Originally posted by paulbuchmanfromficsnot sure I get this logic/explanation! that's like saying - it's therefore ok for top dogs to "rig" (ok, it's not against the RHP rules, I know) their games whereas underdogs should play fair game till the bitter end or, indeed, draw "fairly".. isn't everyone under pressure and eager to win/advance further?
The two strong players put tremendous pressure on themselves to not lose (or draw!) any of the other games.
p.s.
that 'tremendous' remark is just way off!
Originally posted by no1marauderThread 106743
Of course, I proposed a solution to this more than a year ago here: http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?subject=Tied_Players_Advancing_in_Tourneys&threadid=106743
It was, of course, ignored.
I don't want to argue or go over all this again.
They need to change the rules here if that's what everyone wants.
Should a player playing within the rules of the site be publicly ridiculed or demonized for doing something which is well within their rights/the rules?
I read the comments about this, but I don't se any suggestion.
May two players agree on a mutual draw or not? In the 50th move? In the 5th move? If yes on one question and no to the other - where exactly would the limit be?
May two players agree to one win each? In the 50th move? In the 5th move? If yes on one question and no to the other - where exactly would the limit be?
If there are no limits - does each game won or drawn has to be examined by a game examinator or not? Or would it be some sort of alert game modulator of some kind? Or how will thes be monitored?
I see the problem, but I don't see any solution.
Originally posted by paulbuchmanfromficsI can very well see you, Paul, being a politician 😉
Should a player playing within the rules of the site be publicly ridiculed or demonized for doing something which is well within their rights/the rules?
as you may have noticed it reads 'fair' in the title (rather than 'illegal'😉 and 'fair' is subjective...and people are just expressing their opinions (it's you (self)-demonising yourself, imho). I think the whole point boils down to the concept of 'draw' in chess, those of us seeing these examples as rather dodgy believe that it's there if both parties, indeed, don't see a clear winning line rather than as a mean* to advance yourself further in the tournament (and I mean those 'early' draws which are no brainers that they are 'fishy'😉...
* yes, it is perfectly legal here on RHP site.
I gave this more thought, and I have an (almost) similar situation between Greenpawn34 and myself- the difference was that we didn't both advance.
Both games went beyond 6 moves, but he offered me a draw in both. He was higher rated than me, and the "top dog" in the section, and I viewed a pair of draws against him as an excellent outcome, so I accepted when he offered (I was actually down a pawn in one, but Geoff thought that I had more than enough compensation for it when we discussed the game afterwards). Of course, GP knew what he was doing, and he advanced while I now spectate!
In the case of the 1800 and 2000 player, I don't blame the 1800 player one bit for taking a pair of draws against a higher rated player. As for the 2000 player, he is gambling a bit, but he is playing a strategy that happens at the GM level in tournaments all the time, so there is nothing unusual about it.
I think it's the ratings that make us all apply the "this is funky" label to the situation, but the reality is that the players still have to accumulate enough points to advance, so there are still games to play, and the best player wins.
Paul
For me I would think that in the case of a draw, the lower rated player should progress. He has got the better tourn grading performance after all. This does seen slightly unfair however when the rating differance is small.
Regarding the currant rule, perhaps if the two players have to advance somewhere, it should be out the door. Neither have won the match, while others who progress have.
Originally posted by peacedogTwo players are at the top in a tournaments next to last round.
For me I would think that in the case of a draw, the lower rated player should progress. He has got the better tourn grading performance after all. This does seen slightly unfair however when the rating differance is small.
Regarding the currant rule, perhaps if the two players have to advance somewhere, it should be out the door. Neither have won the match, while others who progress have.
They have a chance to progress both of them if they make an agreement.
(case A) If they agree to a draw in both games, then it's moral low, you think?
(case B) If they agree that they take one win each. Is the moral better?
Do you want to change the rules as to not count a draw at all? Then in case B is okay, but case A is not?
The problem with the proposal is that we can all have our opinion about it, but we cannot do anything about it. We cannot change the rules because if we do, then there will be much sweat for the game moderator. When, exactly, is the moral low, when is it okay?
Originally posted by FabianFnasYou misunderstand me. I meant if the MATCH was drawn, not individual games. The OP was talking about a KO tourn after all.
Two players are at the top in a tournaments next to last round.
They have a chance to progress both of them if they make an agreement.
(case A) If they agree to a draw in both games, then it's moral low, you think?
(case B) If they agree that they take one win each. Is the moral better?
Do you want to change the rules as to not count a draw at all? ...[text shortened]... re will be much sweat for the game moderator. When, exactly, is the moral low, when is it okay?
For me, the "Grandmaster draw" is fine and dandy in a round robin tourn. Unless all your competitors are from the USSR:-)
Okay. Since Im mentioned in the game, there was an agreement to draw early. I felt its unfortunate that 2 of the top 3 players in the tourney should meet in the first round. Having beaten Redmike several times in the past, I felt I'd rather face someone different, and have him advance as well. Its fair to both players, its not against the rules (as of yet).
[i]Originally posted by chessisagame[Hi chessisagame , i can see your logic re the top players meeting in the first round , but i have to say i completely disagree.
I felt its unfortunate that 2 of the top 3 players in the tourney should meet in the first round.
To win the tourney you will need to the BEST player overall through all the various rounds. To agree to draw so both top players can progress from one round seems seems a little unfair. Surely if you beat them in the first round you have a greater chance of winning the overall competition. Also for us lower rated players to see a top player go out because they are equally matched in an early round means we have more chance of progressing in future rounds , rather than if both top players just skip through.Whilst it is highly unlikely the lower rated players will win the tourney at least we gain some pleasure in achieving success from round to round.i love to enter the "Duals" but i doubt i will ever win one but the challenge is how far i can get ! and if higher rated players are matched in early rounds then that should be in the favour of us lower rated players.