Your whole argument is based on another's unsubstantiated observation? Draws are a part of the game whether at move 6 or 96. There is no RedHotPawn ruling to early draws, is there? So your argument, as pleading and passionate a discourse it is, is mute? Take your circus of how could they, how abhorrant, how dispispicable, how against USCF rules, how this is turning into a thread with a fog of evidence to preclude the facts other then your distended proclaimations of
Just because there's no rule against taking a draw on move 6 here on RHP, that doesn't make it right, or sportsmanlike. Personally, I would never do something like this. I play to win all the time. Even if I was in a tournament with the top player on the site and he offered me 2 early draws, I still wouldn't take them. If I lose, oh well, its just a game. If I win, then I earned my spot in the next round.
And where does it end? why not have the top 5, or hell, even the top 10 players in a group all take draws with one another. That way all you'd have to do to advance is beat up on the sub 1200s in your group. You could advance without even trying. But how satisfying would that be? Moving on knowing you didn't really earn it?
Originally posted by no1marauderThe players who did it, they did it here at RHP because they considered it as advantageous for some reasons although in fact it is more advantageous for the strongest third player. If they were to be condemned for favouring a specific player because of their decicion to draw, that player whould definately be the third stronger player.
Of course, he gains an unfair advantage as all the experienced player who have posted here know. He avoids having to play and use his time against his strongest opponent. In the meantime, his lower rated opponents have to use their just as valuable time against a strong opponent. How this doesn't equate to an advantage is beyond my comprehension. The two players who did it think it was an advantage as the one has already stated.
Also they acted not against the RHP rules -if you think that this is wrong, then kindly please state which RHP rule/ article were violated.
I understand and I respet the fact that you have your personal moral code, and that the rules of this very site are not harmonised with your personal opinions. As a result, it seems to me that you either have to accept in full the rules of the site, or leave the site permanently, or to get in touch with the admins and/ or the other participants of the site in order to promote your opinion, which it may be accepted or rejected.
But definately you cannot harass a player just because your understanding is different that hers/ his. This is definately against the rules of RHP.
I will try to make my opinion clearer to you: within the Motorports project there are different aspects and strategies, depending on the nature of the vehicles and on the nature of the arena of every competiton (championship): FIA GP Championship, DTM, NASCAR and WRC are all motorsports championships, and every participant at each is focused on the win, but the rules and the strategy of/ at each competition are quite different simply because the nature of each arena/ driver/ team/ vehicle is different; this is the reason why you cannot race a racing F1 on the special roads of WRC, why you cannot race a racing NASCAR at Imola and why you cannot claim that all the different drivers, teams and racing vehicles of each championship must race aiming for the win by means of a unique strategy within a unique championship.
USCF and RHP are quite different, and therefore the rules at each field are different -it is really that simple.
Originally posted by black beetleYour analysis is bizarre and incorrect. It is far more advantageous to the two strongest players to not have to play each other so they can concentrate on their other games while it forces the third player to play four tough games. That is obvious to all the strong players here which is why it was termed "good tournament strategy". It worked quite well for Dragon Fire and Billy Voltaire in round 2 of the Firmus.http://www.redhotpawn.com/tournament/view.php?tid=1228&rndid=2&issummaryview=
The players who did it, they did it here at RHP because they considered it as advantageous for some reasons although in fact it is more advantageous for the strongest third player. If they were to be condemned for favouring a specific player because of their decicion to draw, that player whould definately be the third stronger player.
Also they acted n ...[text shortened]... quite different, and therefore the rules at each field are different -it is really that simple.
Thanks for your advice that I should leave this site rather than criticize unethical and unsporting behavior. I decline to take it. The Site Admins have been sent Feedback on this issue. A thread has been started proposing solutions to this problem in Site Ideas. Your notion that it is perfectly acceptable to engage in unethical and unsporting behavior but a violation of site rules to point out that someone has done so is noted; I reject it. You may send Feedback to the Site Admins proposing a rule that no one can ever criticize a player here for engaging in unethical behavior if you like.
