“We finished level, but I beat him” is the most common argument about second place. Sometimes it settles the matter and sometimes it counts for nothing. Here is how the measure is computed for two players and for a group, why a Swiss so often makes it unusable, and what to do when the mini-table ties as well.
DE = points scored in the games between the tied players
Of all the tie-breaks this is the only one that counts nothing external: not the strength of the opposition, not when the points arrived, not the rating. It asks a single question - what happened when these players sat down opposite each other. That makes it the easiest to explain and the hardest to argue with.
Two players finish on 4 points and met in round three. Whoever won that game is placed higher. A draw means the measure produced nothing, and the organizer moves to the next item on the list.
Here is where tournament halls get it wrong. The player who beat their rival considers the matter closed - but if the regulations list the direct encounter after the coefficients, those are compared first. It is entirely possible for the loser of that game to finish higher. Nothing unfair has happened: the order was published in advance.
When more than two share a place, their mutual games form a separate small table. Everything else in the tournament ceases to exist: only the points scored inside that group count.
Say Anna, Boris and Vera finish on the same score. Among themselves: Anna beat Boris and drew with Vera, Boris beat Vera.
| Player | Games inside the group | Total | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Anna | 1 vs Boris, ½ vs Vera | 1½ | first of the three |
| Boris | 0 vs Anna, 1 vs Vera | 1 | second |
| Vera | ½ vs Anna, 0 vs Boris | ½ | third |
The order comes out Anna, Boris, Vera. Note the oddity: Vera drew with the strongest of the three and lost to Boris, and finishes below him even though her result against the group's winner was better.
The most intuitive tie-break has the narrowest field of application. Three situations in which it stays silent:
Routine in a Swiss: over five rounds a player faces five of thirty. Two leaders may easily never have played each other, and then there is nothing to compare.
If three share a place but only two of them met, the mini-table is incomplete: one has a single game, another has two. Comparing those totals is not sound, so the measure is skipped entirely rather than applied partially.
A win by forfeit does not count by default: the measure reflects a result at the board, not a decision by the arbiter. An organizer who wants it counted has to say so in the regulations.
This is why the direct encounter is almost never the only measure in a set of regulations. In a round-robin it always applies - everyone plays everyone, so any group of tied players yields a complete mini-table. Round-robin schedules are in the Berger tables.
There is no settled answer, and the choice is really about tournament philosophy. Putting the direct encounter first is popular because it needs no explanation: players understand it and there is nothing to dispute. FIDE-style regulations tend to place it after the coefficients, on the grounds that the whole tournament path should be weighed before one individual game.
The argument for first place: one game between the two of them is more honest than indirect arithmetic. The argument against: anything could have happened in that game - a one-move blunder, time trouble, a quick draw - and making it outweigh five other rounds is odd.
A practical suggestion for a club event: coefficient first, direct encounter second. The decision then rests on the whole tournament, but players still have a criterion they can follow. Working sequences for different formats are in the tie-break reference.
To apply the direct encounter you need to know who played whom and how it ended. In the Vibe Chess app that is one tap away: every round keeps its pairings and results, so the question “did we even play each other?” is answered in a second rather than by searching through photos of scoresheets. Coefficients are computed automatically alongside.
It is a tie-break that looks at the result of the game between the players who share a place. If two players finish level and played each other, the winner of that game is placed higher. The logic is the most intuitive of all tie-breaks: the argument is settled by what happened at the board.
A mini-table is built from the games between them alone. Each player's points from those games are added up, and the places are decided by the totals. The tie-break works only if all three actually played each other: otherwise the comparison is unfair and the rule is not applied.
Then the direct encounter simply does not apply and the organiser moves on to the next tie-break in the regulations. That is an ordinary situation in the Swiss system: players meet only part of the field, and two leaders may well never sit down opposite each other.
By default no: the tie-break looks at games played at the board. The logic is that the direct encounter should reflect a sporting result rather than a technical decision by the arbiter. If an organiser wants such games counted, it has to be stated separately in the regulations.
There is no single rule. In Russian practice it is often put first - it is the easiest for players to understand. In the FIDE regulations it usually comes after the scores: first the whole tournament path is assessed, and only then one particular game. Both options are legitimate; what matters is announcing your choice before round one.
Because everyone plays everyone: any two players have certainly met, and any group of contenders forms a complete mini-table. That is exactly why round-robin regulations almost always put the direct encounter among the first tie-breaks.
Move on to the next tie-break in the regulations. Such a tie is entirely possible: three players may have drawn with each other, or beaten each other in a cycle. The direct encounter honestly answers “I do not know”, and the scores take over from there.
Both games between the contenders count: the points from them are added up. A win and a loss give each player one point and settle nothing, while a win and a draw put the player who won higher.
Yes, they are different names for the same tie-break; in the regulations it appears as Direct Encounter, abbreviated to DE. Tables on chess-results and arbiter software use either spelling.
