27 Feb 05
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?
27 Feb 05
Originally posted by RaulGroomof course a player should play his best at all times.
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 ...[text shortened]... question is, is this ethical, or does a player have an obligation to play his best at all times?
fred
28 Feb 05
1 edit
Originally posted by RaulGroominteresting question!
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 ...[text shortened]... or does a player have an obligation to play his best at all times?
it is every chess players ethical duty to try to win the game.
it is every tournament players ethical duty to try to win the tournament.
is it useful to try to carry other players through to the next round?
i doubt that this is true in almost all scenarios.
chances are that the other next round players will also get their number.
also: they may well learn from their mistakes ... humans are very good learners.
still ... i personally see the players ethical duty towards winning the tournament as overriding if, if, IF, IF it is better to carry others forwards.
a further ethical problem i see is: when two players who are friends, perhaps from the same country or clan, who help their teammate continue to the next round.
it is everyones ethical duty to support their friends.
it is every clan players ethical duty to support their clan and clan members.
it is every patriotic persons duty to support the people of their country.
surely the ethical priorities are best simply left to the individual in question.
(imagine the difficulty of trying to police the alternative!!!!! )
28 Feb 05
1 edit
Originally posted by RaulGroomIt has been done before. But in a different way.
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 ...[text shortened]... or does a player have an obligation to play his best at all times?
http://www.redhotpawn.com/tournament/view.php?tid=245&rndid=2
TimmyToilet drawed against Silver24 to were he won the group, T.T. could have won that game possibly to give me a chance for round 3. 🙁
28 Feb 05
2 edits
Originally posted by RBHILLi am not hijacking,
That has nothing to do with a Tournament Forum. Quit highjacking a Thread.
And Yes I agree with you So?
The more people in the next rounds the Funner.
i quoted your entire post before you editted it.
i thought you were suggesting that rediscussion was not a good idea.
i believe it is a very good question deserving analysis and reanalysis.
it seems we agree!
... so lets continue ....
i agree that players who are being knocked out can sometimes choose which player in their group advances - by resigning to their friends ... is this ethical?
... another good question.
yet another problem that it does merge with is when people create multiple accounts and resign to themselves ... that is not ethical to my mind.
how should these be distinguished?
28 Feb 05
Originally posted by RBHILLThat game was dead even after 37 moves; if anything Silver had a slight advantage but it looks like a reasonable draw to me. Doesn't look "tanked" at all.
It has been done before. But in a different way.
http://www.redhotpawn.com/tournament/view.php?tid=245&rndid=2
TimmyToilet drawed against Silver24 to were he won the group, T.T. could have won that game possibly to give me a chance for round 3. 🙁
28 Feb 05
Originally posted by flexmoreWell if they want to pay for 2 accounts that is their problem.
i am not hijacking,
i quoted your entire post before you editted it.
i thought you were suggesting that rediscussion was not a good idea.
i believe it is a very good question deserving analysis and reanalysis.
it seems we agree!
... so lets continue ....
i agree that players who are being knocked out can sometimes choose which player in thei ...[text shortened]... d resign to themselves ... that is not ethical to my mind.
how should these be distinguished?