No claim was made that USCF rules were binding here. A claim was made that making short draws for the sole purpose of making it easier for certain players to advance was wrong and that people who did it should be ashamed of themselves. Tournaments here are supposed to be about chess competition, not gamesmanship. In support of my stand, I cited the USCF rule which doesn't merely say that the practice condemned here is "against the rules" but that it is "Unethical and unsporting" AND "a violation of the moral principles of the game". So the issue has been brought to the Site Admins attention. They can either take steps to eliminate this unethical practice or they can continue to make this site a place where unethical behavior is rewarded. Their choice.
BTW other unethical practices have been condemned in these forums though there was no explicit RHP rule against them ("sandbagging" for instance) and I didn't see people trying to silence those who condemned it. Double standards seem to be alive and well here.
Originally posted by no1marauderI said not what you "...should leave this site rather than critisize unethical and unsporting behaviour". I clearly said that:
Your analysis is bizarre and incorrect. It is far more advantageous to the two strongest players to not have to play each other so they can concentrate on their other games while it forces the third player to play four tough games. That is obvious to all the strong players here which is why it was termed "good tournament strategy". It worked quite well f ...[text shortened]... to silence those who condemned it. Double standards seem to be alive and well here.
-- "As a result, it seems to me that you either have to accept in full the rules of the site, or leave the site permanently, or to get in touch with the admins and/ or the other participants of the site in order to promote your opinion, which it may be accepted or rejected."
Also, you believe that "...making short draws for the sole purpose of making it easier for certain players to advance was wrong and that people who did it should be ashamed of themselves." I disagree, for this is not USCF OTB but RHP CC, and the rules over here for the time being are not the ones that are accepted by the chessplayers who are playing under the auspice of USCF.-
Originally posted by murrowDon't worry; that favors you according to BB's in depth "analysis".
from Group 77:
Game 5840587
Game 5840547
From Cinco's profile: The eternal games of Robert James Fischer embody the spirit that all chess players should strive to attain.
God, Fischer hated phony draws like this!
Looks like the 2009 Championship is rapidly on its way to be as much of a fiasco as the 2007 and 2008 ones were,
The two top players in Group 59 also agreed to perfunctory draws on the same day after 14 and 15 moves. The "good tournament strategy" continues; I wonder if players in other sections will read this thread and see that a number of players posting here have no problem with such unethical behavior and decide to do it also.
Solutions to this problem were discussed here: http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=106743&page=4
Originally posted by no1marauderWe should ban asap every player that has such an unethical behaviour and acts clearly against the USCF rules😵
The two top players in Group 59 also agreed to perfunctory draws on the same day after 14 and 15 moves. The "good tournament strategy" continues; I wonder if players in other sections will read this thread and see that a number of players posting here have no problem with such unethical behavior and decide to do it also.
Solutions to this ...[text shortened]... lem were discussed here: http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=106743&page=4
Originally posted by no1marauder"Non sequitur" and nonsense!
Non sequitur.
What I just said, which you found it "non sequitur", is exactly what you meant when you quoted at the third page of this page the following opnion of yours:
"Those players should be ashamed of themselves. Such conduct is condemned in the USCF Code of Ethics at 5(c):
Deliberately failing to play at one's best in a game , in any manner inconsistent with the principles of good sportsmanship, honesty, or fair play.
IMO, these two players should be forfeited from the tourney. I suggest you send a "fair play" ticket."
I just went on a bit further on your pathworking: why these players should be forfeited from the tournament, and not get banned for good from this site?
no-one (i think) seriously thinks players doing this should be banned. agreeing a draw from the very first move is not against the RHP ToS.
i do think these examples show that people have started taking advantage of the rule that lets all players through tournament rounds who draw for 1st place.
i think worth having play-offs in this situation, perhaps with quite fast time controls (to encourage people to go for victory first time around). sure it would hold up the next round, but who's in a hurry?