit the rules of this system for checking by the Systems of Pairings and Programs Commission (SPPC).
3. Accelerated methods are acceptable if they were announced in advance by the organizer and are not biased in favour of any player.
4. The FIDE Swiss Rules pair the players in an objective and impartial way, and different arbiters or software programs following the

All the rules in this section tend to the same aim: to prevent any possible tampering with the pairings in favour of one or more participants (such as helping a player to obtain a norm). To this effect, the pairing rules must be well specified, transparent, and unambiguous in the first place.

pairing rules should arrive at identical pairings.

5. It is not allowed to alter the correct pairings in favour of any player.

Where it can be shown that modifications of the original pairings were made to help a player achieve a norm or a direct title, a report may be submitted to the Qualification Commission to initiate disciplinary measures through the Ethics Commission.

2. Initial Order

1. Before the start of the tournament a measure of the player’s strength is assigned to each player. The strength is usually represented by rating lists of the players. If one rating list is available for all participating players, then this rating list should be used.
2. It is advisable to check all ratings supplied by players. If no reliable rating is known for a player the arbiters should make an estimation of it as accurately as possible.
3. Before the first round the players are ranked in order of, respectively:
   1. Strength (rating)
   2. FIDE title (GM - IM - WGM - FM -WIM

- CM - WFM - WCM - no title)

1. 3. alphabetically (unless it has been previously stated that this criterion has been replaced by another one)
2. This ranking is used to determine the pairing numbers; the highest one gets #1 etc.

If, for any reason, the data used to determine the rankings were not correct, they can be adjusted at any time. The pairing numbers may

The fundamental principle of all Swiss systems is to pair tied players (i.e. players with the same number of points) so that, in the top echelon, the number of ties is halved at every round. Thus, in a tournament with T rounds, if the number N of players is less than 2^T [i.e. T ≥ log2 (N)], we should (theoretically) have no ties for the first place.

However, practice shows that, to reach this goal in a real environment (which includes draws and unexpected results), a precise evaluation of the strength of players is essential.

When no better information is available, the estimated rating of an unknown player can be determined based on a national rating (if available) using the appropriate conversion formulas; or other rating lists, tranches, tournament results and so on may be used, if reliable. In conclusion, the Arbiter shall have to use sound judgment and reasoning, to obtain the best possible evaluation with what data is available.

FIDE titles are ordered by descending nominal rating; when ratings are equal, titles obtained through norms take precedence with respect to automatic ones.

Alphabetical sorting is unessential, its only rationale being that of ensuring an unambiguous order. Thus, this criterion can be substituted for by any other sorting method capable of giving an unambiguous order, provided this method has been previously declared in the tournament regulations.

Please notice that a lower numeric value corresponds to a higher ranking; this choice may not seem “natural”, but it is deeply rooted in common language by now.

Pairing numbers are used by all Swiss pairing systems except Dubov. Thus, a change in  be reassigned accordingly to the corrections, but only for the first three rounds. No modification of a pairing number is allowed after the fourth round.

3. Late Entries

1. According to FIDE Tournament Rules, any prospective participant who has not arrived at the venue of a FIDE competition before the time scheduled for the drawing of lots shall be excluded from the tournament unless he shows up at the venue in time before a pairing of another round.

An exception may be made in the case of a registered participant who has given written notice in advance that he will be unavoidably late.

2. Where the Chief Arbiter decides to admit a latecomer,
   • if the player's notified time of arrival is in time for the start of the first round, the player is given a pairing number and paired in the usual way.
   • if the player's notified time of arrival is in time only for the start of the second (or third) round (“Late Entry”), then the player is not paired for the rounds which he cannot play. Instead, he receives no points for unplayed rounds (unless the rules of the tournament say otherwise), and is given an appropriate pairing number and paired only when he actually arrives.
3. If there are late entries, the Pairing Numbers that were given at the start of the tournament are considered provisional. The definitive Pairing Numbers are given only when the List of Participants is closed, and corrections made accordingly in the results charts.

pairing numbers changes the pairings too. We would expect this to happen, if at all, in the first round of a tournament - in some (rare) instances even in the second or in the third round - and, when such changes happen, they make the checking of the pairings rather difficult. Hence, in order to make it easier to perform such checks on advanced stages of a tournament, the rule prohibits late changes of the pairing numbers.

As correct ratings, titles and so on are needed to correctly rate the tournament, such data may always be corrected, even in late rounds (and even after the tournament is finished!), but without changing the pairing numbers.

It seems appropriate to point out that the declaration of delay must be given in advance, in writing, and stating reasons for it. Verbal communications (telephone, etc.) do not suffice. Since exceptions may be made, it is the Arbiter’s responsibility to grant or decline such requests.

We want to take notice that the admission of a latecomer is a choice of the Chief Arbiter, who takes the final decision – and must take the responsibility too, especially if during the round there are empty seats... Thus, before accepting a latecomer and making the actual pairing, we want to be very sure that the player will actually be there in time to play. If we are not that sure, it is probably better to let the player enter the tournament, and be paired, only for a subsequent (second, third) round.

Entering a late player in the tournament causes the pairing numbers to change according to the new ranking list; some of the players will thus play the following rounds with a different pairing number, and this may cause some perplexity among the players. For example, consider a player, correctly registered from the beginning, but entering a tournament (say, with 100 players) on the second round, as #31. In the first round that player had no pairing number – hence, the

4. Pairing, colour and publishing rules

1. Adjourned games are considered draws for pairing purposes only.
2. A player who is absent without notifying the arbiter will be considered as withdrawn unless the absence is explained with acceptable arguments before the next pairing is published.
3. Players who withdraw from the tournament will no longer be paired.
4. Players known in advance not to play in a particular round are not paired in that round and score zero (unless the rules of the tournament say otherwise).
5. Only played games count in situations where the colour sequence is meaningful. So, for instance, a player with a colour history of BWB=W (i.e. no valid game in round-4) will be treated as if his colour history was

=BWBW. WB=WB will count as =WBWB, BWW=B=W as = =BWWBW and so on.

6. Two paired players, who did not play their game, may be paired together in a future round.
7. The results of a round shall be published at the usual place of communication at announced time due to the schedule of the tournament.

players who (now) have numbers 33, 35, 37 and so on, in the first round had even pairing numbers and thus the colour opposite to that of player #1.

By the way, we should also observe that the limit imposed in C.04.2.B.4 on the regeneration of pairing numbers does not extend to the case of a newly added late player.

Basically, we look only at actually played games, skipping “holes”, which float to the top of the list. Thus, for example, in the comparison between the colours histories of two players, the sequence

== WB is equivalent to =W=B and WB== (and the latter two are equivalent to each other!).

The application of this rule and the next requires us to set (and post!) a timetable for the publication of pairings. Above all, these rules put

 

8. If either
   • a result was written down incorrectly, or
   • a game was played with the wrong colours, or
   • a player's rating has to be corrected (and playing numbers possibly recomputed as in C.04.2.C.3),

and a player communicates this to the arbiter within a given deadline after publication of results, the new information shall be used for the standings and the pairings of the next round. The deadline shall be fixed in advance according to the timetable of the tournament.

If the error notification is made after the pairing but before the end of the next round, it will affect the next pairing to be done.

If the error notification is made after the end of the next round, the correction will be made after the tournament for submission to rating evaluation only.

a constraint on the possible revision of the pairings: if an error is not reported within the specified deadline, all subsequent pairings, as well as the final standings, shall be prepared making use of the wrong result as if it were correct.

9. After a pairing is complete, sort the pairs before publishing them.

The sorting criteria are (with descending priority):

9. • the score of the higher ranked player of the involved pair;
   • the sum of the scores of both players of the involved pair;
   • the rank according to the Initial Order (C.04.2.B) of the higher ranked player of the involved pair.
10. Once published, the pairings shall not be changed unless they are found to violate

C.04.1.b (Two players shall not play against each other more than once).

Even when using a pairing software program, it is mostly advisable to check boards order before publishing the pairing, because many players interpret even an incorrect board order as a “pairing error”.

C.04.3 FIDE (Dutch) System

Version approved at the 87th FIDE Congress in Baku 2016.

1. Introductory Remarks and Definitions
2. 1. Initial ranking list

See C.04.2.B (General Handling Rules - Initial order)

1. 2. Order

For pairings purposes only, the players are ranked in order of, respectively:

1. 1. 1. score
      2. pairing numbers assigned to the players accordingly to the initial ranking list and subsequent modifications depending on possible late entries or rating adjustments
2. 3. Scoregroups and pairing brackets

A scoregroup is normally composed of (all) the players with the same score. The only exception is the special “collapsed” scoregroup defined in A.9.

A (pairing) bracket is a group of players to be paired. It is composed of players coming from one same scoregroup (called resident players) and of players who remained unpaired after the pairing of the previous bracket.

A (pairing) bracket is homogeneous if all the players have the same score; otherwise it is heterogeneous.

A remainder (pairing bracket) is a sub-bracket of a heterogeneous bracket, containing some of its resident players (see B.3 for further details).

0. 4. Floaters and floats
1. A downfloater is a player who remains unpaired in a bracket, and is thus moved to the next bracket.

In the destination bracket, such players are called “moved-down players” (MDPs for short)

Players are ordered in such a way that their presumable strengths are likely to decrease from top to bottom of the list (see also C.04.2:B).

Please notice that when we include a late entry, the list should be sorted again, thus assigning new pairing numbers to the players (C.04.2:C.2,3). The same may be done when some wrongly entered rating had to be corrected. When this happens, some participants may play subsequent rounds with new, different numbers; and, of course, this change may, if not adequately advertised, muddle players who, in reading the pairings, still look for their old numbers.

This definition solves any ambiguity between scoregroups and pairing brackets, stating that the scoregroup is the “backbone” of a pairing bracket, which is made of a scoregroup together with the players remaining from the pairing of the previous bracket. The players from the scoregroup are called “resident”, and usually have all the same score, which is called resident score and is the “nominal score” of the bracket. Only when the scoregroup is the “Special collapsed” one, the resident players may have different scores.

The difference is that in a homogeneous bracket there are no score differences between players to be taken care of (to be homogeneous, a bracket must be made of just a (normal) scoregroup and nothing more).

Article B.3 illustrates how to build a candidate pairing for a bracket and explains how and when a remainder is built and used.

A player may become a downfloater because of several reasons; first, the bracket may contain an odd number of players, so that one shall unavoidably remain unpaired. Then, the player may have no possible opponent (and hence no legal pairing) in the bracket. Sometimes, two or more players share between them a number of possible opponents in such a way that no player is incompatible, but we cannot pair all of them (e.g., two players with only one possible opponent, three players with only two possible opponents, and so on)2. Last, but not least, in some instances the player may have to float down, in order to allow the pairing of the following bracket.

 

2       This situation is sometimes (unofficially) called semi-incompatibility or island-(in)compatibility.

2. After two players with different scores have played each other in a round, the higher ranked player receives a downfloat, the lower one an upfloat.

