Early drawn game. Fair to competition?

I just noticed that there's a game in a tournament in which I entered in which 2 highly ranked players (1800, 2000) only played their game a few moves (about 6 I think) before they both agreed to a draw in both games. Because this is a dual, I believe both players will advance to the next round. I guess my issues are thus:

1.) This seems to kill the spirit of competition in a couple ways. For one, as a lower ranked player (1400 or so), I'd love to see one of these guys taken out early- less chance I get paired with one of them)

2.) It seems to go against the spirit of the site and the tournament. I mean, if we all did this, we could all advance indefinitely. But where's the fun in that?

3.) To me, it's like a cop out. "Gee, I see that we're two pretty highly ranked players. I bet if we agree to a draw we'll get more favorable matchups in the next round. I don't want to take the risk of losing in the first round, do you?"

It just seems wrong to me.

Please let me know if I'm the one out of line here, and this is fairly typical.

I have never understood why it works that way. It has always seemed ripe for abuse.

Originally posted by hagwas
I just noticed that there's a game in a tournament in which I entered in which 2 highly ranked players (1800, 2000) only played their game a few moves (about 6 I think) before they both agreed to a draw in both games. Because this is a dual, I believe both players will advance to the next round. I guess my issues are thus:

1.) This seems to kill the spiri ...[text shortened]... e.

Please let me know if I'm the one out of line here, and this is fairly typical.

Name and shame.

Game 7256798
Game 7256797

Originally posted by hagwas
I just noticed that there's a game in a tournament in which I entered in which 2 highly ranked players (1800, 2000) only played their game a few moves (about 6 I think) before they both agreed to a draw in both games. Because this is a dual, I believe both players will advance to the next round. I guess my issues are thus:

1.) This seems to kill the spiri ...[text shortened]... e.

Please let me know if I'm the one out of line here, and this is fairly typical.

Agreeing a draw after 3 1/2 and 4 moves must have been mutually agreed... even grandmasters can't see that far ahead !!!!! I don't know if it is against the rules, but it should be.

Originally posted by Traveling Again
Game 7256798
Game 7256797

Verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry interesting!

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.

Originally posted by hagwas
I just noticed that there's a game in a tournament in which I entered in which 2 highly ranked players (1800, 2000) only played their game a few moves (about 6 I think) before they both agreed to a draw in both games. Because this is a dual, I believe both players will advance to the next round. I guess my issues are thus:

1.) This seems to kill the spiri ...[text shortened]... e.

Please let me know if I'm the one out of line here, and this is fairly typical.

What's that Bobby Fischer? The Soviets are cheating? 🙂

Originally posted by no1marauder
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.

Hmmm, skimming that thread it doesn't seem like a solution since in the event the draws occur through honest play:
- Many felt sending one opponent through based on higher/lower rating or by a random decision was unfair to that player.
- Holding a tiebreak game would hold up the tournament and there isn't any real way to do it as a blitz game.


So how about in the next round players are seeded by the number of points they have scored so far and arranged into groups that way? Both players would still advance in the case of a tie but they would have an incentive not to play short draws.

Originally posted by mcreynolds
Hmmm, skimming that thread it doesn't seem like a solution since in the event the draws occur through honest play:
- Many felt sending one opponent through based on higher/lower rating or by a random decision was unfair to that player.
- Holding a tiebreak game would hold up the tournament and there isn't any real way to do it as a blitz game.

...[text shortened]... d still advance in the case of a tie but they would have an incentive not to play short draws.

This sounds like a start to a solution!

Originally posted by mcreynolds
Hmmm, skimming that thread it doesn't seem like a solution since in the event the draws occur through honest play:
- Many felt sending one opponent through based on higher/lower rating or by a random decision was unfair to that player.
- Holding a tiebreak game would hold up the tournament and there isn't any real way to do it as a blitz game.

...[text shortened]... d still advance in the case of a tie but they would have an incentive not to play short draws.

How's that a solution? The incentive to play short draws to advance is still there.

Originally posted by mcreynolds
Hmmm, skimming that thread it doesn't seem like a solution since in the event the draws occur through honest play:
- Many felt sending one opponent through based on higher/lower rating or by a random decision was unfair to that player.
- Holding a tiebreak game would hold up the tournament and there isn't any real way to do it as a blitz game.

...[text shortened]... d still advance in the case of a tie but they would have an incentive not to play short draws.

One of the main reasons to agree to an early draw is because you hope that your opponent may be eliminated by someone else later in the tournament. Why not have it that if a round is tied the same players get to play each other in the next round? This doesn't slow the tournament down and makes short draws pretty pointless.

Having players play the same pairing in the next round only allows them to do it again to advance, until either A. They end up in finals. B. Eventually they're forced to play others. Unfortunately, I don't see an answer to this right now. Perhaps a penalty matchup? Both players then face the other 2 highest ranking players in the tournament in the following round?

There have been many debates on this. (Especially, after I did it!) I played about 8-10 moves and offered 2 draws to the other high guy in my section. I'm not going to say whether it is right or wrong, but it brakes no rules. Here is the REAL trouble I had with it. I had a very hard fought draw with a much lower rated player in that section. This put a lot of pressure on me, and all I could do is hope that the other guy drew one of his games too. Only by shear luck, did he draw too. To summarize, it isn't just a free ride, like most people think. The two strong players put tremendous pressure on themselves to not lose (or draw!) any of the other games. Also, if these same two players agreed to win one and lose one, they would each walk away with 3 points instead of 2.

Edit: Compare these three scenarios.

1. They agree to draw both games, and each strong player walks away with TWO points.

2. They win one each, and each player walks away with THREE points.

3. One of them wins both games, and the highest player in the section(!!!) walks away with SIX points.

Now, which one would you rather occur???

Edit Number 2:

Oops ... You said a duel. I have no idea why they would do it in a duel. I was only referring to a big tournament with all the players in a bunch.

My first post in days, and I put my foot in my mouth. LOL

Edit Numbers 3-4: I can't spell either!

Originally posted by hagwas
Please let me know if I'm the one out of line here, and this is fairly typical.

this type of "sportsmanship" has been quite fervently discussed in some other thread before... if I'm not mistaken, both of the 'arch enemies' have just contributed to this thread, too... for what it's worth, I personally believe that premature draws should be frowned upon (no matter what GP34 says)