Originally posted by RenarsRenars: in case this boils down to technicalities - I don't see *any* difference between pre-arranged pre-game draws and 5 move draws
well, I'm an ESL so I can be forgiven then, however:
Definitions of biased on the Web:
favoring one person or side over another
so if I was advocating your position then I wouldn't be biased? 😉 I'm not *trying* anything, Paul, people can read for themselves and make their own judgement on where they stand, it's not like we're in a court and ...[text shortened]... see [b]*any* difference between pre-arranged pre-game draws and 5 move draws[/b]
Neither does the USCF.
I do not believe that rule was already posted in the thread as claimed- if I somehow missed that I am sorry.
The operative phrase is "to fix or throw games", which I do not believe has been established here.
Players tend to offer or accept draws when the risk of losing outweighs the gain of winning. There is a reason why players are allowed to offer draws, as opposed to draws only occuring in repeated positions, stalemate, or insufficient losing chances. That kind of action is not considered fixing or throwing a game.
Originally posted by Paul LeggettWHAT??? Are you serious?
I do not believe that rule was already posted in the thread as claimed- if I somehow missed that I am sorry.
The operative phrase is "to fix or throw games", which I do not believe has been established here.
Players tend to offer or accept draws when the risk of losing outweighs the gain of winning. There is a reason why players are allowed to [i ...[text shortened]... insufficient losing chances. That kind of action is not considered fixing or throwing a game.
Anyone claiming that two players agreeing to two six moves draw is just a standard practice is a liar. Of course it's been established that they did it to "fix the games" - one of them has admitted it in the thread!
Your argument is ridiculous given the facts established in this case.
EDIT: From page 2: chessisagame: 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.
page 3: I could say it was in the best interests of both of us to accept the draw and move on to the next round.
So you think if the same thing happened in a USCF sanctioned tournament for the reasons given the players wouldn't be sanctioned? I say you're full of it.
Originally posted by no1marauderA liar. I think I'll rest on that one. Have a nice day.
WHAT??? Are you serious?
Anyone claiming that two players agreeing to two six moves draw is just a standard practice is a liar. Of course it's been established that they did it to "fix the games" - one of them has admitted it in the thread!
Your argument is ridiculous given the facts established in this case.
I understand why people get bothered about it this but there is very little
that can be done to stop the top players from drawing with each other.
It's unfair and against the spirit of the game but how do you stop it?
Blame the pairing system for throwing them together. (make it seeded?)
Band the tournament so there are no 'stars'.
The referees idea is a non-starter. They have had some of the worlds
best TD's trying to solve this OTB problem for years. What can a ref on here do?
No1's original solution that only one player goes through is sound but the
method of deciding this needs fine tuning.
Flip a coin, purely random, the lower graded player?
I'd go with the lower rated player, then the higher graded player would
be forced to do something.
However enter the cunning mind of SG who correctly pointed out that if it
was the lower graded player then one of the players may start shredding
points by resigning other games to become the lowest graded player.
I find this possible and plausible scenario quite hilarious and want to see it in place.
Watching two players who have the same plan of losing grading points as rapidly
as possible would be brilliant.
So to try and draw a line under this. How about someone, with No.1's permission -
it was his idea, dragging it to Site Ideas and proposing one player goes
though and that player is the lower graded player.
The other solution appears to be get better, get you grade higher and then
you yourself will be in a position to stop the good guys from agreeing short draws
because you will be one of them.
Originally posted by greenpawn34I'd prefer random, but if you use the lower rated player goes through why not just use their rating at the start of the tournament? This would stop the sandbagging shenanigans SG mentioned.
I understand why people get bothered about it this but there is very little
that can be done to stop the top players from drawing with each other.
It's unfair and against the spirit of the game but how do you stop it?
Blame the pairing system for throwing them together. (make it seeded?)
Band the tournament so there are no 'stars'.
The refer ...[text shortened]... osition to stop the good guys from agreeing short draws
because you will be one of them.
Originally posted by no1marauderNow that seems like some kind of reasonable solution.
I'd prefer random, but if you use the lower rated player goes through why not just use their rating at the start of the tournament? This would stop the sandbagging shenanigans SG mentioned.
It is a bit unfair if there is only a small rating differance but better that than the currant situation.
OK then.
The grades at the time of the tournament started.
Though you are missing out on a whole bukcet load of fun watching these
lads shedding grading points quicker than a snake sheds it's skin.
So if some non-sub can click across to Site Idea and make the proposal
then the subs on here can rec it.
(perhaps PM it to No1. first to make sure it's all nice and clear)
"...*any* difference between pre-arranged pre-game draws and 5 move draws."
OTB Exerience.
The 5 move draw tends to be 'cleaner' and is done during the game
without any prior agreement. It's in the best interest for both players
to draw this game so a draw is offered before the game spins out of control.
The players know this will produce mumblings and grumblings but
are prepared to live with it.
The pre-arranged 'show' draw wil try not to attract attention and may go on for
30 very tepid moves. Nigh impossible to stop or prove.
Agreeing a short draw so both leading players can split 1st and 2nd is
a very common practise and you will find many/all professional players
defending this if it involves just those two players.
The money was going to go between them anyway. It's up to them
how it was split.
The worst case is the deliberate throwing of a game so you can get an agreed
share of first prize.
This is done when there are other players involved who can also win the tournament.
This is low business and in some highly suspect cases prize money has
been witheld because the losing player has been very unimaginative about
how he losses producing a ridiculous loss.
However even here one must not jumped to conclusions.
I witnessed of a case where a GM in the last round 'fell' into a opening trap
older than God's dog giving his friend over £1,000 prize money.
(The game was being beamed live to another room and a howl of protest went up).
I made my way to the tournament hall when I met the GM who had blundered
in the corridor.
He was in near tears.
Not only had nerves got the better of him, but everyone would think he did
it on purpose.
He gathered himself and went back to the board fighting every inch of the way.
He lost but it he was last to finish.
Here is the trap the Black GM fell into.