A player who, for whatever reason, does not play in a round, also receives a downfloat.

1. 5. Byes

See C.04.1.c (Should the number of players to be paired be odd, one player is unpaired. This player receives a pairing-allocated bye: no opponent, no colour and as many points as are rewarded for a win, unless the regulations of the tournament state otherwise).

1. 6. Colour differences and colour preferences

The colour difference of a player is the number of games played with white minus the number of games played with black by this player.

The colour preference is the colour that a player should ideally receive for the next game. It can be determined for each player who has played at least one game.

1. 1. 1. An absolute colour preference occurs when a player’s colour difference is greater than +1 or less than -1, or when a player had the same colour in the two latest rounds he played. The preference is white when the colour difference is less

In analogy to “downfloater”, we will use the term “upfloater” to indicate a player paired to another one having a higher score3 (usually, the opponent of a downfloater).

Downfloats and upfloats are a sort of markers, used to record previous unequal pairings of the player. The reason to keep track of such pairings is that, in general, we want to minimise, and, as far as possible, avoid, their occurrence for the same players. Actually, a pairing between floaters constitutes a disturbance to the general principle of Swiss systems that the players in a pair should have the same score, and therefore the rule try to limit the repetition of such events4.

We want to notice that any player who did not play a round receives a downfloat. This is important because it affects the following two pairings for that player. For example, it becomes unlikely that such a player may receive a downfloat or get the PAB [A.5] in the next round5.

In other Swiss systems (e.g. Dubov) the player, whom the PAB will be assigned to, is selected before starting the pairing for the round.

In the FIDE (Dutch) system, on the contrary, the round-pairing (see A.9) ends up with an unpaired player, who will receive the pairing-allocated bye (PAB).

During pairing, we will try to accommodate (as much as possible) the colour preferences of the players – and this is the reason for the good balance of colours of Swiss modern systems.

Participants, who have not played any games yet, just have no preference, and shall therefore accept any colour (see A.6.d).

In general, the colour difference should not become greater than 2 or less than -2 – with the possible exception of high ranked players in the last round, which can receive, if necessary, the third colour in a row or a colour three times more than the opposite (but this is still a relatively rare event).

3 Please notice that in other Swiss pairing systems (e.g. Dubov), the same term “upfloater” may indicate a player transferred to a higher bracket.

4 We may also note that the FIDE (Dutch) system uses a “local” approach to this problem, which looks only to the last two rounds. On the contrary, the Dubov system adopts also a “global” approach, putting also a limit on the total number of floats in the whole tournament (three floats for tournaments up to nine rounds, four for longer tournaments).

5 On the contrary, the previous rules did not assign a downfloat to a player who forfeited a game, so such players had no protection against getting a PAB or a downfloat in the following round. Because of this, a weak player absent in the first round could get a PAB in the second round.

than -1 or when the last two games were played with black. The preference is black when the colour difference is greater than +1, or when the last two games were played with white.

1. 1. 2. A strong colour preference occurs when a player’s colour difference is +1 (preference for black) or -1 (preference for white).
      3. A mild colour preference occurs when a player’s colour difference is zero, the preference being to alternate the colour with respect to the previous game he played.
      4. Players who did not play any games have no colour preference (the preference of their opponents is granted).
2. 7. Topscorers

Topscorers are players who have a score of over 50% of the maximum possible score when pairing the final round of the tournament.

1. 8. Pairing Score Difference (PSD)

The pairing of a bracket is composed of pairs and downfloaters.

To determine an absolute colour preference, we examine only the actually played rounds, skipping any unplayed games6 (whatever the reason may be) in compliance with [C.04.2:D.5] (e.g., the sequence WBBW=W gives an absolute colour preference).

Notice that any disregarded colour preference, be it strong or mild, will give origin to an absolute colour preference on the subsequent round.

If neither player has a colour preference (as is normal when pairing the first round, but may sometimes happen also in subsequent rounds), we resort to the colour allocation rules in section E. There, by means of the initial-colour (decided by drawing of lots before the pairing of the first round) and of rule E.5, we will be able to assign the correct colour to both players.

Such high-scoring players are especially important in the determination of the winner and of the top ranking7. Hence, we may apply some special treatment criteria to their pairings - e.g., a player may receive a same colour three times more than the other one, or three times in a row, if this is needed to make it meet an opponent better suited to the strength the player demonstrated.

This is an important idea: the pairing of a bracket is not made only of pairs: the downfloaters are part of it too – and a very important part, at that! In fact, as we shall see, the choice of the downfloaters may determine if it will be possible to pair the remaining players – and therefore if the pairing is a valid one.

6 Please note the difference with floats, for which we look at the last two rounds of the tournament schedule (but remember that an unplayed game gives a downfloat).

7 Not all the “topscorers” are really competing for top ranking places; nonetheless, they are more likely to be of importance in the formation of the top standings than low-ranked players, in several collateral ways – e.g. they may be opponents to prospective prize winners, or their score may give a determinant contribute in tiebreak calculations, and so on.

Its Pairing Score Difference is a list of score- differences (SD, see below), sorted from the highest to the lowest.

For each pair in a pairing, the SD is defined as the absolute value of the difference between the scores of the two players who constitute the pair.

For each downfloater, the SD is defined as the difference between the score of the downfloater, and an artificial value that is one point less than the score of the lowest ranked player of the current bracket (even when this yields a negative value).

Note: The artificial value defined above was chosen in order to be strictly less than the lowest score of the bracket, and generic enough to work with different scoring-point systems and in presence of non-existent, empty or sparsely populated brackets that may follow the current one.

PSD(s) are compared lexicographically (i.e. their respective SD(s) are compared one by one from first to last - in the first corresponding SD(s) that are different, the smallest one defines the lower PSD).

The Pairing Score Difference allows the best management of the overall difference in scores between the paired players. In practice, it is a list of the score differences, built as follows: we calculate the score differences (SD) in each pair and for each downfloater, then sort them from higher to lower, thus obtaining a string of numbers. Each single difference is taken in absolute value (so that it is always positive), because it’s irrelevant which one of the players have a higher score.

While the meaning of the SD is obvious for pairs, it is far less obvious for downfloaters, who have no opponent yet. Nonetheless, we need to account, somehow, for the perspective score difference relative to the player when it will finally be paired - in such a way that giving a float, or a PAB, to a higher scored player should be worse than giving it to a lower scored one. So we go for a “presumptive” score difference, establishing a hypothetical score for the residents of the (yet undefined!) next bracket.

In order to be sure that we can accommodate a wide variety of possible next brackets, we choose a value lower enough than that of the current bracket, namely one point less than the minimum score of its (resident) players. In the last two brackets, this may yield a negative value – e.g., in the 0.5 points bracket this value is -0.5 points. This is not a problem, as we will simply take the difference between a positive value and this one, so the result will always be positive.

Please note that in the last bracket the only possible downfloater is the player who is going to get the PAB. Thus, this calculation provides an easy and uniform way to minimise the score of the players who get the PAB.

PSDs are compared following the lexicographical order (the “order of the dictionary”). We start by comparing the first number of the first PSD with the first number of the second PSD: if one of those two is smaller than the other one, the PSD it belongs to is the “smaller”. If they are equal, we proceed to the second element of each PSD, and repeat the comparison. Then, if needed, we go on to the third, the fourth, and so on - until we reach the end of the strings8.

An alternative (but fully equivalent) method of comparison is the following: substitute a letter for each number of each PSD, following the correspondence A=0, B=0.5, C=1, D=1.5, E=2 and so on. Doing so, we transform the PSDs in

8 Of course, this method only has significance if the two PSD have the same length; but this is always the case, because the PSD comparison is used only when pairings with the same number of pairs are involved. Were the number of pairs different, we would never get to a PSD comparison.

 

1. 9. Round-Pairing Outlook

alphabetical words, which can be compared using the simple alphabetical order. The word that comes first (alphabetically) corresponds to the “smaller” PSD.

This article is essentially a guideline giving a panoramic vision of the pairing process, both in the more common case in which the pairing can be completed by normal means, and in the special case in which this is not possible. This is a very important thing to do, as the new Rules do not any more contain an algorithm to dictate a step-by-step procedure.

The pairing of a round (called round-pairing) is complete if all the players (except at most one, who receives the pairing-allocated bye) have been paired and the absolute criteria C1-C3 have been complied with.

If it is impossible to complete a round-pairing, the arbiter shall decide what to do.

Otherwise, the pairing process starts with the top scoregroup, and continues bracket by bracket until all the scoregroups, in descending order, have been used and the round-pairing is complete.

However, if, during this process, the downfloaters (possibly none) produced by the bracket just paired, together with all the remaining players, do not allow the completion of the round-pairing, a different processing route is followed.

We want to notice that that this definition refers not to a bracket but to the complete round. Thus, we cannot accept unpaired players (apart from a possible PAB) - all players must be paired. On the other hand, the constraints for such a pairing are very loose, not to say minimal – we are only asking for it to comply with the absolute criteria. This does not mean that we may feel free to make a poor pairing: in general, several complete pairings will be possible for each round, and “the” pairing – the correct one - shall simply be the one among them that best satisfies all the pairing criteria.

This is something really brand-new: for the first time ever, the case in which no pairing at all can be done is referred to by the rules. From a practical point of view, this is not a very helpful rule - in fact, in these (luckily rare) cases, the arbiters must act according to their best judgment

– but, at least, the possibility has been accounted for.

The pairing process starts with the topmost scoregroup; with it, we build the first bracket and try to pair it. This pairing may possibly leave some downfloaters that, together with the next scoregroup, will form the next bracket, and so forth – until all players have been paired.

Before starting the pairing of a bracket, we must verify that at least one legal pairing (i.e. a pairing that complies with the absolute criteria) exists for all the players as yet unpaired, together with the downfloaters (of course, possibly none) left from the bracket just paired9. This requirement is informally called the “Requirement Zero”, and its check is called a “Completion test”.

If this check fails before pairing the first bracket, there is no way at all to complete the round- pairing, so we have an impossible pairing - which is bad news.

When, on the contrary, this happens after the pairing of the first bracket, we already know that at least one legal pairing exists for the entire round (we checked this before pairing the first

9 Of course, this check is far simpler than the actual complete pairing, because (for the moment) we  are not interested in finding the best (correct) pairing, but only in showing that at least a legal one exists.

The last paired bracket is called Penultimate Pairing Bracket (PPB). The score of its resident players is called the “collapsing” score. All the players with a score lower than the collapsing score constitute the special “collapsed” scoregroup mentioned in A.3.

The pairing process resumes with the re-pairing of the PPB. Its downfloaters, together with the players of the collapsed scoregroup, constitute the Collapsed Last Bracket (CLB), the pairing of which will complete the round-pairing.

Note: Independently from the route followed, the assignment of the pairing-allocated bye (see C.2) is part of the pairing of the last bracket.

bracket!). Nevertheless, if the set formed by the downfloaters together with all of the remaining players cannot be paired, it means that, given those downfloaters, we cannot complete the pairing without infringing the absolute criteria.

