13 Dec 07
In, f.inst. Tour de France, if the winner is later disqualified for any kind of cheating, the runner up; i.e. no.2 is later claimed as winner.
In this tournament Tournament 2290, player User 363314 won, but was later banned from site, due to 3b.In the tournament overwiew page, User 363314 is still named as winner, but at Tournament 2290 he stays with zero points.
Isn't it fair that the player/s with most points is declared as winner/s in a tournament where the (first) "winner" later is disqualified, and that the disqualifies player loses the win?
13 Dec 07
Originally posted by dsmfireYou're right, but it's not that important in the scheme of things.
In, f.inst. Tour de France, if the winner is later disqualified for any kind of cheating, the runner up; i.e. no.2 is later claimed as winner.
In this tournament Tournament 2290, player User 363314 won, but was later banned from site, due to 3b.In the tournament overwiew page, User 363314 is still named as winner, but at Tournament 2290 he stay ...[text shortened]... e the (first) "winner" later is disqualified, and that the disqualifies player loses the win?
As for Le Tour, I think Floyd has one final appeal, but yes Oscar is the official winner (although he didn't get to celebrate in Paris, which is what it's all about).
14 Dec 07
Originally posted by dsmfireThe tournament in question has joint 2nd places, so that means they would need to re-open the tournament and play additional games.
In, f.inst. Tour de France, if the winner is later disqualified for any kind of cheating, the runner up; i.e. no.2 is later claimed as winner.
In this tournament Tournament 2290, player User 363314 won, but was later banned from site, due to 3b.In the tournament overwiew page, User 363314 is still named as winner, but at Tournament 2290 he stay ...[text shortened]... e the (first) "winner" later is disqualified, and that the disqualifies player loses the win?
However one of the players tied in 2nd place has not moved on the site for 41 days. Reopening would mean that if they didn't come back the games would timeout. The other player then gets a "cheap" win.
What would happen if at a later someone else got banned and as a result a third player now managed to become equal on points?
Do you re-open tourney again?
There are probably too many whatifs to do this.
14 Dec 07
Originally posted by adramforallI agree. Too many what if's. When this question came up before someone pointed out that players losing to the banned player in earlier rounds would have to be considered also.
The tournament in question has joint 2nd places, so that means they would need to re-open the tournament and play additional games.
However one of the players tied in 2nd place has not moved on the site for 41 days. Reopening would mean that if they didn't come back the games would timeout. The other player then gets a "cheap" win.
What would ha ...[text shortened]... points?
Do you re-open tourney again?
There are probably too many whatifs to do this.
I had one situation where I lost to a player who was banned but someone else in my group who played slower still had their game in progress at the time the player was banned. They got the 3 points on move timeout and I had to keep my loss. That was disappointing.
It stinks to be in a tournament involving a banned player but I don't think there is a way to go back and make changes that would be fair to everyone.
14 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by adramforallNo, I do not agree. The players in 2. place have their points. It is not a question about individual games. The points are already settled, the games are over and are not in question.
The tournament in question has joint 2nd places, so that means they would need to re-open the tournament and play additional games.
However one of the players tied in 2nd place has not moved on the site for 41 days. Reopening would mean that if they didn't come back the games would timeout. The other player then gets a "cheap" win.
What would ha ...[text shortened]... points?
Do you re-open tourney again?
There are probably too many whatifs to do this.
And if one of the fair players get a "cheap" win, as you call it, due to an opponent not moving, that is to me a fair win, within timelimits. Happens often, also in finals. It is anyhow far much better than a cheater-win. To me, the best player, with no cheating, is the proper winner. I dont see the many what-ifs: Reopen the tournament in question, with the timelimits, and get a fair winner.
15 Dec 07
Originally posted by dsmfireIn this tournament Tournament 2290, player User 363314 won, but was later banned from site, due to 3b.
In, f.inst. Tour de France, if the winner is later disqualified for any kind of cheating, the runner up; i.e. no.2 is later claimed as winner.
In this tournament Tournament 2290, player User 363314 won, but was later banned from site, due to 3b.In the tournament overwiew page, User 363314 is still named as winner, but at Tournament 2290 he stay ...[text shortened]... e the (first) "winner" later is disqualified, and that the disqualifies player loses the win?
I'm curious. How would anyone know if he consulted with anyone else or not??? I mean I think most chessplayers are honest and would not intentionally cheat, so, how is it known he violated this rule???
15 Dec 07
Originally posted by Gary ThomasThere are several threads around in which the discussion on 3b has been considered from all angles:
In this tournament Tournament 2290, player User 363314 won, but was later banned from site, due to 3b.
I'm curious. How would anyone know if he consulted with anyone else or not??? I mean I think most chessplayers are honest and would not intentionally cheat, so, how is it known he violated this rule???
* It's not only consulting, but also using of chess machines.
The use you refer to has a very interesting graph which made him suspicious. He lost against 1200's and then suddenly he rises up to 2200 in month. Not very probable.
A lot of players would ban him on that alone, but the committee which is responsible foir banning is looking at each case and only bans after a verdict "without the shadow of a doubt".
Thus computer users can play long and win trounaments but it is comparatively sure that no one is banned without reason.
15 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by dsmfireThe question is how far back do you then go?
No, I do not agree. The players in 2. place have their points. It is not a question about individual games. The points are already settled, the games are over and are not in question.
And if one of the fair players get a "cheap" win, as you call it, due to an opponent not moving, that is to me a fair win, within timelimits. Happens often, also in finals ...[text shortened]... many what-ifs: Reopen the tournament in question, with the timelimits, and get a fair winner.
Tournament 294 from September 2004, was won by a now banned player.
I can imagine the hassle this would be for admins bearing in mind the number of completed tournments won by users now banned such as
User 68295
User 72293
User 85257