Originally posted by @moonbus@64squaresofpain made a comment on the announcement thread
I'm not sure Russ even knows that this is an issue. Has anyone brought it to his attention, that a 4-move checkmate has been dis-counted? The score on that challenge currently stands at 11 points to the 'winner'; it should have split 6:6, as shortcircuit said.
Feed back time
Originally posted by @moonbusi meant 3 moves in total (from both sides) - then the fools mate would be count legitimately?
As the above PGN demonstrates, even a three-move automatic dis-count would catch dolphins in the tunafish net. Not a good solution to the problem.
Sorry if im sounding dense (which i probably am)
Originally posted by @silverstrikerThe PGN I cited has only 2 moves. An automatic cut-off which allows that game would have to cut in at move nr. one. But the number of moves is not the issue. The issue is people throwing games. If the cut-off were 3 or 6 or 12 or 24 moves, then people bent on throwing games could simply make shuttle moves (Nf3, Ng1, Nf3, Ng1 etc.) until 4, 7, 13, or 25 moves had elapsed and thereby defeat the automatic cut-off.
i meant 3 moves in total (from both sides) - then the fools mate would be count legitimately?
Sorry if im sounding dense (which i probably am)
It is pretty clear that in the game in question, one player got careless and the other player seized the day; it does not appear to be a deliberately thrown game, so the game should be counted in the challenge score but unfortunately it has been dis-counted by the automatic cut-off. In this instance, that one game result makes the difference between a 6:6 split, and 11+ points for one clan and 11- points for the other clan. This is a very unsatisfactory and unintended result of having an automatic cut-off. It could just as well have happened at move 6,7,8, or 12, or 24, and that is the objection against an automatic cut-off, in principle, regardless what number of moves is set as the cut-off point.
Thank you all for the feedback. Much appreciated.
In the meantime Russ has gotten back to me.
The rule stays in place, understandably. But unfortunately no exception can/will be made for this valid win.
It is what it is.
But just so you all know: "Pion van Oranje" is much stronger than the standings reflect 😉
Originally posted by @bart-kortumbart,
Thank you all for the feedback. Much appreciated.
In the meantime Russ has gotten back to me.
The rule stays in place, understandably. But unfortunately no exception can/will be made for this valid win.
It is what it is.
But just so you all know: "Pion van Oranje" is much stronger than the standings reflect 😉
Most are stronger than their ratings indicate, this is no surprise to anyone!
-VR