In this situation, the pairing produced by the last (in fact, still current!) paired bracket is not adequate, and we need to modify it before proceeding. We must restart with this same bracket, while changing the pairing conditions, in order to be able to find the pairing (which, as we already know, must undoubtedly exist). This change of conditions may have two effects: the first, and less invasive, is a different choice of downfloaters10, while the second is an increase in the number itself of downfloaters. (The latter is of course the only option available when the original pairing did not produce any floater.)

First, we pool together all the players, whose score is lower than the collapsing score. Then, with those players, we build the “special collapsed scoregroup” (SCS) - whose players are all resident, regardless of their score.

The bracket just tentatively paired, and which we are now going to pair again, is now called PPB11.

The primary goal in pairing the PPB is to have it produce a set of downfloaters that allows a complete pairing of the SCS [C.4]. With those downfloaters, together with the SCS, we build the CLB, which is by definition the last bracket. The pairing of those two brackets requires some special attentions12.

By stating that the assignment of the PAB is always part of the pairing of the last bracket, this note is telling us that criterion C.2, which regulates the assignment of the PAB, is only significant when the last bracket is in some way involved in the pairing – that is to say:

• when pairing the last bracket (be it a normal bracket or the CLB)
• when evaluating the optimisation of the next bracket (see C.7), in pairing the last-but-one (normal) bracket
• when re-pairing the PPB (after a completion failure), during the evaluation of C.4 (see)

10 Please note that we check (and, if necessary, change) the selected downfloaters in two completely different situations: the first is when we try to optimise the number of pairings and PSD in the next bracket (see C.7). The second is when the rest of the players cannot be paired and the PPB must give the correct floaters to allow a complete pairing. Here we are referring to the latter situation.

11 Actually, the name for this bracket comes from the previous version of the Swiss rules, which included a bracket with a similar function.

12 For further details, see [B.7].

Section B describes the pairing process of a single bracket.

Section C describes all the criteria that the pairing of a bracket has to satisfy.

Section E describes the colour allocation rules that determine which players will play with white.

• when checking that the floaters give a legal pairing for the remaining players (completion test).

Without this note, we might think the allocation of the PAB to be something to be done after having paired the last bracket – in fact, just as if that bracket had produced a floater - to be paired with a fictitious player in a virtual after-the-last bracket. Hence, if that player could not receive the PAB, we would have to consider the last bracket as the PPB, and subsequently restart the pairing process from this point of view... This note is specifically meant to avoid any possible ambiguity, explicitly excluding such an interpretation.

Moreover, the note also states that, even when it is readily apparent that from the current bracket a downfloater will result, who is bound to get the PAB (e.g., in the next bracket(s) there is no player who can get it), the choice of the floater shall not keep in mind the allocation of the PAB.

We should also notice that pairs are made based also on expected colours, but actual colour assignment is only done at the end of the pairing.

For those who knew the old version of the Dutch rules, it may be useful to spend some words about the new structure. The new Sections B and C contain all the rules that were previously detailed in the algorithmic section with the support from (previous) Section B. Nonetheless, in the previous version of the Rules, the pairing route was different. When the pairing of a bracket was completed, it was accepted (for the moment), and the pairing went forward to the next bracket. If the next bracket was satisfactorily paired (and, sometimes, not even satisfactorily, since a downfloater could create a situation in which a resident player of the new bracket was made incompatible), the pairing for the previous one became (almost) final. If, on the contrary, a better pairing was possible for the next bracket (i.e., one that produced more pairs, or a smaller PSD), we went back to the previous bracket (backtracking) to pair it again, looking for better downfloaters. This is of course equivalent to verify that the floaters produced are the best possible choice before starting the pairing of the next bracket.

For the last bracket, where an unsatisfactory pairing means the impossibility to complete the pairing, the backtracking could be more complicate. First, when pairing the last bracket, a simple backtracking to the previous one was not always enough. Sometimes we had to join (“collapse”) those two brackets, in order to be able to gain access to the preceding bracket and change its floaters

- and sometimes this process had to be repeated until an acceptable pairing was found.

It is readily evident that this backwards course had to go up, starting from the last bracket, until the point was reached, in which the produced downfloaters did actually allow the pairing of the rest of the players. Hence, the backtracking did necessarily extend until it reached the bracket that, with the look-ahead methodology, is at once defined as the PPB - thus bringing us back to the same conditions. The new look-ahead method is then equivalent to the backtracking - with the advantage of a fairly simpler logic.

Anyway, the new wording of the Rules does not specify any particular method to enforce compliance with the pairing criteria. Hence, both the arbiter and the programmer enjoy complete freedom in choosing their preferred method to implement the system (look-ahead, backtracking, weighted matching or other), as long as the rules are fully complied with.

2. Pairing process for a bracket

This section’s goal, from the Rules standpoint, is to univocally define the sequence of generation for the candidate pairings - and, to this aim, it precisely defines the constraints inside which the pairing must be built. From the arbiter’s point of view, however, this section may also be used as a roadmap to actually build the pairing and evaluate its quality. In fact, it can be readily adopted as a guideline to make - or, far more often, prove - a pairing.

0. 1. Parameters definitions
1. M0 is the number of MDP(s) coming from the previous bracket. It may be zero.

2. MaxPairs is the maximum number of pairs that can be produced in the bracket under consideration (see C.5).

Note: MaxPairs is usually equal to the number of players divided by two and rounded downwards. However, if, for instance, M0 is greater than the number of resident players, MaxPairs is at most equal to the number of resident players.

3. M1 is the maximum number of MDP(s) that can be paired in the bracket (see C.6).

Note: M1 is usually equal to the number of MDPs coming from the previous bracket, which may be zero. However, if, for instance, M0 is greater than the number of resident players, M1 is at most equal to the number of resident players. Of course, M1 can never be greater than MaxPairs

1. 2. Subgroups (original composition)

To make the pairing, each bracket will be usually divided into two subgroups, called S1 and S2.

S1 initially contains the highest N1 players (sorted according to A.2), where N1 is either M1 (in a heterogeneous bracket) or MaxPairs (otherwise).

S2 initially contains all the remaining resident players.

When M1 is less than M0, some MDPs are not included in S1. The excluded MDPs (in number of M0 - M1), who are neither in S1 nor in S2, are said to be in a Limbo.

Note: the players in the Limbo cannot be paired in the bracket, and are thus bound to double- float.

In a given bracket we have a given number M0 of MDPs13 (possibly none), but we have no certainty that all those MDPs can be paired14.

Thus, we define a second parameter M1, representing the number of MDPs that can actually be paired - where, of course, M1 is less than or equal to M0. In summary, the bracket will contain MaxPairs pairs, at most M1 of which contain a downfloater.

We want also to observe that, while M0 is a well- known constant, we usually do not know precisely how many players, and especially MDPs, can be paired, until the actual pairing is made – actually, we need to “divine” M1 and MaxPairs out of sound reasoning, assuming a tentative value, which might initially be wrong. Nonetheless, those numbers, however identified, are considered constants - and that is why there is no rule to change them.

The composition of the original subgroups is different when we have MDPs, because those players, having already floated, need now some “special protection”.

In setting the number of pairs to be done to M1 for heterogeneous brackets, we focus only on MDPs, who (or, at least, the maximum possible number of them) actually are to be paired first15. On the contrary, setting the number of pairs to MaxPairs says that we are trying to pair the entire bracket all at once (so it must be homogeneous).

After M1 moved-down players have been selected for pairing, the remaining MDPs, in number M0- M1, cannot be paired in the bracket16. Those players form a subgroup called “Limbo”. During the pairing proceedings, it may happen that some players need to be swapped between S1 and the Limbo - but, at the end of the pairing, the players still in the Limbo will be bound to float again.

13 We want to remember that the “Moved-down players” (MDPs) are the downfloaters of the previous bracket.

14 For example, the number of MDPs may be greater than MaxPairs; or some among them may be incompatible; or we may have a semi-incompatibility, in which a group of players ‘compete’ for too few possible opponents, just like the situation described in the comment to A.4.

15 To avoid any misunderstanding, please take notice that this is only a procedural indication that has nothing to do with the order of generation of candidates. In fact, independent of the method and algorithm used to generate them, each candidate is regarded as a whole; and, when we choose the ‘earlier’ candidate from a pool of equivalent ones, we only consider the order of generation of the complete candidates.

16 Those players are not necessarily incompatible in the bracket – there may just be no place to pair them. E.g., if two MDPs share the same one possible opponent, neither of the two is incompatible - but nonetheless one of the two MDPs cannot be paired!

1. 3. Preparation of the candidate

S1 players are tentatively paired with S2 players, the first one from S1 with the first one from S2, the second one from S1 with the second one from S2 and so on.

In a homogeneous bracket: the pairs formed as explained above and all the players who remain unpaired (bound to be downfloaters) constitute a candidate (pairing).

In a heterogeneous bracket: the pairs formed as explained above match M1 MDPs from S1 with M1 resident players from S2. This is called a MDP-Pairing. The remaining resident players (if any) give rise to the remainder (see A.3), which is then paired with the same rules used for a homogeneous bracket.

Note: M1 may sometimes be zero. In this case, S1 will be empty and the MDP(s) will all be in the Limbo. Hence, the pairing of the heterogeneous bracket will proceed directly to the remainder.

A candidate (pairing) for a heterogeneous bracket is composed by an MDP-Pairing and a candidate for the ensuing remainder. All players in the Limbo are bound to be downfloaters.

1. 4. Evaluation of the candidate

If the candidate built as shown in B.3 complies with all the absolute and completion criteria (from C.1 to C.4), and all the quality criteria from

C.5 to C.19 are fulfilled, the candidate is called “perfect” and is (immediately) accepted. Otherwise, apply B.5 in order to find a perfect candidate; or, if no such candidate exists, apply B.8.

1. 5. Actions when the candidate is not perfect

Here is where we build the candidate pairing. In the most general case, this is done in two steps:

• first, we build M1 pairs, each of them containing an MDP,
• then, we pair the remaining resident players.

Of course, if the bracket is homogeneous, or if none of the MDPs is pairable (i.e. if M1 is zero), the first step is omitted.

Thus, in general, the candidate comprises three parts:

• an MDP-Pairing (heterogeneous brackets only), made of M1 pairs (maybe none) containing an MDP and a resident player each;
• a set of pairs of resident players, coming from the pairing of the homogeneous bracket; or from the pairing of the remainder of a heterogeneous bracket;
• a set of unpaired players, coming both from the Limbo and from the resident players that cannot be paired - and hence can’t help but get a downfloat.

Having prepared a candidate, we must evaluate its quality; that is, we must check the compliance of the candidate with the pairing criteria given in Section C.

If we are very lucky, it may be “perfect”: in this case, we accept it straight away.

