- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 31933
Originally posted by SwissGambitCome on - the original example cited was disgusting. We all recognize that competitions have hard and fast rules AND social norms. I personally hate the 3 and 1 scoring but I understand that it was adopted (before my time) to encourage decisive results. I am not above offering a draw when the game no longer has meaning but to do it solely to take advantage of a hole in the rules is clearly an insult to every player in that tournament. Some people around here think it is OK to cheat by using outside assistance (to break a rule) simply because "after all how does it really hurt someone, they still have to find good moves?!" If that becomes the common attitude I won't remain a subscriber. I am glad the site admins take steps to root those people out (altho some are obviously avoiding detection.) Likewise they should modify the rules when necessary to prevent the abuse of the honest players by those who will not be constrained by the dictates of sportsmanship. I would be quite happy if we adopted the rule that lowest rated player goes thru. I won't enter another duel until something is done and I encourage others who feel that this is outrageous to do the same.
'3 for a win and 1 for a draw' scoring should already be enough to discourage draws. If people do it anyway and advance, then the rest of the field is probably so weak that they had no chance in any case. 😵
Originally posted by TerrierJackHow exactly should the rules be modded to stop short draws? Every proposal I have seen creates more problems than it solves.
Come on - the original example cited was disgusting. We all recognize that competitions have hard and fast rules AND social norms. I personally hate the 3 and 1 scoring but I understand that it was adopted (before my time) to encourage decisive results. I am not above offering a draw when the game no longer has meaning but to do it solely to take advanta ...[text shortened]... il something is done and I encourage others who feel that this is outrageous to do the same.
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 31933
Originally posted by SwissGambitThe complaint is about duel tournaments (where players can benefit from short draws.) Let the lower rated player thru in case of a draw. No benefit - no bad behavior - simple.
How exactly should the rules be modded to stop short draws? Every proposal I have seen creates more problems than it solves.
Originally posted by TerrierJackIf this will be a new rule, then we will see an explosion in the number of sandbaggers.
The complaint is about duel tournaments (where players can benefit from short draws.) Let the lower rated player thru in case of a draw. No benefit - no bad behavior - simple.
If I'm forced to draw a lower rated opponent in a final game in a tournament, then a few strategic losses can do the trick.
Immoral? Yes of course. It would be much better to keep the todays rules and have a new round.
Originally posted by FabianFnasNot if you use your highest ever rating as the starting point!
If this will be a new rule, then we will see an explosion in the number of sandbaggers.
If I'm forced to draw a lower rated opponent in a final game in a tournament, then a few strategic losses can do the trick.
Immoral? Yes of course. It would be much better to keep the todays rules and have a new round.
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 31933
Originally posted by FabianFnasPlease explain this to me. Since the proposed rule only applies to duel tournaments I don't see how sandbagging helps you. Why would a supposedly inferior but higher rated player agree to draw with you so you could advance?
If this will be a new rule, then we will see an explosion in the number of sandbaggers.
If I'm forced to draw a lower rated opponent in a final game in a tournament, then a few strategic losses can do the trick.
Immoral? Yes of course. It would be much better to keep the todays rules and have a new round.
Originally posted by TerrierJackI don't understand this identical debate is conducted in two different threads...?
Please explain this to me. Since the proposed rule only applies to duel tournaments I don't see how sandbagging helps you. Why would a supposedly inferior but higher rated player agree to draw with you so you could advance?
I have answered in the other thread. Do you want me to answer the same question here too?
If I can force a draw, you don't have to agree. If I can reduce a position enough I can claim a draw. Stalemate generates a draw, so does a trippel consecutive position when claimed. If you offer a draw, I can quickly lose some games to have a lower rating than you, and then accept the draw.
If a method appears to have a draw, with or without your consent, and this lead to a tournament win for me, then I take my chances.
My point is that the todays rules is better than the suggested new rule.
I still prefer the suggestion of the tied players having to "play off" for the group win but others rightly pointed out it may not be a lot of use in say a Quartet where all 4 players in one group tie for points.
In a Duel (or any other where it's two players tied in the group) a one-off game (colour at random) for the win is my preferred option.
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 31933
Originally posted by FabianFnas(sorry I just didn't want to miss your explanation.)
