Originally posted by PhlabibitDefinitely the higher rated should advance.
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-
If not, resigning in some non-tournament games could be of advantage to the player.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderRound 1, Group 1 of Tournament 4035 would be a lot of coin flips.
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 od:
1) Head to head;
2) Sonneborn-Berger;
3) "Coin flip".
If we must eliminate all but one player, isn't a blitz showdown better than flipping coins? Even the "armageddon" system used in some tournaments [White gets 6 minutes to Black's 5; but Black has draw odds] is better than a random selection, IMO.
Admittedly, this runs into logistical problems with players from different timezones having to be online at the same time.
1 edit
Originally posted by SwissGambitThat would be a far less silly result than all 4 advancing. If the same thing had happened in the other section, should all 8 have advanced to the final of an 8 man tournament?
So in Round 1, Group 1 of Tournament 4035 - it comes down to multiple coin flips?!
EDIT: You do understand that "coin flip" is not meant literally, don't you?
Originally posted by no1marauderI think the four should have had a tiebreak playoff at shorter time controls, with the winner advancing [and play continuing until there is a definitive winner]. Yes, this will hold up the tournament, but this is a lesser evil than a random determination.
That would be a far less silly result than all 4 advancing. If the same thing had happened in the other section, should all 8 have advanced to the final of an 8 man tournament?
EDIT: You do understand that "coin flip" is not meant literally, don't you?
Originally posted by SwissGambitI Agree, always best to advance by having earned it in a playoff!
I think the four should have had a tiebreak playoff at shorter time controls, with the winner advancing [and play continuing until there is a definitive winner]. Yes, this will hold up the tournament, but this is a lesser evil than a random determination.
Someone is always going to whine about something anyways. 😉
Originally posted by SwissGambitTournaments take too long as it is. Adding an extra layer of games to break the tie isn't feasible on a CC site.
I think the four should have had a tiebreak playoff at shorter time controls, with the winner advancing [and play continuing until there is a definitive winner]. Yes, this will hold up the tournament, but this is a lesser evil than a random determination.
Originally posted by PalynkaYou can tell your friends, "I changed someone's mind on the interwebz today"! It would be a deterrent to sandbagging, another big problem at RHP.
Definitely the higher rated should advance.
If not, resigning in some non-tournament games could be of advantage to the player.
P-
Originally posted by PhlabibitIt seems to me that the rule is OK as is; for, if the two stronger players of each group do want to get an unfair advantage, they will simply agree to lose one and win one.
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-
But in fact the specific rule "as is" favours the third stronger player. And, after the first rounds, the groups will be constantly full of players of almost equal strength; in such a case two 2100s will have difficulty to decide to draw if the third stronger player is an 2070.
I hope my point is clear. I am done with this issue.
Best regards to the admins and to every chessplayer who enjoyes the royal game at this superb site.-
Originally posted by no1marauderWell No.1, I have to say you are man of your principles.
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 obj ...[text shortened]... advances randomly. Either solution would end this unethical practice.
Comments?
For sheer devilment I scanned your games looking for a short draw.
None!
Infact most went right down to the wire.
If I'd found one I would posted it with an OOPS!
Cannot see what really wrong with a tactcial draw.
I got scared witless when I recently logged on and saw 14 games waiting
I don't know how these guys can handle 50 or more games.
If someone had offered a quick draw I would have considered it to
drop the load.
I love the idea of the lower graded player going through but
forget the 100 day rule.
You can envisage players delaying their tournament games to
accept open challenges v low graded opponents and losing to shed
100's of grading points.
Suspect that process is done automatically so any change will
require a re-write and this will mean quite a few rec's for Russ & co.
to accept it.
If you come up with a good solution then patent it - TD's all over
the world have been trying to stop the short or pre-agreed draw.
.....er...that's it.
Originally posted by greenpawn34When I say lower rated in past 100 days, I mean highest rating in past 100 days.
I love the idea of the lower graded player going through but
forget the 100 day rule.
You can envisage players delaying their tournament games to
accept open challenges v low graded opponents and losing to shed
100's of grading points.
That way you can't sandbag off the 100's of points. The lower rated players based on their highest rating in past 100 days.
P-
So maybe, to discourage quick draws in tournaments...
1) The player with most points proceeds.
2) In case of a tie, the player with the most wins proceeds.
3) In case it is still tied, the player with the most moves made in drawn games proceeds.
4) In case it is still tied, both/all tied players proceed.
Originally posted by GatecrasherNot a bad way of deciding a tie break. It would get my vote.
So maybe, to discourage quick draws in tournaments...
1) The player with most points proceeds.
2) In case of a tie, the player with the most wins proceeds.
3) In case it is still tied, the player with the most moves made in drawn games proceeds.
4) In case it is still tied, both/all tied players proceed.
1 edit
Originally posted by GatecrasherJust clarify this quickly, because I think I may be misunderstanding:
So maybe, to discourage quick draws in tournaments...
1) The player with most points proceeds.
2) In case of a tie, the player with the most wins proceeds.
3) In case it is still tied, the player with the most moves made in drawn games proceeds.
4) In case it is still tied, both/all tied players proceed.
When you say "most points", "most wins" and "most moves in drawn games" - you are referring to the specific tournament, right?
What will happen in smaller groups like duals, 3 & 4 player groups? According to what I understand, then your points 1, 2 & 3 will be bypassed and both high rated players will just go through.
Shouldn't point 4 then be the virtual coin flip, or like Palynka proposed - the higher rated player should just be declared the winner?