Otherwise, we must apply some changes to try and make it perfect (B.5). If this proves impossible, the last resource is accepting a candidate that, although it is not perfect, is nonetheless the best we can have (B.8). Of course, a candidate that does not comply with the absolute criteria is not even acceptable.

After the pairing is made, and before accepting it and proceeding to the next bracket, we will have to perform a completion test, to check that all the remaining players, including the downfloaters from the bracket just paired, allow the round- pairing to be completed (see A.9). If this completion test fails, we define the Collapsed Last Bracket and proceed as explained in A.9.

The composition of S1, Limbo and S2 has to be altered in such a way that a different candidate can be produced.

The articles B.6 (for homogeneous brackets and remainders) and B.7 (for heterogeneous brackets) define the precise sequence in which the alterations must be applied.

After each alteration, a new candidate shall be built (see B.3) and evaluated (see B.4).

The process of pairing is an iterative one: if the pairing is not perfect, we try (one by one) a precise sequence of alterations in the subgroups S1, Limbo, and S2, and each time we repeat the preparation and evaluation of the candidate. There are, in fact, two different sequences:

• one for homogeneous brackets (B.6), which contain no MDPs; this sequence also applies to remainders
• one for heterogeneous brackets (B.7); those contain MDPs, some of which (in number M0-M1, which may be zero) are in a Limbo, so the alterations must keep into account not only the usual possible alterations in S1 and S2, but also the possibility to change the composition of the Limbo.

The first perfect candidate found in this process is the required pairing. If there is no perfect candidate, we shall have to use the best available one; since we are scrutinizing all candidates, we can find this best candidate as we proceed. To do that, when we find the first legal (but not perfect) candidate, we mark it as a “provisional-best”. Each time we find another legal candidate, we shall compare17 it with the current provisional- best candidate. If the former is better than the latter, we store it as the new provisional-best; otherwise, we keep the old one. In the end, all candidates have been examined; hence, the surviving provisional-best is actually the best possible (although imperfect) candidate, which will be accepted as pairing, because of rule B.8.

The main guideline to carry out this task is the “minimum disturbance”: every alteration must be the minimum possible, so that the resulting pairing can be as similar as possible to a “perfect” one.

For more detail about the iterative pairing process, see B.6 and B.7.

1. 6. Alterations in homogeneous brackets or remainders

Alter the order of the players in S2 with a transposition (see D.1). If no more transpositions of S2 are available for the current S1, alter the original S1 and S2 (see B.2) applying an exchange of resident players between S1 and S2

Since we are now managing only homogeneous brackets, we do not need to worry about pairing MDPs.

The possible actions to be tried here are:

17 Two candidates are compared based on the compliance with the pairing criteria, which are defined in order of priority in section C. The first check is on the priority of the higher infringed criterion: the higher it is, the lower is the quality of the candidate. Then the second check is on a “failure value” which is peculiar to that criterion – this will often be the number of times the criterion is infringed (e.g., the numbers of disregarded colour preferences) but it may also be of a completely different nature (e.g., the PSDs of two candidates to be compared). Then we go to the second higher infringed criterion; then to the latter’s failure value - and so on until we find a difference. When there is no difference at all, the first generated candidate takes precedence.

(see D.2) and reordering the newly formed S1 and S2 according to A.2.

• a transposition, consisting in applying a different order to the players in S2. In simple words, a transposition “shuffles” the players in S2 according to specific rules (see D.1), but keeping them separate from the players of S1. This leads to a change in the second player in some pairs. The basic idea is to alter the pairing by modifying players’ order in as low as possible rankings.
• an exchange, consisting in swapping one or more players from subgroup S1 with the same number of players from subgroup S2. As above, the basic idea is to try to alter the pairing as little as possible. To this aim, we swap players in as low as possible rankings of S1 with players in as high as possible rankings of S2 - assuming that, being near in ranking, they have more or less equivalent playing strength. After any exchange, both the subgroups S1 and S2 must be put in order again with the usual rules. An exchange makes the pairing between players of the same original subgroup possible.

After we made transpositions in a bracket, alterations in the order are desired; hence, players in the S2 subgroup should not be sorted again (while S1 does not need to be sorted, as it has not been changed).

On the contrary, after exchanges, which swap one or more players between subgroups S1 and S2, we must sort both subgroups S1 and S2 according to A.2, to re-establish a correct order before beginning a new sequence of pairing attempts. If the first attempt of the new exchange fails to give a valid result, we will try transpositions too, thus changing the natural order in the modified S2.

Both transpositions and exchanges should not be applied at random: to comply with the general principle of minimal disturbance of the pairing, section D dictates a precise sequence of possible transpositions and exchanges. This sequence begins with alterations that give only mild disturbances to the pairing (with respect to the “natural” one), moving gradually towards those changes that cause definitely important effects.

The order of actions is as follows: first, we try, one by one, all the possible transpositions (see D.1). If we find one that allows a perfect pairing, the process is completed. Otherwise, we try the first exchange (see D.2): with this, we proceed

1. 7. Alterations in heterogeneous brackets

Operate on the remainder with the same rules used for homogeneous brackets (see B.6).

Note: The original subgroups of the remainder, which will be used throughout all the remainder pairing process, are the ones formed right after the MDP-Pairing. They are called S1R and S2R (to avoid any confusion with the subgroups S1 and S2 of the complete heterogeneous bracket).

If no more transpositions and exchanges are available for S1R and S2R, alter the order of the players in S2 with a transposition (see D.1), forming a new MDP-Pairing and possibly a new remainder (to be processed as written above).

again to try every possible transposition18, until we succeed - or use them up. In the latter case, we try the second exchange, once again with all the possible transpositions, and so on.

If we get to the point in which we have used up all the possible transpositions and exchanges, then a perfect pairing simply does not exist. In that case, we apply B.8, thus accepting a less than perfect result.

This article, a companion to the previous one, addresses the case of heterogeneous brackets. This kind of bracket is paired in two logical steps19:

• in the first step, we build an MDP-Pairing (see B.3), which takes care of the pairable moved-down players (as many as possible of them), giving raise to a remainder (and possibly a Limbo).
• in the second step, after the MDPs have been paired, we proceed to pair the remainder, which is made only of resident players (but we need to take notice that, when we are processing a CLB, those players may well have different scores. In this case, the PSD is of importance and must be accounted for – we will go back to this presently).

The rules to operate on the remainder are just the same that apply for a homogeneous bracket. The difference shows only when we reach the point in which all of the possible transpositions and exchanges in the remainder have been unsuccessfully tried.

In a homogeneous bracket, this is the moment when we lower our expectations, settling for a less than perfect pairing (see B.6). In a heterogeneous bracket, however, we are not yet ready to surrender: before laying down arms, we can try to change the composition of the remainder.

To do that, we try a new, different MDP-pairing by applying a transposition to the original subgroup S2 (viz. the subgroup S2 of the complete

18 Suppose we exchanged player A from S1 with player B from S2. After the exchange, player B, now in S1, has a rank that is lower than that of player A, now in S2. As transpositions proceed, we will get to a point in which the candidate puts together players B and A – and then of course some other pairs of players. Now, before making the exchange, we tried all transpositions in S2, and thus also the one which contains the pair A-B and all the same other pairs as well – in summary, this candidate has already been evaluated! Reasoning along the same lines, we reach the conclusion that the same holds true also for exchanges involving more players. We can thus deduce that every time a pair contains a player from S1 with a lower rank (higher BSN) than its opponent from S2, this pair belongs to a candidate that has already been evaluated, and therefore we do not need to evaluate it again.

19 Of course, a practical implementation need not necessarily compose the pairing in two steps, as long as the final effect is the same as specified by the rules. bracket, not that of the remainder!). This may leave us with a new, different remainder, which we process (just as described above) trying to find a complete pairing – and, if we have no success, we try transposition after transposition until we succeed, or exhaust them all20

If no more transpositions are available for the current S1, alter, if possible (i.e. if there is a Limbo), the original S1 and Limbo (see B.2), applying an exchange of MDPs between S1 and the Limbo (see D.3), reordering the newly formed

As we hinted above, the PPB and the CLB are subject to slightly different pairing rules: the downfloaters of the PPB are no longer required to optimise the pairing in the next bracket (as it would be for normal brackets, see C.7), but just to allow it (see C.4). With those downfloaters, together with the SCS, we build the CLB, which is (by definition) the last bracket.

This is a rather unusual bracket: it is by definition heterogeneous21, and its residents often have different scores (because they come from the SCS). Its pairing is different from that of the usual heterogeneous bracket in that we have a remainder that must be paired just like if it were homogeneous, but without disregarding the needs of players with different scores.

Thus, we must enforce some criteria that usually are not important in remainders. The main goal in pairing the CLB is to get the lowest possible PSD (because, basically, the number of pairs is determined by the number of PPB floaters). To find this minimum PSD, we have to look not only at the MDP(s) and at their opponents (as usual), but also at the pairs that can be made inside the remainder (i.e. between SCS residents).

When several candidates have the lowest possible PSD, we must also enforce some criteria for the remainders, which are not usually required. If in a pair there are players with different scores, to such players we must apply all those criteria that limit the repetition of floats [C.12 to C.15] and the score difference of the protected players whose protection has already failed once or more [C.16 to C.19].

If all the possible transpositions have been used up, we have a resource yet: trying to change the MDPs to be paired. Of course, this is only possible if there is a Limbo in the bracket. In this case, we can exchange one or more of the MDPs with a same number of players from the Limbo. This is called an MDP-exchange (see D.3).

20 Actually, we do not need to try all of the transpositions, because not all of them are meaningful: in fact, we only have to try those transpositions that actually change the players, or their order, in the first part of the subgroup S2 – i.e. those players, who are going to be paired with the MDPs from S1. All the other players in S2 do not take part in this phase of the pairing and are thus irrelevant (at least for the moment).

21 Remember that the CLB is born from a failure in a completion test. This means that the “rest of the players”, with the current downfloaters (possibly none!) from the just (unsuccessfully!) paired bracket, cannot be paired - it therefore requires some adequate MDPs.

S1 according to A.2 and restoring S2 to its original composition.

1. 8. Actions when no perfect candidate exists

Choose the best available candidate. In order to do so, consider that a candidate is better than another if it better satisfies a quality criterion (C5- C19) of higher priority; or, all quality criteria being equally satisfied, it is generated earlier than the other one in the sequence of the candidates (see B.6 or B.7).

After any MDP-exchange, we are actually pairing an altogether different bracket; hence, we need to reorder S1 and restore S2 to its original composition, in fact starting the pairing process anew. As it was for the homogeneous case, the MDP-exchanges must be tried in the correct sequence, one by one; and, for each one of them, we shall try all the possible transpositions in S2, thus generating a different remainder - that will of course have to undergo all the usual pairing attempts as described above.

This is where we must make ourselves content with what best we can: if we arrive here, we have already tried all possible transpositions and exchanges, only to reach a simple, if dismal, conclusion - there is no perfect candidate! Hence, we choose the best available candidate, which is the final provisional-best found during the evaluation of all candidates as illustrated in B.5.

