27 Feb '05 22:24

Is a player's competitive obligation to maximize his own score within a round, or to give himself the best chance to go as far as possible in the tournament? Here's an example of when these two ideas are in conflict:

In Round 1 of a random tourney, Group X has four players, Abacus, Boris, Carlos, and Danny. Danny loses all his games and scores zero points. Abacus sweeps Boris, so with his wins over Danny he has 12 points. Boris sweeps Carlos, so with his wins over Danny he also has 12 points. Both games between Abacus and Carlos are still ongoing.

Here's the trouble. From Abacus' perspective, he knows he has Boris' number as he already swept him in Round 1. Now, because he and Boris have the same score, and Carlos cannot score more than 12 points, Abacus knows he cannot be prevented from advancing to the next round. Thus he could carry both Boris and Carlos with him into the next round by resigning both games to Carlos.

The question is, is this ethical, or does a player have an obligation to play his best at all times?

In Round 1 of a random tourney, Group X has four players, Abacus, Boris, Carlos, and Danny. Danny loses all his games and scores zero points. Abacus sweeps Boris, so with his wins over Danny he has 12 points. Boris sweeps Carlos, so with his wins over Danny he also has 12 points. Both games between Abacus and Carlos are still ongoing.

Here's the trouble. From Abacus' perspective, he knows he has Boris' number as he already swept him in Round 1. Now, because he and Boris have the same score, and Carlos cannot score more than 12 points, Abacus knows he cannot be prevented from advancing to the next round. Thus he could carry both Boris and Carlos with him into the next round by resigning both games to Carlos.

The question is, is this ethical, or does a player have an obligation to play his best at all times?