1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaIt's unfair. Why should the higher rated player AUTOMATICALLY advance in case of a tie? He hasn't done anything in the tourney to merit special treatment.
What is the defect of letting the higher rated player pass?
And it might not solve the original problem; the second rated player might be willing to take draws to gain a few rating points even though it might hurt them in the tourney.
You could make it the lower graded player - then the high graded
player won't be so keen to offer a draw.
I know you have crossed this path before and that gives the lower
graded player draw odds. But some good imaginative minds have
been trying to solve this problem.
This appears to be the best solution.
Originally posted by greenpawn34I said this before, but I think that's a very bad idea.
You could make it the lower graded player - then the high graded
player won't be so keen to offer a draw.
I know you have crossed this path before and that gives the lower
graded player draw odds. But some good imaginative minds have
been trying to solve this problem.
This appears to be the best solution.
It encourages resigning games and sandbagging. I'd still prefer the higher rated player advancing to a random draw, despite no1's correct mention of the possible drawbacks, but I think that the lower one advancing is the worst of all options.
Originally posted by no1marauderShrug. No new arguments here.
That's a ridiculous statement considering that random factors already heavily influence who advances in tournaments here. Thus, your evaluation is idiotic.
The present system, where everybody in a group can advance and which encourages the fixing of games, is a mess.
1 edit
Originally posted by greenpawn34Ugh. Maybe attractive in the way an ugly girl is after you get drunk enough.
The coin flipping option is looking awfully attractive.
I'd rather keep the system as is and let tons of tied players go through to the next round. As it is, you can make a half-arsed effort in a game, playing only to draw, and nobody will notice or care if you play out enough moves.
1 edit
Here is a novel concept. Make them playoff before advancing. The tournaments are so long now, what is another few months. Then, if you really want a twist, eliminate draws entirely. Require all wins only of those to move on. That stops the fixing. Of course no one will see the brilliance in this idea, they will only see the heightened degree of difficulty and leave it as it is.
1 edit
Originally posted by SwissGambitWhereas in a random tiebreak system, you would be encouraged to make an effort to win every game against each opponent as draws could not clinch a spot in a tiebreak playoff or favor one equally situated in the tourney over another as in the other proposals.
Ugh. Maybe attractive in the way an ugly girl is after you get drunk enough.
I'd rather keep the system as is and let tons of tied players go through to the next round. As it is, you can make a half-arsed effort in a game, playing only to draw, and nobody will notice or care if you play out enough moves.
Originally posted by greenpawn34I agree with you.
You could make it the lower graded player - then the high graded
player won't be so keen to offer a draw.
I know you have crossed this path before and that gives the lower
graded player draw odds. But some good imaginative minds have
been trying to solve this problem.
This appears to be the best solution.
It seems the ones that are yelling the loudest about changing things, are the ones who play in very few tournaments themselves. It makes me wonder, if they get everything changed exactly as they want it, will it mean they will be then playing in more tournaments?
Originally posted by SwissGambitI would agree with this. The idea that the outcome of a chess tournament is decided based on chance disagrees with me.
The random proposal has the most serious defect of them all: it takes a game of skill and makes it into a game of chance.
Thus, my evaluation of your proposal remains accurate.
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 31933
1 edit
Originally posted by shortcircuitWhy not make the play-off 5 minute games? Who would agree to draws if they knew that was their fate? Why the heck does the scoring system give you 3 for a win and 1 for a draw? If decisive results are encouraged then lets require them! The 2 games that were listed on the other thread are shameful, disgusting and completely without justification. They are a slap in the face to every player on this site.
Here is a novel concept. Make them playoff before advancing. The tournaments are so long now, what is another few months. Then, if you really want a twist, eliminate draws entirely. Require all wins only of those to move on. That stops the fixing. Of course no one will see the brilliance in this idea, they will only see the heightened degree of difficulty and leave it as it is.