Originally posted by SwissGambit [b]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.
The tournament groups are chosen randomly here - so one group could have 1500s, 1400s etc. and the next could have two 2200 players. Now, let's say the two 2200s crush all other opposition, y ...[text shortened]... 0 is advancing in the first group after winning outright against a much less impressive field.[/b]
So what? Why should two or more players advance from one section and only one from another? I know of no other competition that does this; all use some type of tiebreaker or another. And generally the last tiebreaker is a coin flip.
Automatically advancing the lower player in case of a tie would give him draw odds which is a serious advantage in chess. It might well effect how the games were played. A random determination would not.
Originally posted by Phlabibit How about this rule?
In the case of draws or ties in any round, the player with the lower rating (in last 100 days) will advance.
People deciding to draw or tie to both advance is a problem that often can't be proven (unless they say as much in the forums). This would be a way to make players try harder, and the underdog only would advance.
P-
...and then you get two players deliberately losing a few other games to lose points in order to advance in a touney they think they can win.
Originally posted by no1marauder So what? Why should two or more players advance from one section and only one from another? I know of no other competition that does this; all use some type of tiebreaker or another. And generally the last tiebreaker is a coin flip.
Automatically advancing the lower player in case of a tie would give him draw odds which is a serious ad ...[text shortened]... tage in chess. It might well effect how the games were played. A random determination would not.
I'm fine with tiebreakers based on chess results [not random]. Give me a chess-related form of tiebreak over a coin flip anyday, even if it means going over to RHP blitz and playing 5-minute until someone wins a game.
Edit: I do not support letting the lower-rated player advance on a tie, either.
Originally posted by adramforall ...and then you get two players deliberately losing a few other games to lose points in order to advance in a touney they think they can win.
Originally posted by SwissGambit I'm fine with tiebreakers based on chess results [not random]. Give me any chess-related form of tiebreak over a coin flip anyday, even if it means going over to RHP blitz and playing 5-minute until someone wins a game.
Single game tie breaker with random color pick isn't too harsh.... but will hold things up.
Originally posted by SwissGambit I'm fine with tiebreakers based on chess results [not random]. Give me a chess-related form of tiebreak over a coin flip anyday, even if it means going over to RHP blitz and playing 5-minute until someone wins a game.
At the risk of being categorized as an "arrogant American" who thinks the 5% of the human race who live in the US should rule the world, I would point out that USCF Rule 34E13 allows the use of a coin flip to break ties as a final resort.
Of course, head to head should be the first tie breaker but normally that will be split. A round robin tiebreaker in the USCF is the Sonneborn-Berger system where you add the final scores of the players you defeated and half the scores of the players you drew. Again, in tourneys with small sections, it would rarely break the tie.
I prefer the coin flip; that would also have the advantage of speeding up tourneys as Zakk pointed out.
EDIT: To be clear, I'd use the following tie breaks in order if the tie isn't broken by the prior method:
1) Head to head;
2) Sonneborn-Berger;
3) "Coin flip".
Originally posted by no1marauder At the risk of being categorized as an "arrogant American" who thinks the 5% of the human race who live in the US should rule the world, I would point out that USCF Rule 34E13 allows the use of a coin flip to break ties as a final resort.
Of course, head to head should be the first tie breaker but normally that will be split. A round ro ...[text shortened]... the coin flip; that would also have the advantage of speeding up tourneys as Zakk pointed out.
LOL....make sure it isn't a two headed coin... Must we follow USCF Rules at all cost?
Originally posted by Very Rusty LOL....make sure it isn't a two headed coin... Must we follow USCF Rules at all cost?
What tie break would you use, VR? Obviously, "coin flip" is a figure of speech; the Site Admins would use some random method like they do for pairing in the Random Tourneys.
Originally posted by no1marauder What tie break would you use, VR? Obviously, "coin flip" is a figure of speech; the Site Admins would use some random method like they do for pairing in the Random Tourneys.
To be serious: I think you shouldn't move on in a tie, there should be a playoff untill a winner is decided. On the other hand people could if they choose could really slow things down by drawing the playoff games too.
I really think it is wrong to just make a few moves and draw what do you do? If you make a rule about that, they will just let go 30 or more moves, and still draw. Perhaps You have the one set of play off games with each person using light and dark pieces. If still drawn, go to Phlabby's idea, and the lowest rating would move on.
Tied Players Advancing in Tourneys
16 Jan '09 19:51
Back to Top