19 Mar 10
Originally posted by chessisagameCan I suggest that from now on people look at the pairing. If it says Random then you should be prepared to play who is in front of you & play to win - regardless of their rating or perceived seeding in the tournament & regardless of the round (yes, even the 1st).
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.
If you want to have a final round of a duel with the top two rated players, please stick to Original paired tournaments.
Please do not try & turn a Random tournament into an Original.
19 Mar 10
Originally posted by Swiss ToniGood point.
Can I suggest that from now on people look at the pairing. If it says [b]Random then you should be prepared to play who is in front of you & play to win - regardless of their rating or perceived seeding in the tournament & regardless of the round (yes, even the 1st).
If you want to have a final round of a duel with the top two rated players, please ...[text shortened]... red tournaments.
Please do not try & turn a Random tournament into an Original.[/b]
Well made.
Shqt... I sound like a fan boy now.
19 Mar 10
Originally posted by peacedogI have an idea that I would like to put out there. How about as a trial the admins have a duel tournament with a Referee. Each round cannot progress until the Ref manually pushes it through, as opposed to the current system-automated process.
So what should the rule changes be, if any?
In a duel we all know there are many instances where the score may end 2-2 or 3-3 and many of these are legitimate, but with a ref they can spot a game drawn too early, and force a playoff at their discretion. Yes, it could delay the progression to the next round of the tournament but this would be a known factor for all entrants - just the same as we all know that anyone can use their full timebank & timeout allowance & holidays.
It is not a lot of work for the designated Referee - any pairing that finishes a tie just needs a quick look to see if it is a 3-move draw or not & if not, then they click the button for the next round to commence. If they believe that the drawn pairing is against the spitit of the game, they can enforce the re-match of one game (colour at random). If this ends in a draw (and it is a fair draw from the refs perspective) then both proceed as usual. Just as in athletics, maybe if the re-match is also perceived to not be in the spirit of the game then neither player progresses.
We have forum moderators & game moderators. Game mods spend a lot of time on their job but I don't see refing a tournament taking too much time or effort. Most of the time there is clearly nothing to do. They'd just have to click the button to start the next round.
19 Mar 10
Originally posted by peacedogSuppose the lower player is only 2 points lower rated ... still want to give him the break?
...and whats the thing against the lower player win on a tie vs a higher rated?
Is it not simpler?
or better yet, the old they both lose if there is no winner:-)
Furthermore, suppose he foresaw the tie and resigned a game or two outside of the tourney to make sure he was the lower rated at the right moment. Do we really want to encourage this sort of strategy to 'win' a section?
19 Mar 10
Originally posted by SwissGambitYour right.
Suppose the lower player is only 2 points lower rated ... still want to give him the break?
Furthermore, suppose he foresaw the tie and resigned a game or two outside of the tourney to make sure he was the lower rated at the right moment. Do we really want to encourage this sort of strategy to 'win' a section?
The only fair thing(for the others) is to let both lose and bring on the next round.?!
20 Mar 10
Originally posted by chessisagameCIG: The only ethics in internet chess is no cheating, otherwise pretty much anything goes. No one cheated, both players advanced, tough luck on everyone else.
I could say it was in the best interests of both of us to accept the draw and move on to the next round.
The only ethics in internet chess is no cheating, otherwise pretty much anything goes. No one cheated, both players advanced, tough luck on everyone else.
Your attitude sucks and is a disgrace to the game.
If you were really an Expert OTB player, you'd realize how unethical what you did was and you'd apologize for your misconduct and promise not to do it again.
20 Mar 10
Originally posted by chessisagame"The best interest of both" of you would be to fix to lose one and win one of your games (and this is in my opinion unethical) instead of drawing both of them early; early draws I definately dislike, however Redmike and you have violated the rules not.
I could say it was in the best interests of both of us to accept the draw and move on to the next round.
The only ethics in internet chess is no cheating, otherwise pretty much anything goes. No one cheated, both players advanced, tough luck on everyone else.
Anyway, in a RHP tourney I would be more glad to see the top players advancing after mutual draws instead of advancing by means of fixing one win and one loss respectively😵
20 Mar 10
Originally posted by black beetleWhat's the ethical difference between two players agreeing to two six move draws or agreeing to "win one, lose one" when the object in both cases is to have both advance without actually playing a real game?
"The best interest of both" of you would be to fix to lose one and win one of your games (and this is in my opinion unethical) instead of drawing both of them early; early draws I definately dislike, however Redmike and you have violated the rules not.
Anyway, in a RHP tourney I would be more glad to see the top players advancing after mutual draws instead of advancing by means of fixing one win and one loss respectively😵
20 Mar 10
Originally posted by no1marauderThe object in the latter case is not solely to have both advance without actually playing a real game, but also to score more points than the other players -and I consider this unethical. And of course the agreed draws is a condition that favours the third strongest player of the tournament😵
What's the ethical difference between two players agreeing to two six move draws or agreeing to "win one, lose one" when the object in both cases is to have both advance without actually playing a real game?
20 Mar 10
Originally posted by black beetleThis happened in a Duel tournament, genius.
The object in the latter case is not solely to have both advance without actually playing a real game, but also to score more points than the other players -and I consider this unethical. And of course the agreed draws is a condition that favours the third strongest player of the tournament😵
20 Mar 10
OK, so we need to come up with a solution to this problem. Does anyone have anything to add to my earlier suggestion of a trial tournament with a Referee?
If we can come up with something collectively here that could solve this problem in a duel we can then put it in Site Ideas & see if it gains any traction.
Nothing will get done or get better if we just moan about it. We have to come up with a solution.