I don't understand this identical debate is conducted in two different threads...?
I have answered in the other thread. Do you want me to answer the same question here too?
If I can force a draw, you don't have to agree. If I can reduce a position enough I can claim a draw. Stalemate generates a draw, so does a trippel consecutive position when claime ...[text shortened]... I take my chances.
My point is that the todays rules is better than the suggested new rule.
Don't buy it. Sure you can lose games any time you want and suffer the consequences in other tournaments and matches. Be my guest. How many games would the higher rated player in the example given have to lose to advance over his opponent? Once you have lost your 100 or so games to go below my rating why would I agree to a draw? I would rather see that than have two players advance by not playing a game. Why don't all players in duel tourneys just agree draws so they can keep advancing? Wouldn't that make a complete joke out of the current system? (Hint: it is a joke now!) In effect, the current system gives both players draw odds. Why use a 3-1 scoring if you are going to do that? Players should advance. If I'm the high rated player and I don't advance because I blunder one game or was too lazy to play either game or my opponent held me to 2 draws I am quite prepared to exit that tournament. There are plenty more. I expect to lose. I don't expect that others will advance beyond me by not even playing.
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 31933
Originally posted by SwissGambitBTW - for non-duels (like a sprint-split) the final 2 players do playoff until one wins. (I won my first tournament that way. I even offered a draw in the last game when I was a piece ahead - it affected no one, my opponent could have refused if he thought he had chances to win and even the score - no shame on either side - we played 4 hard-fought games.)
This has the disadvantage of holding up the tournament. Also, what if the playoff game ends in a draw? 😵
Originally posted by TerrierJack(1) Why would I like to see my opponent advance to the next round? What good does that bring to me? I want to be the only one to advance. that's the point of it all - to be the only one in the top, ie win the tournament.
(sorry I just didn't want to miss your explanation.)
Don't buy it. Sure you can lose games any time you want and suffer the consequences in other tournaments and matches. Be my guest. How many games would the higher rated player in the example given have to lose to advance over his opponent? Once you have lost your 100 or so games to go below my ratin ...[text shortened]... I expect to lose. I don't expect that others will advance beyond me by not even playing.
(2) In a stalemate, you don't have to agree to a draw. It comes automatically without even asking you. In a 3-fold repetition, I can easily claim a draw, I don't even have to ask you. There are other situations, where you can be forced to accept a draw, or else you lose.
(3) Sometimes I can easily decide to lose a few games in exchange to win a tournament. I suppose I'm not the only one. It depends how much you value a tournament win contra wins in separate games. There are plenty of sandbaggers, you know.
I don't like the suggestion that a draw should be any other effect than just a draw ( = no win). I don't see any disadvantage to let the rules of today rule the future.
To use your wordings: The suggestion is a joke.
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 31933
Originally posted by FabianFnas1) Defeat your opponent.
(1) Why would I like to see my opponent advance to the next round? What good does that bring to me? I want to be the only one to advance. that's the point of it all - to be the only one in the top, ie win the tournament.
(2) In a stalemate, you don't have to agree to a draw. It comes automatically without even asking you. In a 3-fold repetition, I can ...[text shortened]... let the rules of today rule the future.
To use your wordings: The suggestion is a joke.
2) Don't allow it. (I was just reading Kasparov's volume on Fisher where he says the 3rd match game with Petrosian was the turning point of the match because Petrosian allowed a 3-fold repetition for the first time in his life in a much better position!)
3) With your rating it is not likely that you'll sneak below many 1800s. If you want to lose that many games - again, be my guest.
4) Why should draws disadvantage the others players in a tournament? How would you feel if you played your way to the finals of a duel only to find twelve 1400s patiently waiting there after 6 draws a piece? How about if you were rated 1300 and just played the tournament of your life to get there?
To quote someone else: "just play the d* game!"
Why anyone would sandbag, cheat, or prearrange draws (or losses) on this site completely mystifies me. I come here to play chess with people. Don't care what number I am assigned or how many games or tournaments I win or lose. With my tournament wins and $3 I can go to the coffee shop and buy a cup - big deal. Just want a level playing field and this loophole is not fair for every player in a duel tournament so as long as the rules stay the same I'll stay out of those tournaments.