The Sieve Pairing

A very interesting alternative to this method – not necessarily a practical one, but very important from the theoretical point of view – is the one we shall call “Sieve pairing” (because of its similarity with the famous Eratosthenes' Sieve).

The basic idea is very simple: we build all the possible acceptable pairings (i.e., all those that comply with the absolute criteria). Then we start applying all the pairing criteria, one by one - but this time we start with the most important one and proceed downwards.

Each criterion will eliminate part of the acceptable pairings, so that, as we proceed, the number of candidates becomes lower and lower. If, at some stage of the process, only one candidate remains, we choose that one – it may even be a rather bad one, but there is nothing better.

If, after applying all the pairing criteria, we are left with more than one candidate, then we choose the one that would be the first to be generated in accordance with the sequence defined by Section B.

3. Pairing Criteria Absolute Criteria

The absolute criteria correspond to the requirements of Section C.04.1, “Basic Rules for Swiss Systems” in the FIDE Handbook, which we may want to look at closely.

No pairing shall violate the following absolute criteria:

C.1

See C.04.1.b (Two players shall not play against each other more than once

Those criteria must be complied with always: they cannot be renounced, whatever the situation22. To enforce them, players may even float down as needed.

If the game is won by forfeit, for the purposes of pairing those two players have never met. As a result, that pairing may be repeated later in the tournament (and sometimes this happens, too!).

22 There are however situations in which no pairing at all exists, which complies with the absolute criteria – in such cases, the arbiter must apply his better judgment to find a way out of the impasse (see A.9).

C.2

See C.04.1.d (A player who has already received a pairing-allocated bye, or has already scored a (forfeit) win due to an opponent not appearing in time, shall not receive the pairing-allocated bye)

C.3

Non-topscorers (see A.7) with the same absolute colour preference (see A6.a) shall not meet (see

C.04.1.f and C.04.1.g)

Completion Criterion C.4

If the current bracket is the PPB (see A.9): choose the set of downfloaters in order to complete the round-pairing

Quality Criteria

Please notice that, contrary to the previous rules, only PABs and forfeit wins prevent the allocation of a PAB (see A.5) – on the contrary, a player who received a requested bye (usually, half point) may receive the PAB in a subsequent round.

This criterion does not apply to topscorers (A.7) or topscorers’ opponents, who are the only possible exception to C.04.1.f/g.

Two players, who cannot be paired to each other without infringing criteria C.1 or C.3, are said to be incompatible.

This is an absolute criterion too, but it applies only to the processing of the PPB – hence, only after a completion test failure (see A.9). Contrary to ordinary brackets (whose downfloaters are chosen in order to optimise the pairing of the next bracket - see C.7), for the PPB we just require a choice of downfloaters that allows a completion of the round-pairing - independent from the optimization of the next bracket, which is of course the CLB, and hence must be completely paired.

Please note that, since C.4 precedes both C.5 and C.6, the compliance with this criterion may cause a reduction in the number of pairs, or an increase in the final PSD, with respect to the previous pairing23.

The above criteria set conditions that must be obeyed: a candidate that does not comply with them is discarded. The following criteria are of a different kind, in that they establish a frame of reference for a quantitative evaluation of the “goodness” of the pairings, by setting a sequence of “test points” in order of decreasing importance, according to the internal logic of the system. The level of compliance with each one of the following criteria is not a binary quantity (yes/no) but a numerical (integer or fractional) quantity. We will measure it by means of a “failure value”, whose meaning is of course tightly connected to the criterion itself (e.g., the number of pairs less than MaxPairs for C.5, or the number of players not getting their colour preference for C.10, and so forth).

When we compare two candidates, we in fact compare the failure values of the candidates for each criterion, one by one, in the exact sequence given by the Rules. If the two failure values are identical, we proceed to the next criterion. If they are different, we keep the candidate with the better value and discard the other one.

It seems worth noting that a candidate having a better failure value on a higher criterion is selected, even if the failure values for the following criteria are far worse. In other words, the optimisation with respect to a higher criterion may have a dramatic impact on the remaining failure values – and,

23 Of course, since the bracket we are pairing is a PPB, it has already been paired once.

we may add, the optimisation with respect to a criterion is always only relative to the current status, because even a small difference in a higher criterion may change the situation completely.

 

To obtain the best possible pairing for a bracket, comply as much as possible with the following criteria, given in descending priority:

C.5

Maximize the number of pairs (equivalent to: minimize the number of downfloaters).

Relative criteria are not so important as absolute ones, and they can be disregarded, if this is needed to achieve a complete pairing. In general, they are not important enough to make a player float – in fact, the first one of them, and hence the most important, instructs us to do just the very opposite, minimising the number of downfloaters!

Apart from the remaining player in odd brackets, only incompatible (or semi-incompatible) players should float. This too is an evidence of the attention of the FIDE (Dutch) system towards the choice of the “right strength opponent”.

The first “quality factor” is of course the number of pairs, a reduction of which increases the number of floaters (and, usually, also of the overall score difference between players).

Maximising the number of pairs actually means, build MaxPairs pairs (see B.1). At the beginning of the pairing process, though, MaxPairs, or the maximum number of pairs that can be built (which is a constant of the bracket), is actually unknown – hence, we need to "divine" it.

Actually, the only things we know for sure are the total number N of players in the bracket, and the number M0 of MDPs entering the bracket. We want to observe that the number of pairs can never be greater than N/2; thus, this value should make a good starting point, independent of the kind of bracket (homogeneous or heterogeneous).

The actual value of MaxPairs can be less than that, because some players might be impossible to pair in the bracket. Moreover, if this bracket is a PPB, it must also provide the downfloaters required to complete the round-pairing (see C.4), and that might detract to the number of pairs that can actually be built. Hence, the process to determine MaxPairs value is somewhat empirical and may require some “experimenting”.

If the bracket is heterogeneous (M0≠0), then as many MDPs as possible (M1) must be paired. They will be paired first, before proceeding with the rest of the players (see B.3) - but, as it happened for the value of MaxPairs, we still do not know the true value of M1, and we must divine it too. A first educated guess for its value is M0 – minus, of course, any incompatible MDPs.

If there is no way to make all those pairs, our estimate of the value of M1 was apparently too optimistic – in this case, we will have to gradually decrease it, until we succeed. Any remaining MDPs join the Limbo (see B.2) and shall

C.6

Minimize the PSD (This basically means: maximize the number of paired MDP(s); and, as far as possible, pair the ones with the highest scores)

C.7

If the current bracket is neither the PPB nor the CLB (see A.9): choose the set of downfloaters in order first to maximize the number of pairs and then to minimize the PSD (see C.5 and C.6) in the following bracket (just in the following bracket).

eventually float (after the completion of the pairing for the bracket).

The number of pairs made in the MDP-pairing will be subtracted into the total number of pairs to be made in the bracket, yielding the (plausible) number of pairs to be built in the remainder24.

Here too applies the same line of reasoning: if we cannot make all those pairs, our initial estimation of MaxPairs was apparently too optimistic – hence, we will have to gradually decrease their number. Any remaining players become downfloaters, and will eventually float down into the next bracket.

The same line of reasoning also holds for a homogeneous bracket - which, by definition, contains no Limbo or MDPs, but is otherwise essentially similar to a remainder.

In heterogeneous brackets, even when the same number of pairs is made, different choices of floaters, or different pairings, can lead to different mismatching between players’ scores (for an example, see the many possible ways to pair a heterogeneous bracket containing many players all having different scores). This important criterion, directly related to rule C.04.1:e, directs us to minimise the overall difference in scores. Its location before the colour related criteria (C.8-C.11) is suggestive of the attention the FIDE (Dutch) system gives to the choice of a “right strength” opponent rather than a “right colour” one.

The method to compute and compare the PSDs is explained in detail in the comment to article A.8.

When we get here, we have already complied with the absolute criteria (hence the pairing is a legal one) and optimised the most important pairing quality parameters (number of pairs, PSD).

Before going ahead to optimise colours and MDPs treatment, we take a look ahead to the next bracket. We do not want to ever come back to the current bracket again. Thus, we must make sure that the choice of downfloaters we are going to send to the next bracket will be the best possible one to comply with C.5 and C.6.

First, we check that the downfloaters (which will be the MDPs of the next bracket) will allow us to compose the maximum possible number of pairs.

24 We always want to remember that the pairing of the MDPs and of the remainder are two phases of a single operation, which is performed as a unit. Thus, we do not “go back” from the remainder pairing to the MDP-pairing, because we are already inside the same operation. For example, let us suppose that the current bracket produces only one downfloater and that the next scoregroup contains an odd25 number of players, one of which has no possible opponent. If we can choose between two possible downfloaters, both compatible in the destination bracket, but only one of them can be paired to the “problematic” player, we must choose that one - because choosing the other one would leave an incompatible player (and hence an unavoidable downfloater!) in the destination target. Only when the number of pairs have been maximised, we proceed to look into the PSD in the destination target. This in practice means that, when we may choose between two or more possible downfloaters, if all other conditions are equivalent, we must choose the downfloater that may be paired with the lowest score difference26. This optimisation is to be extended only to the next bracket. Actually, there are situations in which a small change in a previous pairing would bring in large benefits - but looking several brackets ahead would be too much difficult an operation to be carried on every time. So the rules settle for a practical optimisation, renouncing those that are out of reasonable reach. But the reason is not only this one: in the basic philosophy of the FIDE (Dutch) system, the pairings for the higher ranked players are considered far more important than those for the lower ones. Hence, altering the pairing of the current bracket for the benefit of some player, who is located two brackets below this one, would simply be opposite to that philosophy.

Having already made sure that both the number of floaters and their scores are at a minimum, we now start to optimise colour allocation. Actually, colour is less important than difference in score – and that’s why, consistently with the basic logic of the system, the colour allocation criteria are located after those that address number of pairs and PSD.

C.8

Minimize the number of topscorers or topscorers' opponents who get a colour difference higher than +2 or lower than -2.

 

C.9

Article C.3, in accordance with C.04.1:f-g, states that when two non-topscorers meet, their absolute preferences must be complied with. Here we have the special case of a topscorer who, for some reason, is bound to be paired with a player (who may or may not be also a topscorer)

25 Please note that if the next scoregroup contained an even number of players, the bracket built with it and the current downfloater would be odd. Hence, it would in any case produce (at least) one downfloater and the choice of the MDP would not be critical for the number of pairs.

26 Since this criterion does not apply for the PPB, the next bracket's resident players will all have the same score. Thus, it is not possible for moved-down players to be paired with players having different scores - but, if they cannot be paired in the bracket, they will have to float again, and this makes the PSD change!

Minimize the number of topscorers or topscorers' opponents who get the same colour three times in a row.

