Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Site Ideas Forum

Site Ideas Forum

  1. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    16 Jan '09 15:49
    It has come to my attention because of the discussion starting on page 3 here: http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=103409&page=1

    that certain unscrupulous players are, if they are the two highest rated players in a tournament section, are agreeing to draws with each other before a serious game is commenced with the object that this will leave the two players with a virtually certainty to advance.
    These players avoid any risk of playing a similarly rated player plus avoid the time and effort of competing against such a player in that round. IMO this is unethical and unsporting behavior; in fact, it is specifically banned in USCF OTB tourneys.

    Admittedly it would be hard to enforce a rule banning such a practice as players so inclined could always mask their dishonest intentions by playing a few extra moves. Thus, the obvious solution is to change the present rule where players advance if they tie for first place in their section. I would suggest that either; A) No player advance in case of a tie (after all, they didn't win their section); or B) That the Site Admins decide who advances randomly. Either solution would end this unethical practice.

    Comments?
  2. 16 Jan '09 16:04
    the only way not to advance the top 2 players in a group would be to use the head to head between the 2 players has the deciding factor to decide which one goes through, if that was level get them to play a duel until someone advances.

    you can't have no one go through in a group.

    but i think it should be kept the way it is, in a 4 man group i finished join top with 3 players, under this rule that would mean playing another 4 games that i just don't want to play. i should've won the group outright and my punishment is playing again in the final round along with the other group winners who will brush aside the other 2 players that where in my group while i have to work harder for the wins.
  3. 16 Jan '09 16:06 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by trev33
    the only way not to advance the top 2 players in a group would be to use the head to head between the 2 players has the deciding factor to decide which one goes through, if that was level get them to play a duel until someone advances.

    you can't have no one go through in a group.

    but i think it should be kept the way it is, in a 4 man group i finished sh aside the other 2 players that where in my group while i have to work harder for the wins.
  4. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    16 Jan '09 16:09
    Sorry, I was letting my nephew use my computer and forgot to change back to my account before I posted.

    I asked:

    Suppose all four players in a section decided to agree to draws after one move in all their games.

    Should they all advance?
  5. 16 Jan '09 16:15 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Sorry, I was letting my nephew use my computer and forgot to change back to my account before I posted.

    I asked:

    Suppose all four players in a section decided to agree to draws after one move in all their games.

    Should they all advance?
    how likely is that?

    actually i looked at it again because i drew with 3 players at the top there's going to be one more round of 8 players split into 2 groups instead of a final round of 6 if i had of won my group. so it might not be all bad.
  6. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    16 Jan '09 16:16
    Originally posted by trev33
    how likely is that?
    If it's perfectly allowable for two players to do it, then it's perfectly allowable for four players (or more) to do it, isn't it?
  7. 16 Jan '09 16:21
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    If it's perfectly allowable for two players to do it, then it's perfectly allowable for four players (or more) to do it, isn't it?
    i never said it was right for 2 players to agree to a draw after 6 moves, it's not but it's not very likely that all 4 players in a group will decide on all draws but if by some freak they did manage to finish the group on level points it shows that they where all strong enough to advance and should do.
  8. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    16 Jan '09 16:25 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by trev33
    i never said it was right for 2 players to agree to a draw after 6 moves, it's not but it's not very likely that all 4 players in a group will decide on all draws but if by some freak they did manage to finish the group on level points it shows that they where all strong enough to advance and should do.
    There is a flaw in the system. It is already being exploited by unscrupulous players. My hypothetical remains possible the way the situation is now.

    It could be argued that by failing to win their section, NO player has shown themselves "strong enough to advance". Why should players who can't outright win their section be treated equally as those who have? In most competitions, ties are NOT rewarded equally as wins.
  9. 16 Jan '09 16:39
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    There is a flaw in the system. It is already being exploited by unscrupulous players. My hypothetical remains possible the way the situation is now.

    It could be argued that by failing to win their section, NO player has shown themselves "strong enough to advance". Why should players who can't outright win their section be treated equally as those who have? In most competitions, ties are NOT rewarded equally as wins.
    lets say hypothetical 3 2000s are drawn in a group with a 1800 and 2 of the 2000 finish the group on the same number of points with no draws or foul play in the group it's just the way it turned out which it regularly does here.

    and in another group i'm paired with 3 1300 players and i top the group.

    are you saying because the 2 2000 players tied that they shouldn't advance to the next round with me? because that's just ridiculous.
  10. Standard member Dragon Fire
    Lord of all beasts
    16 Jan '09 16:45
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Sorry, I was letting my nephew use my computer and forgot to change back to my account before I posted.

    I asked:

    Suppose all four players in a section decided to agree to draws after one move in all their games.

    Should they all advance?
    Suppose all 4 lost all their games (with white) by timeouts?

    Should they all advance?
  11. Standard member Dragon Fire
    Lord of all beasts
    16 Jan '09 16:47
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    There is a flaw in the system. It is already being exploited by unscrupulous players. My hypothetical remains possible the way the situation is now.

    It could be argued that by failing to win their section, NO player has shown themselves "strong enough to advance". Why should players who can't outright win their section be treated equally as those who have? In most competitions, ties are NOT rewarded equally as wins.
    I don't know why you are pushing this bizarre idea.

    You are not even a subscriber and therefore you cannot play in tournaments.

    Please stop trying to push your insane ideas on to others when it has no impact on you.
  12. Standard member SwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    16 Jan '09 17:00
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Thus, the obvious solution is to change the present rule where players advance if they tie for first place in their section. I would suggest that either; A) No player advance in case of a tie (after all, they didn't win their section); or B) That the Site Admins decide who advances randomly. Either solution would end this unethical practice.

    Comments?
    I also strongly dislike pre-arranged draws; however, this proposal, if adopted, would unjustly punish players who fight hard in every game, and yet end up tied for first in a tourney section.
  13. Standard member zakkwylder
    Mouth for war
    16 Jan '09 17:36
    I like the idea of randomly advancing somebody in the case of an all out draw. Many of the duel tournaments take well over a year to finish on account of 1/3 of the groups going 3-3. Sure somebody will be a little peeved, I'm sure the day would come where I myself would be disappointed. However it does slow progression a great deal when the groups tie, all players advance and the next round is adversely affected.
  14. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    16 Jan '09 17:44
    Originally posted by Dragon Fire
    Suppose all 4 lost all their games (with white) by timeouts?

    Should they all advance?
    No, but they would under the present system.

    They wouldn't under my "bizarre" idea.
  15. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    16 Jan '09 17:45 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Dragon Fire
    I don't know why you are pushing this bizarre idea.

    You are not even a subscriber and therefore you cannot play in tournaments.

    Please stop trying to push your insane ideas on to others when it has no impact on you.
    http://www.timeforchess.com/tournament/view.php?tid=2705

    I realize this idea would ruin the unethical strategy that you have used in the past. Tough titty.