One of the problems affecting sport locally is the way national associations, tasked with the responsibility of overseeing their sport function.
Most national associations have grandiose plans to develop/promote their disciplines at all levels not to mention ensuring the country’s participation at international tournaments, laudable objectives one would agree.
These associations are guided by a constitution which clearly spells out the rules/regulations to deal with issues that arise out of the day-to-day running of the association.
But often it appears that the clubs that make up these national associations are sometimes oblivious of those rules/regulations.
As such most national associations “do their own thing” safe in the knowledge that there will be no challenge on their ruling of most issues.
Take the Guyana Chess Federation as an example.
That association recently staged its national chess championships for junior and senior players.
While releasing the results of the rounds during the tournament the GCF did a strange thing.
It announced clear winners in the senior category at the end of the playing rounds even though on occasions, there were no clear leaders.
In other words even if two players were tied on the maximum three points after three rounds, the GCF announced that one player was the leader as opposed to there being joint leaders.
Perhaps the GCF was using a tie-break system to facilitate the pairings for the next round but this was not necessary as the tournament was a Closed one where each player was scheduled to play his opponent twice.
What was even more surprising was the decision that the GCF came up with declaring defending national champion Kriskal Persaud of Berbice as having retained his title even though Persaud and Ronuel Greenidge ended with the same amount of points.
After 14 rounds the two players were locked on nine and one half points each, finishing the double-round, eight-player tournament, with eight wins and three losses each.
Persaud’s losses came at the hands of veteran player Errol Tiwari whom he lost to on both occasions and to David Khan.
Greenidge on the other hand, lost his head-to-head clashes with Persaud and to Omar Sharief.
Based on the statistical average calculated by the computer after every round, Persaud emerged with an average of 60.50 to Greenidge’s 58.75 and was declared the winner.
Now nothing is wrong about wanting one national champion as opposed to declaring joint champs.
What is not clear is what tie break system was used and why and whether the players were aware prior to the tournament what decision would have been made in the event two or more players were deadlocked at the end of the competition.
Tie break systems are used to break ties between players who have the same number of points after a round.
There are several tie break systems but the most popular are the Sonnenberg-Berger and the Bucholz tie break systems.
But it is generally considered that deficiencies exist in most tie break systems and a play-off is the preferred option once time is available.
Speed Chess games can also be used where the player with the white pieces must win the game or loses if his opponent with the black pieces manages a draw.
Most tie break systems are based on numerical calculations and the idea is to reward the player who has played the tougher opponents.
Because Persaud and Greenidge would have played the same opponents then a playoff between the two players would have been the preferred option.
In fact, while this year’s junior champion Taffin Khan was a runaway winner winning all 14 of his games, last year there was a play-off between eventual champion Ronald Roberts and the said Khan.
One wonders why the GCF deviated from that practice in this instance.
This is what makes players feel aggrieved and confused when it appears that there are different yardsticks used.
Associations need to be consistent and moreso let the players know beforehand what the rules and regulations of the tournament are.
In some cases, such rules/regulations must be printed and either given to the players individually (a much easier task now since the advent of computers) or placed in a position of prominence such as on a wall of the playing venue(s).
Finally, it is up to sub-associations, clubs and players to challenge national associations whenever they feel that rights are being infringed upon.
Hopefully associations will see those challenges not as an attempt to make trouble but as a means of ascertaining whether the right rules/regulations were followed.
This will invariably lead to a healthier playing environment and reaffirm the confidence of all, in those tasked with the responsibility of sport governance.