C.10

Minimize the number of players who do not get their colour preference.

having the same absolute preference. The outcome of those players’ games may be very important in determining the final ranking and podium positions; and this is an exception explicitly provided for by C.04.1:f-g, so we may compose such pairs. Thus, we choose the best possible matched opponent – but there must not be more such pairs than the bare minimum.

The subdivision into two individual rules establishes a definite hierarchy, giving more importance to colour differences than to repeating colours. Suppose that, for one same opponent, we can choose between two possible topscorers, and all those players have the same absolute colour preference. In this case, we must select the components of the pair in such a way that colour differences are minimised (as far as possible).

As hinted above, a player, who has an absolute colour preference without being a topscorer, may happen to be paired with a topscorer having an identical absolute colour preference. These two rules equate the players of the pair - thus, a player might be denied its absolute colour preference just as if it were a topscorer, even if it is not one!

We can have an idea about the minimum number of players who cannot get their colour preference, by inspecting the bracket, prior to the pairing.

Let us suppose that m players prefer a colour and n players prefer the other one, with m ≥ n. We can thus compose no more than n pairs in which the players are expecting different colours; and the colour preferences in these pairs can - and must - be satisfied.

The remaining m-n players all expect the same colour; and they will have to be paired among themselves. In each of the pairs thus composed, one of the two players cannot get its preferred colour. The number of such pairs, and henceforth of such players too, is x=(m-n)/2, rounded downward to the nearest integer if needed. Sometimes, in addition to those m+n players, the bracket contains also a more players who have no colour preference at all. Those players may get any colour, but, of course, they will usually get the minority colour, so that they will subtract to the number of disregarded preferences. Taking one more step further, we may reason that we can build a maximum of MaxPairs pairs. Among those, n+a pairs can satisfy both the colour preferences, whilst the remaining x=MaxPairs- n-a cannot help but disregard one colour preference. Of course, x cannot be less than zero

C.11

Minimize the number of players who do not get their strong colour preference.

(a negative number of pairs has no practical meaning); thus, we obtain the final and general definition for x:

x = max (0, MaxPairs-n-a)

Please take notice that a perfect pairing always has exactly x disregarded colour preferences – no more, no less.

Actually, there might be even more pairs in which a player does not get its preference - because of incompatibilities due to absolute criteria, as well as “stronger” relative ones. Thus, at first we propose to make the minimum possible number of such pairs – but we may need to increase this number, to find our way around various pairing difficulties.

Since the general philosophy of the FIDE (Dutch) system gives more importance to the correct choice of opponents than to colours, the pairs containing a disregarded colour preference will typically be among the first to be made27.

Only now, having maximised the number of “good” pairs, we can set our attention to satisfying as many strong colour preferences as possible.

The minimum number of players not getting their strong colour preference, which is usually represented by z, is of course a part of the total number x of disregarded colour preferences (see note to C.10) – therefore, z is at most equal to x.

For instance, let the number WT of white seekers be greater than the number BT of black seekers (we call White “the majority colour”). The x players will all be White seekers, and as many as possible among them should have mild colour preferences, while the rest will have strong colour preferences28. Hence we can estimate z simply as the difference between x and the number WM of White seekers who have a mild colour preference, with the obvious condition

27 Actually, transpositions swap players beginning with the last positions of S2 and going upwards, causing the bottom pairs of the bracket to be modified early in the transposition process, while the top pairs are modified later. Hence, a “colour-defective” pair located at the bottom of the candidate has a higher probability to be changed soon than a similar pair located at the top – therefore, perfect pairings with top “colour-defective” pairs have a definitely higher probability. Incidentally, we might also mention that players often seem to worry about “colour doublets” (like, for example, WWBB) and think that such colour histories are more frequent with the FIDE (Dutch) system than with other Swiss pairing systems. This is not so. In fact, such histories are usual enough (and unavoidable) in all manners of Swiss pairings – in the FIDE (Dutch) system they may seem more frequent just because they appear more often in the top pairs of the bracket, therefore involving higher ranked players, which makes them more noticeable.

28 We want to notice that, during the last round, some absolute colour preferences might be disregarded for topscorers or their opponents (see C.8, C.9), so that part of x may represent such players. In those instances, our line of reasoning should be suitably adapted. that z cannot be less than zero; hence:

z = max ( 0, x – WM )           if WT ≥ BT (White majority)

z = max ( 0, x – BM )            if WT < BT (Black majority)

With a careful choice of transpositions and/or exchanges, we might be able to minimise the number of disregarded strong preferences29.

For several reasons, however, the number of players who cannot get their strong preference may be greater than that.

The following group of criteria optimises the management of floaters, which is the last step towards the perfect pairing.

C.12

Minimize the number of players who receive the same downfloat as the previous round.

C.13

Minimize the number of players who receive the same upfloat as the previous round.

C.14

Minimize the number of players who receive the same downfloat as two rounds before.

C.15

Minimize the number of players who receive the same upfloat as two rounds before.

C.16

Minimize the score differences of players who receive the same downfloat as the previous round.

C.17

Minimize the score differences of players who receive the same upfloat as the previous round.

Rule C.04.1:e states that, in general, players should meet opponents with the same score. This is (of course) best achieved by pairing each player inside its own bracket. However, there are some situations, in which a player cannot be paired in its bracket - and then, by necessity, must float. These criteria limit the frequency with which such an event can happen to a same player

- but they are “very weak criteria”, in the sense that they are almost the last to be enforced - and almost the first to be ignored in case of need.

Here, each criterion establishing a certain protection for downfloaters is immediately followed by a similar one establishing the very same protection for upfloaters.

Because of this, there is a certain residual asymmetry in the treatment; viz. downfloaters are (just a little bit) more protected than upfloaters. Please note that, in some other Swiss systems, floaters’ opponents are not considered floaters themselves, and therefore enjoy no protection at all.

The four previous rules minimised the number of players who, having floated in the last two rounds, may get a float again in this round. However, those rules do not give any special protection either to a player who, being already a MDP in a bracket (in this round), cannot be paired and must float down again, or to its opponent. Such players, and their opponents, will

29 Of course, since the total number of disregarded preferences must remain the same (we cannot have it smaller, and do not want it to grow larger!), this may only happen at the expense of a same number of mild preferences. A brief example may shed some light on the matter. Consider the bracket {1Bb, 2b, 3Bb, 4b}, where we have x=2, but z=0. The latter means that we can build the pairs in such a way that any one of them contains no more than one strong colour preference – and, in fact, a simple transposition allows us to obtain just this result.

have larger score differences than their fellow “single” floaters and are usually called double- floaters.

Minimize the score differences of players who

receive the same downfloat as two rounds before.

 

C.19

Minimize the score differences of players who receive the same upfloat as two rounds before.

 

The criteria C16-C.19 are for protected players whose protection has already failed once or more, and try to prevent such players from further floating. When we must make some players float down, we try, as long as possible, to choose those players who are not MDPs. Sometimes, however, this is not possible, and we must make some MDP float down. In this case, we should, as far as possible, choose those MDPs that are not (or are least) protected because of previous floats. Of course, the same holds (almost) symmetrically for the MDPs’ opponents.

For example, in a CLB (see A.9) that contains players with many different scores, the effect of these rules is that, if we have two possible prospective floaters and only one of them is protected, we try to pair the latter with a SD as little as possible30.

 

4. Rules for the sequential generation of the pairings

This section states the rules to determine the sequence in which transpositions, exchanges, and MDP-exchanges must be tried, in order to generate the candidates in the correct order. The general basic principle is, as always, that of “minimal disturbance” of the pairing. This means that we have always to move that player (or those players) whose displacement will cause the least possible difference of the pairing from the “natural” one31 - while at the same time allowing the best possible quality of the pairing itself.

Before any transposition or exchange take place, all players in the bracket shall be tagged with consecutive in-bracket sequence-numbers (BSN for short) representing their respective ranking order (according to A.2) in the bracket (i.e. 1, 2, 3, 4,...).

1. 1. Transpositions in S2

A transposition is a change in the order of the BSNs (all representing resident players) in S2.

All the possible transpositions are sorted depending on the lexicographic value of their first N1 BSN(s), where N1 is the number of BSN(s) in S1 (the remaining BSN(s) of S2 are ignored in

The use of pairing-ids, in this phase, may sometimes be confusing. Therefore, we give temporary sequence numbers to the players, as a very handy remedy to simplify the application of the rules below.

All transpositions are sorted or compared based on the dictionary (“lexicographical”) order, so that one given transposition precedes or follows another one if the string formed by the players BSNs of the first one precedes or follows that of the second one. The method to compare the strings is the very same already illustrated for the comparison of PSDs 32.

30 Another example is the case of two MDPs with different scores, and a protected resident who must  be paired with one of those two MDPs: the resident should be paired to the MDP who has the lower score of the two.

31 But, to avoid misunderstandings, we should keep in mind that any change in the order in S2 (transposition) is by definition preferable to even a single exchange between S1 and S2.

32 See the comment to C.6 [page 24] for details. Please note that the use of alphabet letters would be completely equivalent to that of numbers, at least for brackets with less than 26 players. The use of numbers, however, allows an identical treatment for all brackets, whatever the number of players they contain.

this context, because they represent players bound to constitute the remainder in case of a  heterogeneous bracket; or bound to downfloat in case of a homogeneous bracket - e.g. in a 11- player homogeneous bracket, it is 6-7-8-9-10, 6- 7-8-9-11,  6-7-8-10-11,...,  6-11-10-9-8, 7-6-8-9-

10,..., 11-10-9-8-7 (720 transpositions); if the bracket is heterogeneous with two MDPs, it is: 3- 4,   3-5,   3-6,...,   3-11,   4-3,   4-5,...,   11-10 (72

transpositions)).

The subgroup S1 may or may not have the same number of players as S2. For the comparison to have a meaning, we must define the number of elements of each of the two strings of BSNs that we are comparing.

We are looking for mates for each element in S1 (which of course represent a player each). Thus, we consider the number N1 of elements in S1– while the remaining players are (for the moment) irrelevant.

A simple example will help us clarify the matter: consider a heterogeneous bracket {S1=[1]; S2=[2, 3, 4]}. All the possible transpositions of S2 (properly sorted, and including the original S2) are:

[2,3,4];    [2,4,3];   [3,2,4];   [3,4,2];     [4,2,3];

[4,3,2]33.

As we want to pair #1 with the first element of S2, it is at once apparent that [2,3,4] and [2,4,3] have the very same effect34; and the same holds for [3,2,4] and [3,4,2]; and for [4,2,3] and [4,3,2]. Hence, the actual sequence of transpositions is as follows (elements between braces “{…}” are ‘irrelevant’ and are ignored in this phase):

[2]{3, 4}; [3]{2, 4}; [4]{2, 3}

1. 2. Exchanges in homogeneous brackets or remainders (original S1 ↔ original S2)

An exchange in a homogeneous bracket (also called a resident-exchange) is a swap of two equally sized groups of BSN(s) (all representing resident players) between the original S1 and the original S2.

