So Original pairing means they are seeded? I don't think that's quite right.
For example: Tournament 9419. I'm pretty sure I'm the highest rated player, but I'm certainly not playing the lowest rated player in the tournament.
Originally posted by clandarkfireThe top guy doesn't play the bottom guy in an Original - you will probably be playing the guy smack in the middle, I think but the way it works is that you can't possibly play the second top guy unless you both make the final.
So Original pairing means they are seeded? I don't think that's quite right.
For example: Tournament 9419. I'm pretty sure I'm the highest rated player, but I'm certainly not playing the lowest rated player in the tournament.
So the gist of what is said here: No way to stop agreed upon draws. If you say, a game will not count, that is to say, both players get zero points if they draw before some set up # of moves, say 40. So with that rule, you have to play 40 moves to get your points for a draw. So they just play some known variation that leads to a respectable 40 moves with no obvious combination or other winning set of moves and they draw anyway, just takes more time. If you have say, 7 day and 7 day time bank, they don't have to play that slowly, they can play the 40 moves in one day to get to the draw.
Maybe there could be a rule they have to take X amount of time per move but that would only delay the agreed upon draw, not stop it. So the gist of all that is, there is no way to prevent agreed upon draws.
Originally posted by chessisagameJust used that # out of a hat, it could have been 25 moves, just an example of a hypothetical rule voted on by some rule making body. It wouldn't change things if it was 15 moves, they would just play till 15 moves, then agree to draw. There could be adjudication rules, where you have high rank players analyze the games, or maybe Rybka or Fritz see if the position is totally even, if so, allow the draw to stand, if not, force the players to play on or risk BOTH players being disqualified, of course the players would not see the actual analysis, only the result, yes, it's a draw, or no, we see there is 'interesting' play left so play on. That seems a bit draconian to me but it could work.
there are legit draws before 40 moves however. you cannot prevent points from being with held cause the game doesnt go 40 moves.
Originally posted by Traveling AgainRedmike. Of course. It had to be Redmike.
Game 7256798
Game 7256797
He's a communist you know. They're very honest aren't they?
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 28919
I am not asking for anyone to be disqualified. Just don't reward this kind of behavior. Let the lower rated player advance and higher rated players won't agree to short draws in duels. That's all we're talking about: duel tournaments. This rule would apply to everyone equally whether the 2 players were rated in the 2000s or 1200s. Simple - done.
Originally posted by TerrierJackIf this will be a new rule, then we will see an explosion in the number of sandbaggers.
I am not asking for anyone to be disqualified. Just don't reward this kind of behavior. Let the lower rated player advance and higher rated players won't agree to short draws in duels. That's all we're talking about: duel tournaments. This rule would apply to everyone equally whether the 2 players were rated in the 2000s or 1200s. Simple - done.
If I'm forced to draw a lower rated opponent in a final game in a tournament, then a few strategic losses can do the trick.
Immoral? Yes of course. It would be much better to keep the todays rules and have a new round.
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 28919
Originally posted by FabianFnasI don't understand. Explain here or in the other thread in Site Ideas.
If this will be a new rule, then we will see an explosion in the number of sandbaggers.
If I'm forced to draw a lower rated opponent in a final game in a tournament, then a few strategic losses can do the trick.
Immoral? Yes of course. It would be much better to keep the todays rules and have a new round.
Originally posted by TerrierJackRight now you have rating 2043 and I have rating 2239. The difference is 196, right?
I don't understand. Explain here or in the other thread in Site Ideas.
Suppose the lesser rating will win a game if it's a draw. If you and I play in a duel in the last round in a turnament and I see a forced draw, either than you force a draw upon me, or I can salvage a bad position with a draw. If I can reach a draw, then I win the tournament *if* I have a lower rating than yours. So insead of trying to win our game, instead I can lose other games worth at least 196 rating points, and I will win the tournament. neat? Moral? No.
I rather prefer the way as it is now.
Originally posted by FabianFnasWhy are you ignoring the suggestions that would make this sandbagging not work? At least two have been offered: using the players' rating at the start of the tournament or using the player's highest rating ever. Your hypothetical strategy fails in both cases.
Right now you have rating 2043 and I have rating 2239. The difference is 196, right?
Suppose the lesser rating will win a game if it's a draw. If you and I play in a duel in the last round in a turnament and I see a forced draw, either than you force a draw upon me, or I can salvage a bad position with a draw. If I can reach a draw, then I win the tour ...[text shortened]... oints, and I will win the tournament. neat? Moral? No.
I rather prefer the way as it is now.
The present rule is a disaster that encourages unethical practices by those who are sufficiently contemptuous of the morals of chess. To continue it is a discredit to the site and a slap in the face to the great majority who exercise the sportsmanship this great game deserves.
Originally posted by no1marauderThe only real disadvantage of letting the lower rated player pass is that the lower rated player only has to win one of the games in order to pass, also this rule encourages lower rated players to enter the most drawish possible lines, which is kind of boring (not to say unfair - 2/3 of the possible results favour the lower rated player). I think I'd prefer the rules as they are now, it simply isn't worth the trouble.
Why are you ignoring the suggestions that would make this sandbagging not work? At least two have been offered: using the players' rating at the start of the tournament or using the player's highest rating ever. Your hypothetical strategy fails in both cases.
The present rule is a disaster that encourages unethical practices by those wh ...[text shortened]... lap in the face to the great majority who exercise the sportsmanship this great game deserves.
Hi Fabs.
A lot of 'if's and buts' in your last post.
If you are losing, if you can salvage a draw, but you can throw games....
You forget that your opponent too has games to throw to remain the lowest
graded player and the clock is ticking.
How low is one prepared to go in shedding grading points to win one
tournament that does not even has one penny as a prize.
Also He could get his friends to resign their games against you to put your grade up.
It would be brilliant to watch though. Two players tossing ballast overboard.
And everyone would like it because the lucky ones get to see their grade rise.
(Till of course they themselves play in Duals then it's a race on to see who can
chuck away the most grading points.)
Infact why not cast this out over the whole site in every event.
If the game is drawn the lowest graded player wins.
What an antidote to cheating that would be.
The cheats would be setting their engines to the idiot level so it would find for
them the worst moves.
We would then be calling the players who had 0% match ups cheats. 🙂
Site Ideas here I come....