In order to sort all the possible resident- exchanges, apply the following comparison rules between two resident-exchanges in the specified order (i.e. if a rule does not discriminate between two exchanges, move to the next one).

The priority goes to the exchange having:

1. 1. 1. the smallest number of exchanged BSN(s) (e.g. exchanging just one BSN is better than exchanging two of them).
      2. the smallest difference between the sum of the BSN(s) moved from the original S2

The exchanged sets must of course have the same size - because, were it not so, we would be changing the sizes of S1 and S2.

However, to evaluate the “weight” of the change, we must take into consideration not only the size of the exchanged sets but also the choice of players. To do that, we need a set of criteria addressing the various aspects of this choice. The aim is, as always, the “minimal disturbance” – viz. to try and have a pairing as similar as possible to the natural one.

The first criterion is, of course, the number of involved players: the less, the better!

From a theoretical point of view, all players in S1 should be stronger than any player in S2 is.

33 Please note that, in the very simple case where every BSN is a single digit, the string may be interpreted as a number, which becomes larger and larger as we proceed with each new transposition: 234, 243, 324, 342, 423, 432.

34 Of course, this equivalence is in no way general – it depends only on the fact that we are looking for just one element!

to S1 and the sum of the BSN(s) moved from the original S1 to S2 (e.g. in a bracket containing eleven players, exchanging 6 with 4 is better than exchanging 8 with 5; similarly exchanging 8+6 with 4+3 is better than exchanging 9+8 with 5+4; and so on).

1. 1. 3. the highest different BSN among those moved from the original S1 to S2 (e.g. moving 5 from S1 to S2 is better than moving 4; similarly, 5-2 is better than 4-3; 5-4-1 is better than 5-3-2; and so on).
2. 1. 4. the lowest different BSN among those moved from the original S2 to S1 (e.g. moving 6 from S2 to S1 is better than moving 7; similarly, 6-9 is better than 7-8; 6-7-10 is better than 6-8-9; and so on).

Therefore, when we have to swap two players across subgroups, we try to choose the weakest possible player in S1 and swap it with the strongest possible one from S2.

To do so, we can use the BSNs to choose a player as low-ranked as possible from S1, and a player as high-ranked as possible from S2, and then swap them, assuming that a higher rank should indicate a stronger player.

Thus, the difference between exchanged numbers is (or, at least, should be) a direct measure of the difference in (estimated) strength and should therefore be as little as possible.

When two possible choices of players to be exchanged show an identical difference in the sum of their respective BSNs, we choose the set which disturbs S1 as little as possible, i.e. the one in which the (highest BSN) player from S1 has a lower rank.

In the example, 5-2 is better than 4-3 because exchanging #5 is better than exchanging #4. Similarly, (5,4,1) is a better choice than (5,3,2), because exchanging #4 is better than exchanging #335.

Finally, having optimised the difference in ranking and the disturbance in S1, we can optimise the disturbance in S2 too.

Contrary to S1, now we try to exchange the lower possible BSNs. Hence, 6-9 is better than 7-8, because exchanging #6 is better than exchanging #7 – and so forth.

1. 3. Exchanges in heterogeneous brackets (original S1 ↔ original Limbo)

An exchange in a heterogeneous bracket (also called a MDP-exchange) is a swap of two equally sized groups of BSN(s) (all representing MDP(s)) between the original S1 and the original Limbo.

Here we are changing the composition of the set of pairable MDPs. Of course, this alteration may only occur when M1 < M036, because only in this situation does a Limbo exist. This means that we must choose which MDPs to exclude from the pairing. Sometimes the decision is easy – e.g. there may be some incompatible MDP, and we may have no choice at all37.

35 Sometimes, just as it happens in the above example, we might end up exchanging a higher-ranked player, as a side effect of enforcing the exchange of the lowest possible player. To understand this, we want to remember that, in the exchange, we do not operate on “several single players” but on a whole set of them, and we just have to decide if a set is better or worse than another one. In this case, (5, 4, 1) is better than (5, 3, 2) – therefore, we exchange #1, who is the top-player, because this is the way to exchange #4 rather than #3.

36 See B.1, p. 15.

37 We want to remember that, because of C.7, the downfloaters from the previous bracket (i.e. the MDPs of the current bracket) have already been optimised. Thus, if we have an incompatible here, it means that there was no alternative at all. Hence, there is no going back to the previous bracket (“backtracking”).

In order to sort all the possible MDP-exchanges, apply the following comparison rules between two MDP-exchanges in the specified order (i.e. if a rule does not discriminate between two exchanges, move to the next one) to the players that are in the new S1 after the exchange.

The priority goes to the exchange that yields a S1 having:

1. the highest different score among the players represented by their BSN (this comes automatically in complying with the C.6 criterion, which says to minimize the PSD of a bracket).
2. the lowest lexicographic value of the BSN(s) (sorted in ascending order)

Any time a sorting has been established, any application of the corresponding D.1, D.2 or D.3 rule, will pick the next element in the sorting order.

When we have a choice, we start by trying to pair as many MDPs as possible, and as high ranked as possible [B.2]. If we must change this original composition, we need to apply an MDP- exchange. The following criteria allow us to determine the priority among all the possible exchanges. Please note that this result is achieved by inspecting the composition of the new S1, not that of the Limbo. To a hasty reader, it might seem that, pairing a player with lower score would yield a lower score difference, and thus a lower PSD. Of course, this is definitely wrong! When we put a higher scored player in the Limbo, that player will float – hence, the corresponding SD, which is calculated with the artificial value defined in A.8, will be very high. To minimise the PSD, the Limbo must contain a minimum of players, and those must have as low a score as possible. Hence, complying with C.6, which instructs us to minimise the PSD, automatically satisfies this criterion too.

We also want to take notice that the number of exchanged players is not all-important. For example, consider an S1 with three players and a Limbo with two: in some circumstances, exchanging the two lower ranked players may give better results than exchanging just the top one.

This is the criterion we must strive to comply with. When the involved players have the same scores, we have to choose the lower ranked players. This is easily accomplished by comparing the BSNs of the players comprised in S1 after the exchange - in the very same way as we did in the previous cases.

If we are lucky enough, the first attempt to a transposition, exchange, or MDP-exchange will yield the desired result. Often, though, we must persevere in the attempts until we get a successful one. In this case, we must follow the order (sequence) established by the three rules above illustrated.

Ideally, we should start by establishing a full list of all the possible transformations - be them transpositions or exchanges of any kind - sorting that list by D.1, D.2 or D.3 (as the case may be), and then trying one after another until we find the first useful one38.

38 In common practice, exchanges and transpositions will be tried together (for each exchange, we will likely try one or more transpositions). To avoid mistakes, it is most advisable to annotate the last transformation (of each kind) used so that, on the following attempt, we can be sure about which element of the sequence is the next one.

5. Colour Allocation rules

Initial-colour

It is the colour determined by drawing of lots before the pairing of the first round.

For each pair apply (with descending priority):

E.1

Grant both colour preferences.

E.2

Grant the stronger colour preference. If both are absolute (topscorers, see A.7) grant the wider colour difference (see A.6)

E.3

Taking into account C.04.2.D.5, alternate the colours to the most recent time in which one player had white and the other black.

E.4

The Initial-colour is not referred to any particular player. It is actually a parameter of the tournament – and the only one left to fate! – that allows the allocation of the correct colour to each player who has not a preference yet.

When two absolute preferences are involved, rule

1. 2. takes into consideration also the colour differences (see A.6) of the players. This, of course, may happen only for topscorers, and hence only in the last round (in previous rounds, a pairing with colliding absolute colour preferences is not allowed!). Let’s consider the example of two topscorers with the same absolute colour preferences and the following colour histories:

1: WWBWBW

2: BBWBWW

Here, player #1 has a colour difference CD=+2, while player #2 has CD=0. Thus, we try to equalize the colour differences by assigning to player #1 his preferred colour.

Please note that this rule applies only to pairs in which both players have an absolute preference, while in all other cases the rule does not apply – e.g., in the pair:

1: BWWBWBW (strong preference, CD=+1) 2: =BBWBWW  (absolute preference, CD=0)

the absolute preference shall be satisfied, no matter how large the colour difference is.

To correctly manage colour assignments when one or both players have missed one or more games, we often need comparing colours histories by means of rule C.04.2:D.3.

For example, in the comparison between the colours histories of two players, the sequence

== WB is equivalent to BWWB and WBWB (but the latter two are not equivalent to each other!).

Grant the colour preference of the higher ranked player.

E.5  If the higher ranked player has an odd pairing number, give him the initial-colour; otherwise give him the opposite colour.

Note: Always consider sections C.04.2.B/C (Initial Order/Late Entries) for the proper management of the pairing numbers.

We may want to pay particular attention to this point: in all other conditions being equal, the higher ranked player gets not white but its own preferred colour!

When we get here, both players of the pair have no colour preference. Therefore, we use the Initial-colour decided by lot before the start of the tournament, to allocate colours to the players.

Of course, this rule will be used always in the first round (obtaining the usual results39), but it will be useful also in subsequent rounds, when we have a pairing between two players who did not play in the previous rounds (e.g. late entries or forfeits).

We ought to remember that players, who are actually entering the tournament only at a given round after the first – and who therefore were not paired in the previous rounds – in fact, do not exist, even if (seemingly) listed in the players’ list. An obvious side effect of this is that we cannot expect all “odd-numbered” and “even- numbered” players to have the same colour as would be usual (viz., as they would have in a “perfect” tournament).

Actually, such late entries may have different effects on the pairing numbers, depending on how they are managed.

If we insert all the players in the list straight from the beginning, the pairing numbers will not change on the subsequent rounds, but the pairing of the first round will have to “skip” the absent players. For example, if player #12 is not going to play on the first round, players #13, #15, and so forth, who should seemingly get the initial- colour, will actually have the opposite colour; while players #14, #16, and so on will get the initial-colour.

If, on the contrary, we insert a new player only when it actually enters the tournament, we must find the correct place to put it. All the subsequent players will therefore have their pairing numbers changed, in order to accommodate the new entry. For example, if the newly inserted player gets #12, the previous #12 (who had colour opposite to the initial-colour) will now be #13; and so on for all subsequent players.

39 Please note that, if we are using an accelerated pairing system, the usual colour alternation is disrupted unless the first score group contains a number of players multiple of four.

PART TWO – THE TOURNAMENT

1. 1. 1. FOREWORD

This chapter illustrates a step-by-step example of pairing procedure for a six rounds Swiss tournament by means of the FIDE (Dutch40) Swiss pairing system, in the hope to help those who wish to improve their knowledge of the system or get more familiar with it.

During the FIDE Congress in Abu Dhabi 2015, the Swiss Rules for the FIDE (Dutch) system were partially modified and reworded in order both to avoid misunderstanding in some points and to correct some peculiar behaviours in particular situations - and thus get better pairings in some instances41. In the following Congress in Baku 2016, the Swiss Rules were completely reworded, with the aim to make them clearer and easier – but this time without introducing behavioural changes.

Only a general knowledge of the FIDE (Dutch) system is required to follow the exercise, but keeping a handy copy of the Rules is advisable.

Before ending this short introduction, two side notes about language are in order: first, this work has not been intended for, nor written by, native speakers

- hence, the language is far from perfect, but we hope that it will be easy enough to understand, and that any possible native speakers will forgive its many flaws. Second, and possibly more important, is that we definitely do not want to address a player as either man or woman. Luckily, English language offers a very good device to this end in the use of neutral pronouns - therefore, our readers are advised that our player will always be “it”.

Warm and heartfelt thanks go to IA Roberto Ricca for his valuable and patient work of technical review and the many useful suggestions.

Happy reading!

Notice: to help the reader, the text contains many references to relevant regulations. These references are printed in italics in square brackets “[ ]” - e.g., [C.04.2:B.1] refers to the FIDE Handbook, Book C: “General Rules and Recommendation for Tournaments”, Regulations 04:

40 The FIDE (Dutch) Swiss pairing system, so named with reference to its promoter and developer, Dutch IA Geurt Gijssen, was adopted by FIDE in 1992. Its rules are codified in the FIDE Handbook, available on www.fide.com.

41 For details about the changes, see the minutes of Abu Dhabi 2015 Congress in the Swiss Systems of Pairings and Programs Commission webpage, http://pairings.fide.com.

“FIDE Swiss Rules”, Section 2: “General Handling Rules”, item (B), paragraph (1). Since a great deal of our references will be made to section C.04.3: “FIDE (Dutch) System”, these will simply point to the concerned article or subsection - e.g., [A.7.b] indicates item (b) of Article

(7) of section (A) of those Rules. All regulations can be downloaded from the website of FIDE (www.fide.com).

1. 1. 2. INITIAL PREPARATIONS

The preliminary stage of a tournament consists essentially in the preparation of the list of participants. To this end, we sort all players in descending order of score42, FIDE rating and FIDE title43 [C.04.2:B]. Homologous players (i.e. those players who have identical scores, ratings and titles) will normally be sorted alphabetically, unless the regulations of the tournament or event explicitly provide a different sort rule.

Here we face our first problem: the FIDE (Dutch) system belongs to the group of rating controlled Swiss systems44, which means that the resulting pairings depend very closely on the rating of the players - therefore, to get a proper pairing for the round, the players’ ratings need to be the correct ones – i.e. they must correctly represent each player’s strength. Because of this, the Rules require us to carefully verify all of the ratings and, when a player does not have one, to make an estimation as accurate as possible [C.04.2:B.2]. When a player has a national rating, but no FIDE rating, we can convert the first to an equivalent value - in some cases directly, in others by using appropriate formulas. For instance, when a player has no rating at all, we shall usually need to estimate its strength according to current practices or national regulations.

42 Of course, at the beginning of the tournament all players have a null score, unless an accelerated pairing is used.

43 The descending order for FIDE titles is GM, IM, WGM, FM, WIM, CM, WFM and WCM - followed by all untitled players [C.04.2:B.3.b].

44 The “Rating Controlled Swiss Systems” belong to a more general class of “Controlled (or Seeded) Swiss Systems”, in which the initial ranking list is not random or assigned by lots, but sorted according to given rules.

 

After we prepared the list as indicated above, we can assign to each player its

 

Pairing Number	Player	Title	Rating
1	Alice	GM	2500
2	Bruno	IM	2500
3	Carla	WGM	2400
4	David	FM	2400
5	Eloise	WIM	2350
6	Finn	FM	2300
7	Giorgia	FM	2250
8	Kevin	FM	2250
9	Louise	WIM	2150
10	Marco	CM	2150
11	Nancy	WFM	2100
12	Oskar	--	2100
13	Patricia	--	2050
14	Robert	--	2000

 

pairing number, which is, at this stage, only provisional. Additional players may be allowed to join the tournament in later rounds and, in this case, we will need to reorder the list and, consequently, assign new and different pairing numbers45 [C.04.2:C.3].

Our tournament is comprised of 14 players. The players’ list, already properly sorted according to [C.04.2:B], is on the right.

Because of a perhaps a bit controversial (but none the less almost universal) language convention, players who are first on this list (“higher ranked” players) are said to have the highest pairing numbers - in short, number 1 is higher than 14... This is somewhat odd – but, in time, it will become a habit.

The number of rounds is established by the tournament regulations, and cannot be changed after the tournament has started. We may want to notice that this number is, or should be, in close relation with the number of players, because a Swiss tournament can reasonably identify the winner only if the number N of players is less than or at most equal to 2 raised to the number T of rounds: N ≤ 2T. As a rule of thumb, each additional round enables us to correctly determine one more position in the final standings. For example, with 7 rounds we can determine the strongest player (and, therefore, the player who deserves to win) among at most 128 players while we will be able to correctly select the second best among only 64 players, and the third best only if the players are at most 3246. Thus, it is generally advisable to carry out one or two rounds more than the theoretical minimum: e.g., for a tournament with 50 players, 8 rounds are adequate, 7 are acceptable - while, strictly speaking, a 6 rounds tournament

45 Sometimes a player may be registered with a wrong rating, which needs to be corrected (this is necessary for rating purposes too). In such cases, the pairing numbers may be reassigned, but only for the first three rounds; from the fourth round on, pairing numbers shall not be changed, even if players’ data have to be adjusted [C.04.2:B.4].

46 This is true only if in every game the highest rated player ends up as winner. In practice, the occurrence of different results, such ad draws, forfeits and so on, may change the situation, making the individuation of a definite winner (the so called “convergence”) either slower or faster, according to specific circumstances.

 

(which are the “bare minimum” with respect to the number of players) would not be advisable47.

The preliminary stage ends with the possible preparation of “pairing cards”, a very useful aid for the management of a manual pairing. They are sort of a personal card, the heading of which contains player’s personal data (name, date and place of birth, ID, title, rating and possibly additional useful data) and of course the pairing number of the player. The body of the card is comprised of a set of rows, one for each round to be played, in which all pairing data are recorded (opponent, colour,

 

float status48, game result or scored points, progressive points). The card may

be made in any of several ways, as long as it is easy to read and to use. Here, we see a typical example.

The basic advantage of pairing cards is that we can arrange them on the desk, sorting them by rank, rearranging and pairing them in an easy and fast fashion. Nowadays, anyway, actual use of pairing cards has become pretty rare because an arbiter is very seldom required to manually make a pairing from scratch - but it’s not unusual that an unhappy player asks for detailed explanations, so that the arbiter has to justify an already made pairing (usually produced by computer software). With a little practice, we can work out such an explanation right from the tournament board - which, in this case, needs to contain all of the necessary data, just like a pairing card. In this paper, we too will follow this latter method.

47 Of course, this is just a theoretical point of view. In practice, many tournaments are comprised of 5 rounds, because sometimes this is the best we can put together in a weekend. Thus, the determination of the players who end up in the winning positions of the final standings must be entrusted to tiebreaks, which should therefore be chosen with the utmost care.

48 See “Scoregroups and brackets”, page 40.

 

Now we will draw by lot the Initial-colour49 [see section E]. The colours to assign for the first round to all players will be determined by this [A.6.d, E.5]. After that, we will be ready at last to begin the pairing of the first round. Let us say that a little child, not involved in the tournament, drew White as Initial- colour.

1. 1. 3. THE MAKING OF THE FIRST ROUND

The rules to make the first round are described in slightly different ways in Dubov and FIDE (Dutch) Swiss systems, but the resulting pairings are always the same. The players list, ordered as described above, is then divided into two subgroups, called S1 and S2; the former contains the first half, rounded down, of the players, while the latter contains the second half, rounded up50 [B.2]:

S1 = [ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]

S2 = [ 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14] 51

Now, we pair the first player from S1 with the first one from S2, the second one from S1 with the second one from S2 and so on, thus getting the (unordered) pairs {1-8, 2-9, 3-10, 4-11, 5-12, 6-13, 7-14}. Since this is the first round, unless there is some very special reason to do differently52, there is nothing to stop these pairings – so, to complete the pairing process, now we just need to assign to each player its appropriate colour.

Since no player has a colour preference yet, all colour allocation shall be regulated per [E.5]. Hence, in each pair, the higher ranked player (who comes from S1) gets the initial-colour if its pairing number is odd, while it gets the opposite colour if the pairing number is even. Thus, players 1, 3, 5 and 7 shall receive the initial-colour, for which we drawn white, while players 2, 4, 6 shall receive the opposite, which is black.

49 Some arbiters, misinterpreting the drawing of lots, assign colour at own discretion. It should be emphasized that the Rules explicitly require the drawing of lots (which, by the way, may be at the centre of a nice opening ceremony).

50 When the number of players is odd, S2 will contain one player more than S1.

51 Since names are inessential, from now on we will indicate players only by their own pairing numbers.

52 For example, in certain events, we might have specific rules, or reasons, to avoid players or teams from the same federation or club meet in the first round(s), or at all. Such cases usually occur only in major international tournaments, championships, Olympiads and so on, while in “normal” tournaments, in practice, nothing of the kind happens.

The opponents to each player from S1 shall receive, out of necessity, the opposite colour with respect to their opponents; therefore, the complete pairing will be:

1 :   1 - 8

2 :   9 - 2

3 :   3 - 10

3 :   3 - 10

4 :  11 - 4

5 :   5 - 12

6 :  13 - 6

7 :   7 - 14

Before publishing the pairing, we have to put it in order [C.04.2:D.9] with the following criteria: 1) the score of the higher ranked player in the pair, 2) the sum of scores of both players, 3) the rank according to the initial order [C.04.2:B] of the higher ranked player. In the vast majority of cases, the FIDE (Dutch) system already generates pairings in the right order (but we always want to check).

At last, we are almost ready to publish the pairing. Before that, we want to check it once again and with extreme care, because a published pairing should not be modified [C.04.2:D.10]53, except when two players should play with each other again.

In the event of an error (wrong result, game played with wrong colours, wrong ratings…), the correction will affect only the pairings yet to be done54 and only if the error is reported by the end of the next round, after which it will be taken into account only for the purposes of rating calculation [C.04.2:D.8]. This means that, in such cases, the final standings will include the wrong result, just as if it were correct!

The last thing to do (and the Pairings Controller may do it while everyone is playing) is the compilation of the tournament board, on which we will post pairings and results for each player. When we renounce the use of pairing cards, as we do here, the board should also contain any other relevant information needed to compose the pairings for following rounds.

For each game, we should indicate at least opponent, assigned colour, and result

– the choice of symbols is free, as long as it is clear, unambiguous, and uniform.

53 But, in this regard, see also FIDE Handbook C.05: “FIDE Competition Rules”, item 7.4.

54 Please note that this rule explicitly forbids the making of new pairings – which is a somewhat frequent request of players - in the event of an error.

Here we will show each pairing by means of a group of symbols comprised of the opponent&rs